My test. I agree with the others it is really not worth it at this size.

All of this fiasco is priceless. Thanks for the entertainment.

Here goes...I can live with this.

>Here goes... >>I can live with this. From a non-sig using forum reader, I think your new sig is just fine!! It was about time that the waste of bandwidth was reined in!!Barry

>From a non-sig using forum reader, I think your new sig is >just fine!! It was about time that the waste of bandwidth >was reined in!! Agreed, especially when the sig is twice, or more, as large as the actual text of the post.

Hehehe. None of this should be really taken too seriously. :-)However, Tom is indeed breaking the rules with his sig. Although his width is well within the parameters, his height is clearly 40px over the limit. SHAME!!! :-)Still, with some judicious editing and color selections (you're better off using JPEG is you have many colors, GIF works best if your palette is sparse), a sig can come out "OK".My new sig (based directly on the old one) is now 9393 bytes... right at the limit. GIF was bigger, so I had to go with JPEG and fine tuned the compression. The sig is well within all the rules, 250x60, unlike Tom... who we all know is a rebel by nature. :-)Sure, it's a bit less flashy than my older one, but it still works. :-)

"Tom... who we all know is a rebel by nature."You ain't seen rebel. Wait until you see my re-implementation of the Baby yellow scheme. :-lolI will downsize my sig soon, so as to not attract the flak.. God forbid it be 1 or 2 pixels oversize... :-lol

>where your brain is working but seems disconnected from your >typing fingers? I meant 400 x 60 NOT 140 x 60... Upto 400 x >60 is kewl... Larger is unkewl! And so, my sig IS smaller >than the law allows. :) Tom -Not to cause trouble (I just don't understand :-)), but your sig is 200 x 100 and the limit is 400x60 (i.e. 100 is greater than 60). Sooo, is your sig REALLY smaller than the law allows.Puzzled,http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsnyder99/si...cknameavsim.jpg

>>>Tom -Not to cause trouble (I just don't understand ), but your sig is 200 x 100 and the limit is 400x60 (i.e. 100 is greater than 60). Sooo, is your sig REALLY smaller than the law allows.Puzzled<<<<<

just a test too!Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo

Hey Tom,Considering that the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) sets the guidelines for all "compliant" internet advertising, why not follow their file size rules?They specify a limit of 20k for gif/jpg and 30k for flash ads, as well as no more than 15 seconds of possible animation. If an industry consortium that targets the vast majority of dial-up and broadband users on the planet (MSN, AOL and Yahoo! are just a few of the founding let alone subscribing members), why not follow those limits as well... 20-30k seems a lot more reasonable size considering how bad JPG at anything under 70% compression can look when non-photographic elements such as text are included (and animated gifs are almost impossible at 10k and under because of the format's overhead).Just a seemingly reasonable idea to throw in the discussion.Take care,Elrond

testing 1.2.3.

I think banning the images in signatures would have more sense..what is the use of the signature when you can barely read the text from it.... I think I am switching to txt only...so no lame useless signature pix is taking up your bandwidth...P.S. I use 56K modem...and never complained about DL speed...

test....

Temporary of course... :-lol :-lolHere is my new sig...You Like it? :-lol :-lol.http://home.attbi.com/~sonar5/newsig2.jpg.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc