>>I still do not think there should be any limitation of what goes in the signature (other than the rules of the forum of course). It becomes an issue when a signature ONLY has links and there is no way to tell it is part of the signature and not a part of the message. Frankly, I've never even noticed it until today and then on only one user's messages.
>
>Yes, it is the same thing to me. I noticed it when it was referenced here in this thread.
>
>I think adding some validation, in case a signature only contains links might do. For example, would be there a purpose to create a signature with only a link? Basically, a signature has to contain something useful in it I guess. But, if there is only a link, I thought that maybe I could validate that and suggest the user to enter something more in regards to a signature.
>
>Is that something you think could be better?

Michel,

I would say, judge it case by case. However I would not allow links with a meaningless heading pointing to very discussfull sites and proposing such 'offensive' lnks as a part of the question/answer routine I would ban. Maybe difficult to describe what is acceptable and what not. My suggestion, make it as global as possible and play, we call that in Dutch "screaming mouse". (Act upon a scream of the mouse only)

Regards,

Koen