I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it wasn't on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few people who spoke up share this opinion.

While I don't feel it's appropriate for people to complain about something so trivial as an email signature in a pseudo-professional setting, apparently we're doing it today. 
 
I don't like email signatures in general, but since you asked for suggestions, I suggest using your name and one title that seems most relevant/important.

On another note: I don't think you need credentials to be taken seriously here as long as you present a respectful and coherent argument. I would not have questioned your background if you had posted this without credentials, or if anyone else had posted it. I don't recognize the names of most of the "top talkers" or know their credentials, other than my assumption that they are network operators of some sort.

I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences re: your background. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they choose to respect others and for what reasons. There is little we can do to influence that.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:01 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this:


Case in point:  This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig :-(

Anne

> On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention.  (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...).
>
> However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there:
>
> Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-)  Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
>
> I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer  ;-)).
>
> I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off).
>
> Anne
>
> [This .sig space open to suggestions.]
>