Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 13, 2017, 01:24:40 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Tools of the trade  |  Topic: Guide for email signature format
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Guide for email signature format  (Read 1545 times)
Spartan 92458-37017-EB
Recruit

Posts: 5
Unit: GLR-IL-008

« on: July 05, 2016, 09:49:54 PM »

I've been quite busy using my personal email for CAP business with my cadets and communicating with Encampment staff to make sure I'm set and prepared for when the time arrives to ship out to Camp Lincoln. But all along I've seen and used several different formats on how to sign an email properly. I was wondering if there was an easier guide that I could follow to get the official/proper way to sign an email when conducting CAP business
Logged
kcebnaes
Member

Posts: 99
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2016, 09:52:31 PM »

Hello friend, CAPR 10-1 will be your friend in this matter!  :)
Logged
Maj Sean Beck
Ohio Wing
Group VI Commander
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,091
Unit: SI

« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2016, 09:52:39 PM »

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/

I also like our wing's presentation: http://www.wawg.cap.gov/wing-staff/information-technology/how-to-implement-new-signature-block
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,066

« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2016, 11:57:01 PM »

From an IT perspective the text-only version is your friend.

That ridiculous graphic / link laden abomination gets munged horribly by many email systems,
not to mention in replies and forwards.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Paul Creed III
Forum Regular

Posts: 190
Unit: GLR-OH-254

« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2016, 08:04:26 AM »

From an IT perspective the text-only version is your friend.

That ridiculous graphic / link laden abomination gets munged horribly by many email systems,
not to mention in replies and forwards.

+1 Every .gov and .mil that I communicate with doesn't handle the graphic at all and, by using the text-format on my mobile devices along with in my regular email clients, the signature is consistent. Trying to get the graphic version working on some mobile platforms is unpleasant.
Logged
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
Great Lakes Region Cyber Programs Officer
Ohio Wing Group 3 Commander
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2016, 12:30:18 PM »

+1 Every .gov and .mil that I communicate with doesn't handle the graphic at all and, by using the text-format on my mobile devices along with in my regular email clients, the signature is consistent. Trying to get the graphic version working on some mobile platforms is unpleasant.

Good thing our PR folks considered our target audiences when coming up with our required email signatures. This is apparently one of the most important things in CAP, it's even covered during SUIs!
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 865

« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2016, 04:34:28 PM »


Good thing our PR folks considered our target audiences when coming up with our required email signatures. This is apparently one of the most important things in CAP, it's even covered during SUIs!

"Preferred" Signature Block

Doesn't say required.

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/

(For all you folks that like to read everything literally. ;) )


.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2016, 04:37:58 PM »


Good thing our PR folks considered our target audiences when coming up with our required email signatures. This is apparently one of the most important things in CAP, it's even covered during SUIs!

"Preferred" Signature Block

Doesn't say required.

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/

(For all you folks that like to read everything literally. ;) )


.

Open the regs, not some blurb on NHQ's website. It says "required". The "preferred" is the one they want you to use. Read all of the words.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,678

« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2016, 11:31:28 AM »

Required? Yes. The worst signature block ever? Absolutely!

I still can't believe NHQ/PA came up with it. It doesn't meet any military or corporate guidelines, and it doesn't look professional. And because there are three of them (not including all those unauthorized variations), standardization and branding and defeated.
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 756

« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2016, 06:44:36 PM »

Required? Yes. The worst signature block ever? Absolutely!

I still can't believe NHQ/PA came up with it. It doesn't meet any military or corporate guidelines, and it doesn't look professional. And because there are three of them (not including all those unauthorized variations), standardization and branding and defeated.

So I guess that means "mission accomplished" for NHQ!
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,678

« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2016, 07:55:14 PM »

Required? Yes. The worst signature block ever? Absolutely!

I still can't believe NHQ/PA came up with it. It doesn't meet any military or corporate guidelines, and it doesn't look professional. And because there are three of them (not including all those unauthorized variations), standardization and branding and defeated.

So I guess that means "mission accomplished" for NHQ!

I guess that depends on what you mean by "mission accomplished". I'm sure whoever came up with this had good intentions. Obviously, it was approved by our leadership. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an ill attempt at establishing some standardization and branding that didn't really accomplish its intended goal. The signature block, especially the one with all the images, it's out of touch even for the corporate world. We wear a military style uniform, have military style grades and duty titles, and yet we couldn't stick with standard military signature blocks. Why?
Logged
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,091
Unit: SI

« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2016, 11:38:47 PM »

Required? Yes. The worst signature block ever? Absolutely!

I still can't believe NHQ/PA came up with it. It doesn't meet any military or corporate guidelines, and it doesn't look professional. And because there are three of them (not including all those unauthorized variations), standardization and branding and defeated.

So I guess that means "mission accomplished" for NHQ!

I guess that depends on what you mean by "mission accomplished". I'm sure whoever came up with this had good intentions. Obviously, it was approved by our leadership. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an ill attempt at establishing some standardization and branding that didn't really accomplish its intended goal. The signature block, especially the one with all the images, it's out of touch even for the corporate world. We wear a military style uniform, have military style grades and duty titles, and yet we couldn't stick with standard military signature blocks. Why?

AUX OFF
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Tools of the trade  |  Topic: Guide for email signature format
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.352 seconds with 20 queries.