Guide for email signature format

Started by Spartan 92458-37017-EB, July 06, 2016, 01:49:54 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Spartan 92458-37017-EB

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

kcebnaes

Hello friend, CAPR 10-1 will be your friend in this matter!  :)
Sean Beck, Maj, CAP
Great Lakes Region sUAS Officer
Various Other Thingsā„¢


Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

Paul Creed III

Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2016, 03:57:01 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.
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
Group 3 Ohio Wing sUAS Program Manager

Fubar

Quote from: Paul Creed III on July 06, 2016, 12:04:26 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!

etodd

Quote from: Fubar on July 06, 2016, 04:30:18 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. ;) )


.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

THRAWN

Quote from: etodd on July 06, 2016, 08:34:28 PM
Quote from: Fubar on July 06, 2016, 04:30:18 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.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Storm Chaser

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.

kwe1009

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 09, 2016, 03:31:28 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!

Storm Chaser

Quote from: kwe1009 on July 09, 2016, 10:44:36 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 09, 2016, 03:31:28 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?

Holding Pattern

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 09, 2016, 11:55:14 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on July 09, 2016, 10:44:36 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 09, 2016, 03:31:28 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