Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2019, 03:12:47 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Finally set up the "official" signature. Not too happy with how it looks
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Finally set up the "official" signature. Not too happy with how it looks  (Read 7653 times)
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2015, 01:17:22 PM »


The two line signature isn't bad. It's the one I use when I email the one guy in the wing that worries about email signatures  ;)

Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

It may not look as bad as the other ones, but it's bad. It's using military elements in a non-military way. An organization and office symbol should never be used on the same line after the name.

John Doe is a Maj in CAP not in XYWG/DO. A better way to display this would be:

Maj John Doe, CAP
XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

And I'm still not crazy about that one either. Now that we're "Airmen" and part of the Air Force "Total Force", why can we use a similar signature block to the one the Air Force uses?
Report to moderator   Logged
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,179

« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2015, 01:24:22 PM »

The two line signature isn't bad. It's the one I use when I email the one guy in the wing that worries about email signatures  ;)

Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

May not look bad, but it is in violation of CAPR 10-1.
Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2015, 02:48:59 PM »

The two line signature isn't bad. It's the one I use when I email the one guy in the wing that worries about email signatures  ;)

Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

May not look bad, but it is in violation of CAPR 10-1.


That's what NHQ says to use for mobile: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/
Report to moderator   Logged
winterg
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 746
Unit: SER-FL-182

« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2015, 02:55:59 PM »

Even using the Mobile signature block is cumbersome when you are in a squadron and not assigned to Wing.

Capt John Smith, Anywhere Composite Squadron/DOS
Civil Air Patrol

Or

Capt John Smith, FL-999/DOS
Civil Air Patrol

It is too much for a single line.
Report to moderator   Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,745

« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2015, 03:02:50 PM »

I'm not sure why the mobile signature has to differ. In most cases these days, you could send a mobile email and nobody would know it was from a mobile device. My signatures for my PC and my phone are identical.

Question---
Does everyone here include the Social Media links in their signature?
Report to moderator   Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,915

« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2015, 03:13:48 PM »

I'm not sure why the mobile signature has to differ. In most cases these days, you could send a mobile email and nobody would know it was from a mobile device. My signatures for my PC and my phone are identical.

Question---
Does everyone here include the Social Media links in their signature?

Only if you want to be compliant with the guidance.
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
jeders
Global Moderator

Posts: 2,173

« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2015, 03:16:38 PM »

Question---
Does everyone here include the Social Media links in their signature?

Nope. According to the wing PAO, the national PAO says those are optional. Even if they weren't, I still wouldn't use them because they make the sig look even worse.
Report to moderator   Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,179

« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2015, 03:32:52 PM »

The two line signature isn't bad. It's the one I use when I email the one guy in the wing that worries about email signatures  ;)

Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

May not look bad, but it is in violation of CAPR 10-1.


That's what NHQ says to use for mobile: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/

I stand corrected.
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2015, 05:55:53 PM »

It's also possible for a regulation to be wrong. "Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO" may be authorized by CAPR 10-1, but it implies that Maj Doe is a Major in XYWG/DO, which is not the case. He is a Major in CAP and it should be reflected as such in the signature block.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 06:00:08 PM by Storm Chaser » Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Day
Seasoned Member

Posts: 259
Unit: MER-VA-102

Prince William Composite Squadron
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2015, 06:22:42 PM »

I'm not sure why the mobile signature has to differ. In most cases these days, you could send a mobile email and nobody would know it was from a mobile device. My signatures for my PC and my phone are identical.

Question---
Does everyone here include the Social Media links in their signature?
I use the authorized plain text version because I work with local military bases and government organizations which convert the html into plain text versions of the code, leaving unattractive gibberish. It's also the closest in resemblance to the Tongue and Quill format email signatures that the rest of the Air Force uses.

Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Day
Lt Col CAP
Prince William Composite Squadron Commander
Brit_in_CAP
Seasoned Member

Posts: 400
Unit: MER-VA-002

« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2015, 04:01:53 PM »


I use the authorized plain text version because I work with local military bases and government organizations which convert the html into plain text versions of the code, leaving unattractive gibberish. It's also the closest in resemblance to the Tongue and Quill format email signatures that the rest of the Air Force uses.

Likewise; I find the plain text to be more user friendly.  I'm also determined to get as many people as possible to use the official email addresses for their CAP email; in my first year with CAP I had a lot of email that went into my "Junk" folder due to the odd personal email addresses that people use.  One - and I joke not here - was Fluffy@....., and another was clearly an account shared between spouses.  Most unprofessional.

Lt Col Day has gotten a decent system running in VAWG - I simply wish people would use it more!

Antony Davies
Capt, CAP
VA-002

(edited for spelling)
Report to moderator   Logged
Chappie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,077

« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2015, 05:14:30 PM »


<snip>
Lt Col Day has gotten a decent system running in VAWG - I simply wish people would use it more! 


Antony Davies
Capt, CAP
VA-002

(edited for spelling)
<snip>

Last year Chaplain, Capt Tim Miner of the VAWG got the CAP Chaplain Corps all on one page when it comes to email.  Using Google, we have an email system where it is first initial/last name@hc.cap.gov. It is professional looking/standardized.  For staff positions at Wing, Region, National there is a special designation that will go with whoever is appointed.   Then of course since it is Google, there is access to various Google apps.

I would imagine that Chaplain Miner had something to do with VAWG setup :)
Report to moderator   Logged
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,621

« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2015, 08:36:52 PM »

The two line signature isn't bad. It's the one I use when I email the one guy in the wing that worries about email signatures  ;)

Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

May not look bad, but it is in violation of CAPR 10-1.


That's what NHQ says to use for mobile: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/
Good god. 

I'm not sure why the mobile signature has to differ.
This.  To add to that, it doesn't need to differ from written correspondence either.

I try not to get to wrapped around the axle about little things unless they're particularly stupid.  This is one of those instances where I'll make an exception.  I've stated it before and I'll state it again:  National has no idea what they're doing when it comes to this.  They've taken a simple topic (one that didn't require a change to begin with) and made it unnecessarily complex with absolutely no value added.   Like many of our regs, CAPR 10-1 did not need an update, it just needed enforcement.

I've got an idea....let's also add animated .gifs to our signature blocks.  After all, who doesn't like a good video?!  Here's mine:
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 09:24:02 PM by A.Member » Report to moderator   Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Panache
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,060
Unit: PAWG

« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2015, 06:36:41 AM »


I use the authorized plain text version because I work with local military bases and government organizations which convert the html into plain text versions of the code, leaving unattractive gibberish. It's also the closest in resemblance to the Tongue and Quill format email signatures that the rest of the Air Force uses.
Likewise; I find the plain text to be more user friendly. 
Add me to the "uses the plain text signature" crowd.  It's an authorized alternative, and all the social media icons just look too busy and unprofessional to me.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eaker Guy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 208

« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2015, 09:20:30 AM »


I use the authorized plain text version because I work with local military bases and government organizations which convert the html into plain text versions of the code, leaving unattractive gibberish. It's also the closest in resemblance to the Tongue and Quill format email signatures that the rest of the Air Force uses.
Likewise; I find the plain text to be more user friendly. 
Add me to the "uses the plain text signature" crowd.  It's an authorized alternative, and all the social media icons just look too busy and unprofessional to me.

+1

Also, they sometimes glitch up. Sometimes, when I send an email with the social media icons, they will appear fine on my computer, but will appear as huge icons on other devices. :(
Report to moderator   Logged
Paul Creed III
Seasoned Member

Posts: 254
Unit: GLR-OH-254

« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2015, 01:19:53 PM »

+ 1
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
National Headquarters Cyber Curriculum Specialist
Great Lakes Region Cyber Programs Officer
Ohio Wing Group 3 Commander
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,745

« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2015, 01:20:41 PM »

The two line signature isn't bad. It's the one I use when I email the one guy in the wing that worries about email signatures  ;)

Maj John Doe, XYWG/DO
Civil Air Patrol

May not look bad, but it is in violation of CAPR 10-1.


That's what NHQ says to use for mobile: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/sample-signature-bloc/
Good god. 

I'm not sure why the mobile signature has to differ.
This.  To add to that, it doesn't need to differ from written correspondence either.

I try not to get to wrapped around the axle about little things unless they're particularly stupid.  This is one of those instances where I'll make an exception.  I've stated it before and I'll state it again:  National has no idea what they're doing when it comes to this.  They've taken a simple topic (one that didn't require a change to begin with) and made it unnecessarily complex with absolutely no value added.   Like many of our regs, CAPR 10-1 did not need an update, it just needed enforcement.

I've got an idea....let's also add animated .gifs to our signature blocks.  After all, who doesn't like a good video?!  Here's mine:


Welcome to politics, where the solution to an unenforced issue is making it a new issue
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Finally set up the "official" signature. Not too happy with how it looks
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.084 seconds with 27 queries.
click here to email me