Is the current signature restrictions enough?

[code reader]

if the sole purpose of this requirement is to limit the global size of the sig, this could alternatively be achieved by means of a separate <div> with size and overflow parameters.

[EDIT]
my point here is that this can be done entirely in the style, with no change whatsoever to the php code.
[/EDIT]

[BondGamer]

my point here is that this can be done entirely in the style, with no change whatsoever to the php code.

Yes, and if there is no restriction some people (such as myself) will have to seek MODs to make it happen. I think this is a large enough issue that it deserves to be part of the core phpBB package and not make people turn to MODs for. It is ultimately up to the developers what they want to do, but in my opinion there needs to be more restrictions on signatures available to forum administrators who want to use them.

The avatar restrictions are perfect for most forum users, including both dimensions and file size. But signatures currently have many holes allowing users to use any dimensions, file size, or number of images they want. That reminds me it would also be nice to have a restriction on the total file size of all images in a signature.

[Nicholas the Italian]

The avatar restrictions are perfect for most forum users, including both dimensions and file size. But signatures currently have many holes allowing users to use any dimensions, file size, or number of images they want. That reminds me it would also be nice to have a restriction on the total file size of all images in a signature.

If you have a dimensional (xy) limit, you have some kind of restriction on the size (KB) too; of course, users may use little but heavy GIFs, for example.
But yes, in phpBB2 restrictions for avatars only worked when using or uploading local images, while when linking images from the web those restrictions were not applied. I did not test that in phpBB3, but such a hole should be fixed. It is in fact more a matter of page layout and server bandwidth, so the fact that an image is already on the internet shouldn't count.

if the sole purpose of this requirement is to limit the global size of the sig, this could alternatively be achieved by means of a separate <div> with size and overflow parameters.

Yes but, this couldn't be set from the ACP, so it is something really non-standard (kinda hack, in other words). And there is still the matter of bandwidth.
Some kind of coded adjustable limit is in order here. I think we have two good solutions proposed here: max_images = 1 if a dimensional restriction is applied, or summing up the total of images dimensions so that they together must stay within the limit.

[Klors]

I think we have two good solutions proposed here: max_images = 1 if a dimensional restriction is applied

That's not a solution. That's a fudged workaround and a stupid one at that.

If it had the code in place to enable it to restrict the number of images, then it could just as easily have it admin configurable how many images were allowed. Why impose an arbitrary max limit of 1 on everyone that sets a max size on sig images? I may want to allow people to have as many 20x20 icons in their sig as they want...

It may have been a missed opportunity or it may be able to be worked into this release, that's not for us to say, we can just report it through the appropriate channels and let those responsible choose.

[BondGamer]

It may have been a missed opportunity or it may be able to be worked into this release, that's not for us to say, we can just report it through the appropriate channels and let those responsible choose.

That is what this topic is for, to bring this issue to their attention.

[agent00shoe]

I can't believe limiting the number of images in a sig is such a big issue. If someone clutters up their sig and breaks your rules, just ban them.

[Nicholas the Italian]

I can't believe limiting the number of images in a sig is such a big issue. If someone clutters up their sig and breaks your rules, just ban them.

You can't reason in this way, it's very shortsighted.
If it is technically possible to prevent users from breaking the rules or acting beyond certain limits, this is preferable against punishing them and having to fix the troubles they caused.
Why all the other limits then? Just write in your forum rules the restrictions you want to apply and ban everyone who happens to break them.
This may work if you have 50 users, not if you have 5.000 or more. Plus, users may just overlook or forget some rules (you can't ban them for this, nor you can't keep looking after them), while technical limitations are not violable.

Signature images are an issue. I often see forums whose users' signatures are a nightmare, and this make me hate those forums. I don't want mine to be as cluttered as them; if one feature of phpBB3 ones let me avoid this, it's welcome.

(Sorry if I didn't write in English )

[The Grinch]

I can't believe limiting the number of images in a sig is such a big issue. If someone clutters up their sig and breaks your rules, just ban them.

That may work on your forum, but not mine. Plus having an itchy trigger finger is not a good thing. A lot of the time it creates more problems than it solves.

I have been administering my forum for about 6 years now. What I have learned is that baby sitting users for their signature sizes is something that I should not have to be doing. We need to have a set it and forget it solution. The signature settings solution in phpBB3 is almost dead on. It just needs to have this one loose end tied up and it's perfect.

[agent00shoe]

I can't believe limiting the number of images in a sig is such a big issue. If someone clutters up their sig and breaks your rules, just ban them.

You can't reason in this way, it's very shortsighted.
If it is technically possible to prevent users from breaking the rules or acting beyond certain limits, this is preferable against punishing them and having to fix the troubles they caused.
Why all the other limits then? Just write in your forum rules the restrictions you want to apply and ban everyone who happens to break them.
This may work if you have 50 users, not if you have 5.000 or more. Plus, users may just overlook or forget some rules (you can't ban them for this, nor you can't keep looking after them), while technical limitations are not violable.

Signature images are an issue. I often see forums whose users' signatures are a nightmare, and this make me hate those forums. I don't want mine to be as cluttered as them; if one feature of phpBB3 ones let me avoid this, it's welcome.

(Sorry if I didn't write in English )

Did it ever occur to you that not every forum has rules regarding images in signatures? This is a feature request; not a necessity to run a forum. If phpbb added features to help meet every single person's arbitrary rules, then the number of features would never end and the acp would be a cluttered mess(not to mention the infinitely longer development time). I help run a forum with hundreds of active members and we've never had this problem. I've also only banned maybe two people ever.

[agent00shoe]

I can't believe limiting the number of images in a sig is such a big issue. If someone clutters up their sig and breaks your rules, just ban them.

That may work on your forum, but not mine. Plus having an itchy trigger finger is not a good thing. A lot of the time it creates more problems than it solves.

I have been administering my forum for about 6 years now. What I have learned is that baby sitting users for their signature sizes is something that I should not have to be doing. We need to have a set it and forget it solution. The signature settings solution in phpBB3 is almost dead on. It just needs to have this one loose end tied up and it's perfect.

Not everyone has the same rules as you do. See my last post.