First.. apology for the length of the message....

Just a quick search at IMC came up with these... most only briefly mention the
signature part of the message (all other signature references are for
message encryption and verification methods - PGP, etc...)

RFC1855  - Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.imc.org/Searchable/rfc1855

RFC1274 - COSINE and Internet X.500
http://www.imc.org/Searchable/rfc1274
(This is the only one that seems to cover it in some depth.... 2-3 paragraphs
is it.... and I didnt have time to see if it relates to a specific
architecture/application or if they were being generic about it.... too long a
document)

RFC 1505 - Encoding Header Field
http://www.imc.org/Searchable/rfc1505

Document: draft-ietf-acap-pers-01.txt - ACAP Email Personality Dataset Class
http://www.imc.org/Searchable/draft-ietf-acap-pers

and just out of curiosity and if you have the time to actually go look at them
all to find what you want, try:
http://www.imc.org/ids.html
(these are the drafts.... )

Last but not least.... I dont know if these contacts are still valid but could
be tried.... or even if the working group is still going.... though I suspect
it is as the draft for updating 821 and 822 is still in the works...
Keith Moore <[log in to unmask]>
at least they might be able to point someone in the right direction to find out
if personal signatures are covered by any RFC or draft...
The goal of this working group is to develop and review revised versions of RFC
821 and RFC 822, incorporating the revisions in RFC 974, RFC 1123, and RFC
1651. In addition, the group will review other RFCs related to messaging, and
determine the applicability of each of these to the future direction of the
messaging in the Internet. The group may choose to incorporate, deprecate, or
write applicability statements for such documents, as necessary to produce a
clear statement of requirements for overall interoperability of Internet
electronic mail. The documents produced by the working group are intended to be
submitted to the IESG for consideration as Internet Standards. Items
appropriate for inclusion in documents produced by the working group include
corrections, clarifications, and amplifications to reflect existing practice or
to address problems which have been identified through experience with Internet
mail protocols. New functionality is expressly inappropriate.


Just out of curiosity I contacted IMC as well to see if there are any RFC's or
drafts or whatever that cover this area of the message body... if anyone is
interested in the results you can contact me off-list if you like.... should
have them within a few days....

Debra