Recently I re-sized my signature because it didn't comply with the filesize limitations stated in the rules. Granted, this didn't even classify as an inconvience, but I'm curious as to why a limit has been placed on filesize. I can understand deeping certain size restraings like 500x200 or such, but I can't really see the 50KB part. The images are not hosted on afterdawn, and therefor do not consume any of the websites bandwidth because their embedded from image hosting websites. I'm not trying to be disagreeable or anything, just wondering if there was a reason that I'm failing to understand. But seeing as no explination is given as of yet, my suggestion is this: We should modify the rules to remove filesize limitations on images. This would allow for higher-quality images, and the size difference would be minimal. It wouldn't even hinder users visiting via dial-up in most cases.