Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]tlug: Re: 'large' attachments
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: tlug: Re: 'large' attachments
- From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:04:28 +0900 (JST)
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- In-Reply-To: <19980901054604441.AAA98@example.com@example.com>
- References: <19980901054604441.AAA98@example.com@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Sender: owner-tlug@example.com
>>>>> "Darren" == Darren Cook <darren@example.com> writes: >> Not to start a flame war, but what is you definition of big? I >> would have thought that 27k was reasonable. Granted, that 27k >> to all the ... Just curious as what you and others feel is the >> correct etiquette? Darren> On a mailing list no attachments is a good rule of Darren> thumb. I'd only make an exception if it was small and Darren> important for the current discussion. Putting it up on a Darren> web or ftp server is better. Unless the list is xemacs-beta and the sender is Ben Wing, who has serious RSI and all of whose emails start with "If this email contains a RealAudio attachment..." Typical email from Ben runs 150kB. And on that list, if I had to limit bandwidth, I'd filter everybody else.... (Ben wrote the multilingual support for XEmacs, and made it API- compatible with Mule as developed at ETL. Among many critical contributions. When Ben speaks, people listen. Literally, even by email :-) Just to make the point that the only hard-and-fast rule is there are no hard-and-fast rules. Darren> For normal email it's good etiquette to ask before sending Darren> a large attachment. I'd define large as above 15-20K but Darren> then people are very sensitive about bandwidth in Japan. Shit! You mean I have to limit my attachments to 15-20% of my text? Darren> As a system administrator the real fun starts when people Darren> send a 2Mb Word file to everyone else in their Darren> department/company. Mail server disk space vanishes in an Darren> instant! I thought that was when the boss who refused to allow the sysadmin to limit the size of attachments (or worse, forced her to install a mail system that didn't allow such limits) found that his home directory had been overwritten by the mail spool and had to be restored from a tape stored in Kalamazoo? Anyway, friends don't let friends use Microsoft products. What _is_ this with 2MB Word files? At that size, the Shannon content has got to be about 1000 bits/character, max. About the density of outer space. Tokoro de, why the hell hasn't somebody written a filter for corporate mailing systems that strips out attachments, puts them in a special spool and converts the _internal_ body attachments to MIME _external_ body attachments when the addressee is internal? Or written a user agent that doesn't attach things, but stuffs them into a public area and inserts an URL into the text? Hmmm ... think I'll implement that for Emacs. Then only Pine users need be shitsurei.... :-) -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +1 (298) 53-5091 -------------------------------------------------------------- Next Nomikai: 18 September, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691 Next Meeting: 10 October, Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate 12:30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp
- References:
- tlug: Re: 'large' attachments
- From: Darren Cook <darren@example.com>
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: tlug: Dang Cobalt!
- Next by Date: Re: tlug: mkisofs v1.12 -J option
- Prev by thread: tlug: Re: 'large' attachments
- Next by thread: tlug: Re: 'large' attachments
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links