Re: Attachments

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: PAULKHOURY_at_aol.com
Date: Tue Mar 11 1997 - 21:45:36 EST


In a message dated 97-03-09 22:30:05 EST, you write:

<< Subj: Attachments
 Date: 97-03-09 22:30:05 EST
 From: rwhittle_at_usa.net (Randy Whittle)
 To: tp750_at_cs.utk.edu (TP List)
 
 
 For what its worth, I think "large" attachments sent to the general list
 are uncalled for.
 
 But at the same time, reasonably-sized (i.e., small) ones shouldn't be a
 big deal. I for one was actually pleased to see the "TPIcons.dll" file,
 and it was fairly small.
 
 I'd hate to see a total "no-binaries" ban, as I think that is contrary to
 the helpful nature of the list for small stuff. At the same time, I'd
 heartily support a "no BIG binaries" ban.
 
 To me then, the remaining step would be to define "how big?" Small files
 that add only a few seconds to the download time of a mail packet shouldn't
 be a big deal. At the same time though, I'd object to a 500K file taking
 up my download time when its something I'm not interested in anyway.
 
 I'm sure there is a reasonable balance that would meet the desires of the
 majority.
>>
I agree with Randy. I think that if someone has any spare time, to post up a
README.1ST file to those who first subscribe to the list, stating rules about
items such as downloads, flaming, etc.

Paul Khoury


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:53:30 EST