MFPA
Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:22:39 -0800
Hi
On Thursday 28 January 2010 at 9:30:54 PM, in <mid:1702371610.20100128153...@jimkyle.com>, Jim Kyle wrote: > Test for On--- On Thursday, January 28, 2010, at > 1:41:18 PM, MFPA wrote: >> All well and good, since presumably they must be >> sending them to correspondents who are expecting them >> and able to receive them. Else they would have to be >> split and re-combined. (-; > That's the case with the large files I mentioned, also; > they're proof copies of a 40-page quarterly magazine > that I put together for my alumni association. Everyone > involved has (a) high speed connections and (b) > tolerant ISPs that allow such large files. Sounds like you've looked into it all thoroughly. Good to see somebody doing things properly. I still prefer sending people a link to a large file when practical rather than sending the file but, hey, that's just me (-; I think the split and re-combine method for large messages has been pretty much killed off by over-zealous spam filtering; if even one part is stopped, the whole lot is useless. -- Best regards MFPA mailto:expires2...@ymail.com Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 ________________________________________________ Current version is 4.2.23 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html