I agree with Ed The attachement restrictions are quite frustrating. Perhaps we could impose a file size restriction as a compromise.
Chris Wells [email protected] Cutler-Hammer ------------- Original Text From: C=US/A=INTERNET/DDA=ID/ed.price(a)Cubic.COM, on 7/15/97 7:37 PM: I have noticed some past attempts, here and in other newsgroups, to describe electrical hook-ups or even simple schematics. I say attempts, as they tried to describe things either in text, or through use of clumsy ASCII character based line drawing. I can send an email, with a file as an attachment. This file can be a graphic created under MS Word 7, with a doc extension, or a graphic from any number of programs which produce either drg, bmp, tif or jpeg extensions. I could even zip the file, before attaching, to really crunch down the size. Now, I don't consider this graphic file usage to be either very exotic technology or a bandwidth hog. When I dl my email now (granted, through my company net connection, not a 28.8 modem), each post takes only maybe 1 second; a typical day's worth of posts rarely takes more than 30 seconds. When I dl private emails (which often have graphic attachments), I see no appreciable increase in dl time. If I find an attached file, I can open it with an associated viewer of a generic viewer, print it, and go back to read the text while I have the graphic hardcopy in hand. So, from my viewpoint, I see no burden from allowing attached graphic files in a remailer or newsgroup, especially if it allows you to convey your message more accurately. Are we arbitrarily catering to the oldest common denominator? If you feel attachments are inappropriate, then what would you propose? What are our present limits, and why? -------------------------- Ed Price [email protected] Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA List-Post: [email protected] Date: 07/15/97 Time: 11:37:38 --------------------------
