Thanks Tom for alerting me that I miss posting the message below to the group.
I still wonder how to fet the arrowheads '>' that echo what that was fowarded from the original message to differentiate what I am (trying to) reply to! e.g. On 12 Nov 02 16:25,"T.Sato" <[email protected]> wrote: > ...you sent this message only to me, not to emc-pstc. To get the above style, I have to edit the mail (cut and paste the statement) piece by piece! Any Lotus Notes user out there who can give some useful pointers here? It is about howto get to the 'point'. > ...you added an excess header (137 characters * 13 lines!) when > replying to my message, and you quoted almost entier message. Regarding the headers provided by my Lotus Notes, it only one of the things that had irritated me since my work palce stop using 'Pine'. It is Lotus Notes not 'me' (as in me) that added those 13 lines of header, AFAIK it is Lotus Notes. I think I will expeiment with different 'mail styles' to get this right. cherrio... :-) Tim Foo ----- Forwarded by Wan Juang Foo/ece/staff/npnet on 11/12/02 09:37 AM ----- Wan Juang Foo/ece/staff/ To: "T.Sato" <[email protected]> npnet cc: Subject: Re: Size of recent postings (<snip>, compress or 11/11/02 10:38 upload your attachments)(Document link: Foo Wan-Juang, Timothy) AM Dear all, May I suggest that we <snip> off the excess traillers, to trim down the size of the posting. Regarding Dan Pierce's posting of his 'conducted line emission' measurement result, the pdf file is really a scan image. AFAIK the pdf is a compressed format but then the compression for an 'image file' in pdf is not (IMHO) very good, unless it is a line drawing done with MS. Can I suggest that future posting for a b/w (monochrome) image be sent as a 8 bit monochrome .bmp file, *.png, *.tif or as a *.jpg file. I believe that it can be more efficient. This I must say requires a little experimenting with various image compression software/formats. There is no shortage of internet (www) sites that will give some helpful directions. Finally, Ian Gordon's posting ran up 240kB. I must say he meant well, however, (if, I say if because I did not check the contents) I suppose if the file is mostly text and is *.doc (in MS Word), then it is better to compress it (zip it up) for transmission. This will save both bandwidth and storage (hard disk) space. Finally, if a file is available over the www then there is really no need to attach it to a posting. So it just boils down to compress your files to under 50kB or consider the possibility of uploading the larger attachments to a temporary www site. So, train your browser to "image and file compression software, free download" ... See some examples in: http://www.geocities.com/timfoo6143/ and http://www.geocities.com/timfoo6143/EMCS_Sg.html It is not the best example but it will save some bandwidth and hard-disk space in many computers/servers etc... Just another of my 2 ยข worth. :-) Tim Foo "T.Sato" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent by: cc: (bcc: Wan Juang Foo/ece/staff/npnet) owner-emc-pstc@majordo Subject: Re: Size of recent postings mo.ieee.org ... On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:38:50 -0500, "Scott Lacey" <[email protected]> wrote: > Recently there have been several rather large (50k plus) postings to > this forum. I would like to remind fellow listmembers that many <snip> Completely agreed. <snip> ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
