John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Gus Wirth wrote:
>>
>> Given the plethora of options available for posting files for download,
>> there is no need to support attachments to the mailing list. The
>> decision to ban attachments was made a long time ago by the Steering
>> Committee (of which I am a member) and still stands. We do not need to
>> revisit this argument.
>
> WHy not? It was a poor decision then, and it remains a poor policy now.
>
> Nothing wrong with text/plain attachments.
Why is it a bad decision? It was done to keep bandwidth at a miminum. Someone
sending a 1Mb image attachment to the list consumes 1Mb*n bandwidth, where n
is the number of subscribers. Our bandwidth is donated and it is courtesy to
reduce the amount of bandwidth through policies that we can enforce. Source
code is plain text and as such fits fine inside of the body of email.
"Nothing wrong with text/plain attachments" except that AFAIK the options are
allow attachment or don't allow attachments. There is no option to allow plain
text attachments, don't allow jpeg attachments.
The decision stands, live with it.
--
Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
I help busy professionals diversify their self-directed IRAs and portfolios
with real estate they don't have to manage. Please let me know if you or
someone you know would like more information.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
