Actually I think Nick did drop in a small response that the attachment in this case wasn't unreasonable.
Personally I agree in general that attaching files isn't good form. I did actually spend some time to check that the file wasn't very big and had it been more than ~50k I would have found some web space to host it then included a link as one has to remember the capacity of the server that's doing the mail distrubution as well. In this case the file was 17k (thou if I'd thought about it, it should have been 4k or less). Cheers Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Juan Jose Escanellas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Binaries to the list (was Re: DOS emulator) > > > On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:41:58 +1200 > Carl Cerecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Nick Rout wrote: > > > Don. don't post binaries to the list. put them on a > webserver or ftp > > > server and post a url > > > > C'mon Nick. His entire email, inc. PNG, was a piddly 28k. That is > > probably less bandwidth than what has already been wasted > in the thread > > by people not trimming the quoted message when they are replying. > > I see no answer to Nick's point: is there really any rule > about attached binary files on CLUG's email list?. As far as > I can understand, file size or redundant quoted messages are > different concepts to binary file type. Of course everybody > knows that, but sometimes I wonder, struggled by my son, what > are rules for. �Are they maybe like cooking recipes, that can > be changed (as tradition change) while general taste is > respected by the cooker? Changing sugar for salt, although > while both being similar in color, weight and solubility, > could be rather strange for table guests. > > "Do what you want as long as you love", one's said. (But, > before repeating that I should first hear me telling that to > my teenager's daughter. Now she's only 2 years old, meanwhile > I'm just a joker.) > > -juan >
