On 10/24/2007 12:35 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * David Bolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-23-07 12:27]: > > I noticed. Interestingly enough, I notice that the message with the > > 846KiB uncompressed tiff as an attachment also has that same header. As > > to why the poster couldn't have used compression, I don't know. Saving > > it with Gimp as a PNG reduced it to 22KiB. A later post, also contained > > image attachments of 216KiB and 375KiB. These reduced to 17Kib and > > 25KiB. > > I noticed that but didn't comment. You *are* correct that graphics > should have been presented in the least imposing popular format. The > presenter is/was being quite presumptious and inconsiderate. There > are *still* list members on dial-up and/or measured service. > I agree about not sending such big attachments to a list like this out of consideration, but context in that exact instance (I am not the OP in question) was it was sent in that format so that it could be used by OpenOffice. OO would not have been able to use a png, thus making another formatted pic useless for the reason it was sent. -- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.3 x86_64
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
