Hello Alto, >> It's not a problem of width, it's a problem of being able to quickly >> tell the size of a message. 3,2MB and 988kB are easier to parse than >> 3.454.565 and 1.011.847.
> I disagree: If there are "a lot of numbers" (as in 3.454.565) I get a > grip about the size much easier than if it were just 3.2 (= no more > numbers than usual, have to really read it to tell the difference.) While it's nice for you if you can immediately map 3.454.565 to an idea of the practical message size in your mind (and are not simply arguing for argument's sake), I support Jernej's point that users in their majority need to know "this message is 100 KB big" or "oh, here come 65,4 MB" for their reasonably fine idea of what that means, and showing them 48.584.657 is not supporting them at this at all. For you, I absolutely support there being a setting that would keep the display in bytes as it's now. If you or Dwight prefer, there also can be a setting "warn user before sending message larger than...". Returning an appropriate message to a sender of huge messages can, I believe, already be done using filters. -- Best regards, Viktor Kabelac mailto:[email protected] ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 5.0.22.15 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
