On 7 Jun 2007 at 17:35, Russell Butler wrote: ... > > Hmmm. The digest that turned up here (issue 5544) was weird - it
Ooops. That should have been 5543!! ... > > So I'm not sure you're right about attachments being removed. It would > > be a most excellent idea. > > > That's interesting Mike. I use the gmane news server, and only rarely do > attachments get through, though sample OOo files seem to arrive more > frequently. > > There was a bad bout of virus infested mails a couple of years ago and > this policy was started then. Good idea. Rarely useful to send an attachment out of the blue to any list in any case. > > I don't know what the mechanism for building the digest is. Maybe it > runs before the attachment filter? No idea; but I'd suppose so because I do keep seeing the most enormous attachments, of no interest to 99% of the readership :-) (I've had yet another two or three copies of this one: the problem is my mail server is a bit on the slow side. Especially for large messages, it takes enough time after the sender's eom marker before acknowledging the message that the sender smtp assumes failure and requeues the mail. A small weakness in the smtp protocol, IMO. I did email the list owner some weeks back, but never had a reply.) -- various incoming sites blocked because of spam; see http://www.scottsonline.org.uk for a list and openpgp crypto key (key fingerprint 2ACC 9F21 5103 F68C 7C32 9EA8 C949 81E1 31C9 1364) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Scott, Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
