Thanks for making the "no" attachment thing clear.

A TB of pictures?

No thanks!  :)

Neil.

On Feb 16, 2008 8:20 PM, Jim Arnott <jr.arnott@gmail.com> wrote:
> I DO have a problem with it. For a few reasons....
>
> 1.) Many folks haven't learned how to manipulate their images to
> reduce them to some reasonable size. I work for an ISP. It might
> surprise you the number of 30 mb email messages my techs remove from
> dial-up users' mail boxes daily.
> 2.) Bandwidth does cost money.  We start moving folk's pictures
> around and the costs go up proportionally.
> 3.) Mailing list software makes no distinction between .jpg
> and .pif,.exe, dot whatever. Attachment is attachment. Allow or don't
> allow. Allow and take the heat when someone's compromised system
> spreads a virus? Not my job. Allow and take the heat when said virus
> infects gerry? No thank you.
> 4.) Believe it or not, there are still a significant number of users
> on dial-up. Large emails and dial-up do not play well together. (See
> item 1 above.)
> 5.) You think that the archives are slow now? Let's add a terabyte of
> pictures and see what it'll do.
>
> So no, we will not allow attachments If you want to share your
> pictures, get a Flickr or Picasa or Shutterfly account and share the
> link.  Let the reader decide rather than shoving the pictures into
> their inbox.
>
> Jim Arnott
> List Admin
> vanagon@gerry
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2008, at 8:54 PM, Andrew Grebneff wrote:
>
> > It doesn't. Perhaps this could be changed, if there was a limit to
> > the number posted and the poster asked first for positive responses.
> > Jim?
>

--
Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia - "Jaco"

http://web.mac.com/tubaneil
http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/