[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 29/08/14 17:08, Joseph Bennie wrote:
On 29 Aug 2014, at 16:41, Julian Hall <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 29/08/14 16:29, Simon Avery wrote:Strongly oppose bad apple's request. I'm happy with a 40kb limit to stay. I think it is a totally reasonable and appropriate limit. This is a mailing list for a geographical area that has many areas of low bandwidth availability in a country that still regularly has bandwidth limits. I also access this list via my phone on which I have a bandwidth cap, and signal in any of my usual places is at GPRS and often at modem dialup rates. Even if it bandwidth wasn't of huge concern, mailing lists are not a good place to post large images or attachments. There are a world of free and easy to use hosting services such as imgur, picasa, facebook, or self-host and post a link to your image. Users then have a choice, which they don't if you attach it. Or email somebody directly if you wish. It takes almost no extra time to upload such an image, and is more efficient than a uu or mime encoded 7-bit attachment. As a linux user and geek, I especially reserve the right to give a damn about efficiency and best practices.do you realise the irony - so far its taken me 15 min to do this http://www.cruxppc.com/img/speed.png while i waited for 2GB of data to compare over the wire with a server in NY. and yes i did optimise the file! a 101KB limit would be much more pragmatic, but keep strict rejection of HTML/Rich mail … because thats genuine spam.
That would be Simon's comment not mine. Julian -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq