On 11/13/02, Pauline Greenhill wrote:

>Um, but people who subscribe to the list might also be interested, and
>
>Um if you have a Mac anyway viruses aren't really an issue since
>
>Um most viruses are for Microsoft products as
>
>Um you pointed out.
>
>Pauline

Um -- are you willing to pay me for the connect time this
cost me?

Are you willing to pay me for the time I spent trashing the
thing?

I'm not worried about viruses. But I'm not the only one on
the list. (If I were, I wouldn't be getting attachments on
the list. :-)

Consider: How does sending mass junk to this list differ
from spam? For me -- and anyone else who can't go to the
conference, it's UNSOLICITED JUNK. Or do you like spam?

Look -- you are arguing that it does no harm. *This one*
did little harm. Suppose it had been a 2 MB file? Suppose
it had been a virus and SOMEONE ELSE opened it?

Or suppose our one and only intended recipient -- as opposed
to all the innocent victims -- is on digest? Attachments in
digests generally do not come through properly. So sending
attachments to a list, on top of everything else, poses
a real risk of it not reaching the intended recipient.

And why do you oppose proper nettiquette? No Attachments
to the List is a universal rule. For all the reasons above:
1. They might be viruses
2. Most people on the list probably don't want them
3. Some people on the list probably can't read them
4. All people are forced to deal with files not intended
   for them -- and quite possibly pay for the downloading.

It's not this attachment that worries me. It's the NEXT
one. This reveals that this list is misconfigured: It lets
attachments through. The next one may be a virus, or another
2 MB file you can't read. When it is, don't say I didn't
warn you.

I ask again: Can the list owner configure the list so it
won't take attachments?
--
Bob Waltz
[log in to unmask]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."