I share this irritation for even on good machines attachments can
overload an Inbox, leading to subsequent important messages not being
received by one's inbox.
A simple alternative is to place the attachment on one's institutional
website and circulate the weblink.
cheers
Tariq Modood
----------------------------
Tariq Modood, MBE, AcSS
Professor of Sociology, Politics and Public Policy,
Director, University Research Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and
Citizenship and Founding Editor of Ethnicities (Sage)
For details of the Centre's work see
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sociology/ethnicitycitizenship
For fuller details about new Leverhulme Programme on Migration and
Citizenship at Bristol University and UCL see
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sociology/leverhulme
--On 23 March 2006 22:48 +0000 Paul Ashton
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I'm sure I'm not alone in being somewhat irritated at receiving yet
> another vastly oversized attachment today (a 1 megabyte forwarded
> message). At the risk of being labelled a Netcop, may I draw
attention to
> the guidelines from the List Owner regarding attachments:
>
> The basic policy in relation to attachments is that WE
> STRONGLY ADVISE AGAINST PEOPLE SENDING ATTACHMENTS TO THE LIST. There
> are three key reasons for this:
>
> (i) it is an ineffective way of spreading your message. Not all
members
> can read attachments and many find them irritating. If you CAN, it is
> better to send your message as a plain, text based e-mail
>
> (ii) e-mail attachments are the most effective way to spread computer
> viruses - something as an innocent word processed document can
> inadvertently contain a viruses that is set loose once the
attachment is
> opened
>
> (iii) attachments can be a real nuisance for members with slow
machines
> or those who work from home with dial-up modem connections. This is
> especially the case with large attachments that can take a
considerable
> time to download and, as a consequence, put someone's machine out of
> action while they try to download an attachment that may even be of
no
> interest to them.
>
>
> These members have posted attachments that were in excess of 500Kb
over
> the past 12 months or so:
>
> Merz Hoare 2005-05-25 1.1mb
> Merz Hoare 2005-02-04 815kb
> Merz Hoare 2005-05-03 758kb
> Merz Hoare 2005-02-11 758kb
> Merz Hoare 2005-05-13 756kb
> Merz Hoare 2005-04-21 752kb
> Merz Hoare 2005-05-24 696kb
> Merz Hoare 2005-04-15 651kb
>
> Gary Craig 2006-03-23 1.4mb
> Gary Craig 2006-02-16 663kb
> Gary Craig 2006-02-16 542kb
>
> Mark Wright 2005-02-15 1.1mb
> Jane Allen 2006-02-10 919kb
> Angus Erskine 2005-06-02 803kb
> Junko Yamashita 2005-06-08 866kb
> Oliver Hayllar 2005-11-09 598kb
> Peter Taylor-Gooby 2005-02-23 594kb
> Lucie Hayes 2006-02-27 559kb
>
>
> Another 28 posts (from 14 list members) have been greater than 100kb.
>
>
> Paul Ashton
> [log in to unmask]
> 2006-03-23
|