Anyone still on PINE should consider a new email application :)
Flip
On 7/2/2010 20:29, Tim Gruene wrote:
> I agree to this.
> What are the actual reasons against attachments?
> If one really has a slow network connection and cannot use IMAP instead of POP3
> (if I understand correctly, with IMAP one does not need to download the emails
> until one actually wants to read them, but I may be wrong here, too), would it
> be a compromise to restrict image sizes to e.g. 500kB?
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:35:57PM -0400, Douglas Jacobsen wrote:
>> My opinion is that attached images in bb posts should be allowed:
>> 1) Storage& network bandwidth is cheap
>> 2) Attached (even inline) images are convenient to understanding the
>> question/issue at hand
>> 3) Emails are very easily deleted
>> 4) If images are to be "attached" via web-links, then it may not be
>> possible to refer to them appropriately in the archives if the images
>> are ever removed from the hosting server. - it seems to me that the
>> archive of the bb is an excellent resource, but is diminished if the
>> content can not be maintained centrally.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>> On 7/2/2010 11:04 AM, Frances C. Bernstein wrote:
>>> Why not put images, maps, or data files on your own web page
>>> and then send out a link to that material? Then the e-mails
>>> are small and anyone that wants to see the files has easy
>>> access.
>>>
>>> Frances Bernstein
>>>
>>> =====================================================
>>> **** Bernstein + Sons
>>> * * Information Systems Consultants
>>> **** 5 Brewster Lane, Bellport, NY 11713-2803
>>> * * ***
>>> **** * Frances C. Bernstein
>>> * *** [log in to unmask]
>>> *** *
>>> * *** 1-631-286-1339 FAX: 1-631-286-1999
>>> =====================================================
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Tim Gruene wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe this netiquette is a little outdated. Sending a few MB to
>>>> thousands of
>>>> people is probably not much more than noise compared to current net
>>>> traffic.
>>>>
>>>> There is the IMAP protocol which overcomes the problem of modem
>>>> connections,
>>>> which anyhow probably only affects a very, very small amount of
>>>> people nowadays,
>>>> and there are plenty of mail user agents which do not have a
>>>> paperclip button,
>>>> e.g. mutt, pine, etc, which address the very same problem.
>>>>
>>>> It's is a lot easier to show a jpg-image a few kB in size than to
>>>> attempt to
>>>> describe what you see with words.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, the FAQ
>>>> (http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#formats) the
>>>> CCP4 netiquette (http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/ccp4bb.php#using) refers to
>>>> explicitly
>>>> allows MIME attachments, even though I also conside MIME outdated and am
>>>> extremely glad I do not need to fiddle with uu-en/de-code anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Again: maybe it's time to update the CCP4 netiquette.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: I wonder how much traffic this email will induce ;-)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:33:01AM -0400, Ed Pozharski wrote:
>>>>> Several recent posts with decently sized attachments (now in cross eyed
>>>>> stereo too!) prompt this (annual?) anti-paperclip-button rant. Lucky
>>>>> for me, I can just recycle the old messages:
>>>>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers from the self-appointed thought police,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "I'd jump in myself, if I weren't so good at whistling."
>>>>> Julian, King of Lemurs
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Gruene
>>>> Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
>>>> Tammannstr. 4
>>>> D-37077 Goettingen
>>>>
>>>> GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
|