Well, that's an "alternative way of handling" the problem if your e-mail
client supports such features. Not all do. Moreover, large attachments can
still be burdensome to the mail server, not to mention any mail relays the
message might have passed through.
In general, electronic mail systems were not designed to handle large
messages. Large attachments are generally frowned upon by most system
administrators for this reason (among others.)
I've seen this "Can I have this paper?" "Oh, me too, me too" phenomenon
spread across this mailing list on several occasions. I'd suggest (a) if an
author wishes to distribute an electronic copy of a paper, s/he do so via
the means suggested by other posters (FTP, Web site, etc.); (b) that the
"List Mom" discourage these kinds of postings. The "signal-to-noise ratio"
of this list is getting dangerously thin.
</RANT>
-CTP
>>While many privledged people do no realize how inconvenient bulk mailing of
>>long attachments can be to those with less endowed internet facilities, it
>>is.
>
>An alternative way of handling this problem at the recipient end is to
>place a limit on the size of messages you can receive (I set mine at 20K,
>because I have to log into my server via long distance phone call). Then,
>if you decide you really do want to see the remainder of the message, or
>the attachment, click on 'retrieve from server' and the next time you log
>in, the whole message/attachment will come through (I defer this until
>evening economy rates).
>
>
>Dr Patricia Bazeley
>Research Support Pty. Limited
>PO Box 2005
>Bowral NSW 2576
>Australia
>ph. +61 2 4862 3026
>email: [log in to unmask]
>http://btwebsh.macarthur.uws.edu.au/patB/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|