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 >> * *** f...@bernstein-plus-sons.com >> *** * >> * *** 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 Maybe this netiquette is a little outdated.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: >>>> >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/ccp4bb@jiscmail.ac.uk/msg11949.html >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> -- -- Tim Gruene Institut fuer anorganische Chemie Tammannstr. 4 D-37077 Goettingen GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
