On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:34:03 GMT, Jerry Dallal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Drake R. Bradley" wrote:
>
> > While I agree with the sentiments expressed by others that attachments should
> > not be sent to email lists, I take exception that this should apply to small
> > (only a few KB or so) gif or jpeg images. Pictures *are* often worth a
> > thousand words, and certainly it makes sense that the subscribers to a stat
>
> It's worth noting that some lists have gateways to Usenet groups.
> Usenet does not support attachments, so they will be lost to Usenet
> readers. [ break ]
- my Usenet connection seems to give me all the attachments.
But if I depended on a modem and a 7-bit protocol, I would be
pleased if my ISP filtered out the occasional, 100 kilobyte 8-bit
attachment. (Some folk still use 7-bit protocols, don't they?)
> Also, even in the anything-goes early 21-st Century climate
> of the Internet, one big no-no remains the posting of binaries to
> non-binary groups.
Right; that's partly because of size. My vendor has the practice,
these days, of saving ordinary groups for a week, binary groups
(which are the BULK of their internet feed) for 24 hours. Binary
strings may be treated as screen-commands, if your Reader doesn't
know to package them as an 'attachment' or otherwise ignore them.
Some attachments are binary, some are not.
Standard HTML files are ASCII, with the added 'risk'
(I sometimes look at it that way) of invoking an
immediate internet connection.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
