Graphics in posts
I have noticed some past attempts, here and in other newsgroups, to describe electrical hook-ups or even simple schematics. I say attempts, as they tried to describe things either in text, or through use of clumsy ASCII character based line drawing. I can send an email, with a file as an attachment. This file can be a graphic created under MS Word 7, with a doc extension, or a graphic from any number of programs which produce either drg, bmp, tif or jpeg extensions. I could even zip the file, before attaching, to really crunch down the size. Now, I don't consider this graphic file usage to be either very exotic technology or a bandwidth hog. When I dl my email now (granted, through my company net connection, not a 28.8 modem), each post takes only maybe 1 second; a typical day's worth of posts rarely takes more than 30 seconds. When I dl private emails (which often have graphic attachments), I see no appreciable increase in dl time. If I find an attached file, I can open it with an associated viewer of a generic viewer, print it, and go back to read the text while I have the graphic hardcopy in hand. So, from my viewpoint, I see no burden from allowing attached graphic files in a remailer or newsgroup, especially if it allows you to convey your message more accurately. Are we arbitrarily catering to the oldest common denominator? If you feel attachments are inappropriate, then what would you propose? What are our present limits, and why? -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07/15/97 Time: 11:37:38 --
re: Graphics in posts
I agree with Ed The attachement restrictions are quite frustrating. Perhaps we could impose a file size restriction as a compromise. Chris Wells well...@ch.etn.com Cutler-Hammer - Original Text From: C=US/A=INTERNET/DDA=ID/ed.price(a)Cubic.COM, on 7/15/97 7:37 PM: I have noticed some past attempts, here and in other newsgroups, to describe electrical hook-ups or even simple schematics. I say attempts, as they tried to describe things either in text, or through use of clumsy ASCII character based line drawing. I can send an email, with a file as an attachment. This file can be a graphic created under MS Word 7, with a doc extension, or a graphic from any number of programs which produce either drg, bmp, tif or jpeg extensions. I could even zip the file, before attaching, to really crunch down the size. Now, I don't consider this graphic file usage to be either very exotic technology or a bandwidth hog. When I dl my email now (granted, through my company net connection, not a 28.8 modem), each post takes only maybe 1 second; a typical day's worth of posts rarely takes more than 30 seconds. When I dl private emails (which often have graphic attachments), I see no appreciable increase in dl time. If I find an attached file, I can open it with an associated viewer of a generic viewer, print it, and go back to read the text while I have the graphic hardcopy in hand. So, from my viewpoint, I see no burden from allowing attached graphic files in a remailer or newsgroup, especially if it allows you to convey your message more accurately. Are we arbitrarily catering to the oldest common denominator? If you feel attachments are inappropriate, then what would you propose? What are our present limits, and why? -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07/15/97 Time: 11:37:38 --
RE: Graphics in posts
However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail. Many of the subscribers to this listserver do not have T3 pipes coming into their businesses or subscribe through accounts that are through AOL (the very definition of slow), Compuserve, etc. (all ISPs are not equal), or have a slow modem with max. connection rates less than 14.4kbps. It would be better to not have nonASCII graphics, so that all subscribers to the list get an even shake. Graphics can be posted to an anonymous ftp site or offered for delivery through "private" e-mail. Peter L. Tarver Nortel ptar...@nt.com >-- >From: ed.pr...@cubic.com[SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 1997 12:37 PM > > I have noticed some past attempts, here and in other newsgroups, to > describe >electrical hook-ups or even simple schematics. I say attempts, as they tried >to describe things either in text, or through use of clumsy ASCII character >based line drawing. > > I can send an email, with a file as an attachment. This file can be a >graphic created under MS Word 7, with a doc extension, or a graphic from any >number of programs which produce either drg, bmp, tif or jpeg extensions. I >could even zip the file, before attaching, to really crunch down the size. > > Now, I don't consider this graphic file usage to be either very exotic >technology or a bandwidth hog. When I dl my email now (granted, through my >company net connection, not a 28.8 modem), each post takes only maybe 1 >second; a typical day's worth of posts rarely takes more than 30 seconds. >When I dl private emails (which often have graphic attachments), I see no >appreciable increase in dl time. If I find an attached file, I can open it >with an associated viewer of a generic viewer, print it, and go back to read >the text while I have the graphic hardcopy in hand. > > So, from my viewpoint, I see no burden from allowing attached graphic > files >in a remailer or newsgroup, especially if it allows you to convey your >message more accurately. > > Are we arbitrarily catering to the oldest common denominator? If you > feel >attachments are inappropriate, then what would you propose? What are our >present limits, and why? > >-- >Ed Price >ed.pr...@cubic.com >Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab >Cubic Defense Systems >San Diego, CA. USA >Date: 07/15/97 >Time: 11:37:38 >-- > > >
re: Graphics in Posts
The GIFF or GIF format is a very good format for most all line-art, scanned text, or low color content drawings. GIF compresses line art quite well and is the standard graphic format for web pages. This means anyone with a web browser can open and print a GIF file with ease. On the other hand, digital photographs do not compress much as a GIF file. The newer JPEG format is best for photographs or graphics with lots of detail. JPEG allows you to select variable levels of "quality" vs "compression". This allows compression to be greater when quality is not as critical. Most web browsers also support this format, but early browsers may not. These two formats (IMO) seem most useful. There are a variety of freeware or shareware software packages that could convert many other formats to these two popular formats. (You may not need a converter, GIF is a common export option in many common drawing packages, JPEG in some others.) I suggest readers use internet search engines to locate conversion software as I did. I use a Macintosh, so my suggestions for software will not be very useful to the Win95/Win3.1/DOS world. Regards, Eric Lifsey eric.lif...@natinst.com
RE: Graphics in posts
At 10:07 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Peter Tarver wrote: >It would be better to not have nonASCII graphics, so that all >subscribers to the list get an even shake. Graphics can be posted to an >anonymous ftp site or offered for delivery through "private" e-mail. > >Peter L. Tarver >Nortel >ptar...@nt.com I agree with Peter. In addition to the bandwidth and download time, not everyone has access to Word (like UNIX/LINUX users) and having to download something useless is even more irritating. The solution is quite simple. Tell the list you have the graphic and _ask_ who wants to see it, then mail them directly. Alternatively, if you have an ftp site you can park it on, they can get it themselves. -- Brent DeWitt U.S. EMC Technical Coordinator TUV Product Service, Inc. Boulder, CO (303)449-4165 http://www.tuvps.com e-mail: bdew...@tuvps.com
Re: Graphics in posts
In a message dated 97-07-16 11:27:44 EDT, Peter Tarver writes: << However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail. Many of the subscribers to this listserver do not have T3 pipes coming into their businesses or subscribe through accounts that are through AOL (the very definition of slow), Compuserve, etc. (all ISPs are not equal), or have a slow modem with max. connection rates less than 14.4kbps. >> For what it's worth, I use both AOL and CompuServe with a 14.4kbps modem. I do this at home, during the evening "online rush hour". The speed is tolerable. In addition, AOL delivers the message portion first, downloading the attached file only when commanded to do so. I believe the advantage in clarity and detail well justifies an occasional larger message. Some size limit should be set. May I suggest 50 Kbytes as a reasonable limit? Regards, Dewayne Ferris Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
Re: Graphics in posts
In a message dated 97-07-16 08:59:50 EDT, Chris Wells writes: << I agree with Ed The attachement restrictions are quite frustrating. Perhaps we could impose a file size restriction as a compromise. Chris Wells well...@ch.etn.com Cutler-Hammer >> This seems very reasonable. Could we further agree on a format readily readable by most users? Embedding the figure in a Microsoft Word 6.0 format document might be sufficiently universal, and easy to do. ".gif" and ".jpg" formats are more standard, but might be difficult for some users to generate. Regards, Dewayne Ferris Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
Re: Graphics in posts
In a message dated 97-07-16 11:27:44 EDT, Peter Tarver writes: << However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail. Many of the subscribers to this listserver do not have T3 pipes coming into their businesses or subscribe through accounts that are through AOL (the very definition of slow), Compuserve, etc. (all ISPs are not equal), or have a slow modem with max. connection rates less than 14.4kbps. >> For what it's worth, I use both AOL and CompuServe with a 14.4kbps modem. I do this at home, during the evening "online rush hour". The speed is tolerable. In addition, AOL delivers the message portion first, downloading the attached file only when commanded to do so. I believe the advantage in clarity and detail well justifies an occasional larger message. Some size limit should be set. May I suggest 50 Kbytes as a reasonable limit? Regards, Dewayne Ferris Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
Re: Graphics in posts
In a message dated 97-07-16 08:59:50 EDT, Chris Wells writes: << I agree with Ed The attachement restrictions are quite frustrating. Perhaps we could impose a file size restriction as a compromise. Chris Wells well...@ch.etn.com Cutler-Hammer >> This seems very reasonable. Could we further agree on a format readily readable by most users? Embedding the figure in a Microsoft Word 6.0 format document might be sufficiently universal, and easy to do. ".gif" and ".jpg" formats are more standard, but might be difficult for some users to generate. Regards, Dewayne Ferris Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
RE: Graphics in posts
There must be alternatives for the current technology that each recipient has use of. For instance, if you can't read the graphic, then skip the message, until your software is enabled. I think that we would want to discourage limiting ourselves based on the lowest common denominator. Possibly, a graphic could be sent as a second message, referred to in the text message, and clearly identified in the Subject of the graphic message. Will this facilitate selective downloading, or just selective opening and reading? Could courtesy to the other users dictate that graphics be kept as small as possible? On the sidebar, thank you to everyone who has responded to my posted questions. The inputs have often redirected my search for the answers. James Goedderz goedd...@sensormatic.com -- From: Brent G DeWitt To: Peter Tarver; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Graphics in posts List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:12PM At 10:07 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Peter Tarver wrote: >It would be better to not have nonASCII graphics, so that all >subscribers to the list get an even shake. Graphics can be posted to an >anonymous ftp site or offered for delivery through "private" e-mail. > >Peter L. Tarver >Nortel >ptar...@nt.com I agree with Peter. In addition to the bandwidth and download time, not everyone has access to Word (like UNIX/LINUX users) and having to download something useless is even more irritating. The solution is quite simple. Tell the list you have the graphic and _ask_ who wants to see it, then mail them directly. Alternatively, if you have an ftp site you can park it on, they can get it themselves. -- Brent DeWitt U.S. EMC Technical Coordinator TUV Product Service, Inc. Boulder, CO (303)449-4165 http://www.tuvps.com e-mail: bdew...@tuvps.com
Re: Graphics in posts
I support the idea of allowing attachments in this mailing list. Regarding the size limitations I feel 50KB is too less, as some of the .BMP bit-map files averages about 300-350KB -Karthik --- Karthikeyan Ethirajan Applications Engineer (408) 934-3181 California Micro Devices 215 Topaz Street karth...@calmicro.comMilpitas, CA 95035 >>> 07/16 12:30 PM >>> In a message dated 97-07-16 11:27:44 EDT, Peter Tarver writes: << However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail. Many of the subscribers to this listserver do not have T3 pipes coming into their businesses or subscribe through accounts that are through AOL (the very definition of slow), Compuserve, etc. (all ISPs are not equal), or have a slow modem with max. connection rates less than 14.4kbps. >> For what it's worth, I use both AOL and CompuServe with a 14.4kbps modem. I do this at home, during the evening "online rush hour". The speed is tolerable. In addition, AOL delivers the message portion first, downloading the attached file only when commanded to do so. I believe the advantage in clarity and detail well justifies an occasional larger message. Some size limit should be set. May I suggest 50 Kbytes as a reasonable limit? Regards, Dewayne Ferris Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
Re: Graphics in posts
In a message dated 97-07-17 13:23:15 EDT, you write: << I support the idea of allowing attachments in this mailing list. Regarding the size limitations I feel 50KB is too less, as some of the .BMP bit-map files averages about 300-350KB >> This wouldn't disturb me, as my e-mail package asks permission before downloading the attachment. Others might find this a burden. Also, the .BMP format may not be easily readable on other platforms. May I invite people to post what formats they can read, and provide their opinion for an attachment size limit? Regards, Dewayne Ferris (dfer...@aol.com) Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
RE: Graphics in posts
In message <199707161712.maa19...@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> Brent G DeWitt writes: > At 10:07 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Peter Tarver wrote: > >It would be better to not have nonASCII graphics, so that all > >subscribers to the list get an even shake. Graphics can be posted to an > >anonymous ftp site or offered for delivery through "private" e-mail. > > > >Peter L. Tarver > >Nortel > >ptar...@nt.com > > I agree with Peter. In addition to the bandwidth and download time, not > everyone has access to Word (like UNIX/LINUX users) and having to download > something useless is even more irritating. > > The solution is quite simple. Tell the list you have the graphic and _ask_ > who wants to see it, then mail them directly. Alternatively, if you have > an ftp site you can park it on, they can get it themselves. And I agree most strongly with Brent and Peter. In message Karthik Ethirajan wrote: > I support the idea of allowing attachments in this mailing list. Regarding > the > size limitations I feel 50KB is too less, as some of the .BMP bit-map files > averages about 300-350KB I would most strongly oppose the above. Not only is the download time for 300 KB (in my case at 14.4 KB/s at home, 28.8 at the office) grossly excessive, but loading such long files completely fouls up my mail reader. I support the idea others have mentioned, of prohibiting attachments and placing them on an ftp site (possibly one specially set up by IEEE for the purpose?) or Website, or offered by email. I realise it is not directly equivalent, but the guidelines adopted by majority decision for the sci.engr.electrical.compliance (s.e.e.c) newsgroup may be of interest. (The only objections were from people who wanted binaries banned absolutely, as they are from most similar newsgroups: in practice almost no binaries have ever been posted). GUIDELINES This is an unmoderated newsgroup and in the interests of participants it is hoped that the following guidelines will be agreed by users: 1. All postings should be in plain ASCII text, and on-topic relative to the charter and rationale of the newsgroup. It is helpful if you wrap text at about 70 characters/line, so that it may be moderately quoted without exceeding 80 characters. 2. Long binaries/graphics and long program files must NOT be posted. Please arrange for them to be available at an ftp or Web site. A short announcement describing the nature of the material and giving the URL where it may be accessed is welcome. However short binaries up to say 10k are acceptable, such as small schematics, diagrams, etc in compressed format (e.g. TIFF, JPEG or postcript). With experience of other newsgroups where binaries are permitted, and of email with attachments generally, I now feel they should be absolutely banned from mailing lists, newsgroups and other "broadcast" as opposed to one-to-one transmissions. Regards to all, Bill. -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org
Re: Graphics in posts
I support attached graphics files. Technology is fueled by the need to keep up, if we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator, then the progress of technology is slowed down trmendously. It seems to me to be a shame to not use the technology available to us because some people may have not have access to it. Most ISPs ask for your approval before downloading attachments, due not only to time concerns but also to virus infection concerns. As for format - I feel you should attach what ever type of document you can view. If some EMC-PSTC subscribers cannot view your post because they don't have Word 6.0 or a .gif viewer, that is their concern. File size limitations are a good idea, but 50K seems a little on the small side. I would think 350K would be more prudent. What it comes down to is this - If you don't want the attachment, then don't download us. But don't limit my resources because you don't want the attachment. Randy Flinders EMC Test Engineer Emulex Network Systems Corporation r_flind...@emulex.com * Opinions expressed are personal, and in no way reflect the position of Emulex Corporation. -- From: Karthik Ethirajan To: DFerris; emc-pstc Cc: Peter.Tarver.ptarver Subject: Re: Graphics in posts List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, July 17, 1997 10:16AM I support the idea of allowing attachments in this mailing list. Regarding the size limitations I feel 50KB is too less, as some of the .BMP bit-map files averages about 300-350KB -Karthik --- - Karthikeyan Ethirajan Applications Engineer (408) 934-3181 California Micro Devices 215 Topaz Street karth...@calmicro.comMilpitas, CA 95035 --- -- >>> 07/16 12:30 PM >>> In a message dated 97-07-16 11:27:44 EDT, Peter Tarver writes: << However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail. Many of the subscribers to this listserver do not have T3 pipes coming into their businesses or subscribe through accounts that are through AOL (the very definition of slow), Compuserve, etc. (all ISPs are not equal), or have a slow modem with max. connection rates less than 14.4kbps. >> For what it's worth, I use both AOL and CompuServe with a 14.4kbps modem. I do this at home, during the evening "online rush hour". The speed is tolerable. In addition, AOL delivers the message portion first, downloading the attached file only when commanded to do so. I believe the advantage in clarity and detail well justifies an occasional larger message. Some size limit should be set. May I suggest 50 Kbytes as a reasonable limit? Regards, Dewayne Ferris Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
Re: Graphics in posts
I too agree that we should be able to make the best use available technology. However, I'm a little disturbed by the term "lowest common denominator" that keeps cropping up. The lowest common denominator happens to be everyone that is subscribed to this list. In the current format, mails sent to the list can be read by everyone and so you have the maximum potential for responses. As you assend further up the technological ladder, more subsctribers are eliminated from the potential audience. I'm glad to see that people are proposing file size limits and file formats to maximize compatibility and minimize download time. These are sensible precautions but we should remember that the reason we all use this list is to share information with all the other list members, reducing your audience reduces the variety of responses received and it's possible the situation will arise where someone says "Hey, I think I can answer that question but I can't open the darned mail". From my own experience, there are few more disheartening and time consuming exercises than sending a mail and then having to resend it in every format under the sun until the recipient can read it. Also I'm guessing that some subscribers are limited in their choice of software due to corporate policy / financial constraints. So, in closing, I agree with using the best tools to help us do our jobs but let's not loose sight of the reason we are using those tools Just my 2 yen worth Martin Ginty Liason Engineer, Mitsubishi Electric, Nagoya Works, Japan The opinions expressed above are mine alone
Re: Graphics in posts
In a message dated 97-07-17 20:39:44 EDT, you write: << I support the idea others have mentioned, of prohibiting attachments and placing them on an ftp site (possibly one specially set up by IEEE for the purpose?) or Website, or offered by email. >> Thank you for your well documented presentation of your view! (I've quoted only a brief excerpt, please see the original for the full text). I've been leaning in favor of allowing short attachments (say up to 50Kb) because: 1) The pain to recipients would appear to be small - 50K is a brief download even at 14.4 Kbps, and the percentage of messages with attachments would be small. 2) I'm concerned that the extra effort of posting files "elsewhere" or sending them via e-mail request would discourage both the sender and receiver from doing this. I suggest anyone else who feels strongly pro or con, or has solutions to offer speak out! Then, I request our esteemed moderator proclaim the policy to be followed. Regards, Dewayne Ferris (dfer...@aol.com) Cosworth Engineering, Inc. Novi, Michigan (USA)
Re: Graphics in posts
May I provide a possible solution to this? RCIC provides a space to share files. You may upload the file to RCIC and share the file location in RCIC with others so that only those who have interests can retrieve the file from the site. It will resolve some people's trouble. Just my two cents. BTW, I just make the new FCC 731 form available in ms-word format. It's in the same download area in RCIC. Probably not many people now use the form because of the DoC, but I hope it will help someone out there. Best regards, Tom RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center
Re: Graphics in posts
Bitmaps could rapidly clog the system as they get shuffled from node to node. How about attaching very small files only, with larger ones available by request or on demand? Bandwidth is not free, even if we don't personally pay for it. Unfortunately, my mail reader does not ask about downloading attachments, when they come through at all. -- From: Flinders, Randall To: emc-pstc Subject: Re: Graphics in posts List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, July 17, 1997 4:25PM I support attached graphics files. Technology is fueled by the need to keep up, if we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator, then the progress of technology is slowed down trmendously. ... File size limitations are a good idea, but 50K seems a little on the small side. I would think 350K would be more prudent.
Re: Graphics in posts
In message "Graphics in posts", eva...@compuserve.com writes: > > Whoa there! > > I am highly computer literate and have no problem decoding any 8 to 7 bit > conversion. You can even zip it if you want (in fact, please do!). But > I'm usually on the road and often trying to connect on noisy lines, at low > baud rates (eg. 2400 baud in Bangkok). > > The last thing I need is somebody sending me an unsolicited 350Kb file, > when I' trying to download all my messages automatically (no, I don't want > to have to download one by one, when there are 50 messages queued up!). > Apart from the obvious tedium of such a download, and it's dubious value to > me, the telecom charges in some countries can be quite outrageous. > > Let's keep in mind that this is an international forum, where not everyone > has the luxury of access to T3 connections, or even 28.8 baud modems or > IPs. > > BTW, Compuserve does not offer to accept attachments, it just bloody well > downloads them. On the other hand, they have the best network of local > numbers all over the world, so switching providers is not an option at this > time. > > And don't even dream of sending a .BMP file! As stated in other messages > on this thread, these files can be very easily converted to .GIF or .JPG, > that are far more compact. > > If we're having a vote on this, I vote for the FTP route (possibly @ieee or > @rcic?). Then, if it's of any interest to me, I can choose to download it. > I really don't want any more junk mail! Please keep in mind the > perspective that your highly inspired jewel of technical or artistic > creativity, may be completely useless grot for the unwitting receiver. > > Alternatively, please keep it to less than 50Kb, or I'll get might hostile. > > :-) > Egon > I, too, prefer the use of an FTP site for graphics. The other benefit of an FTP site is that you can avoid the inevitable trashing of the attachment by your mail handler that prevents the image from being viewed. At least you have the opportunity to download more than once from an FTP site if info gets lost in transit. Geoff Skanes EMC Engineer Nortel Technology RTP, NC
Re: Graphics in posts
Gentlemen: I too often have seen entire groups bored stiff and intellectually stymied by moving at the pace of the most deficient member of a learning group. A perfect example is the California school system that currently ranks about 49th in the USA. To limit the use of (not so) new tools is obscene. We are in an acknowledged "black art" area because of the technical difficulties in modeling, measuring, predicting, and understanding the myriad of factors that affect electromagnetic fields. We NEED the best tools and we NEED the best communication methods and we NEED to use collective synergism of our individual experiences to forward our professions. With these thoughts in mind, we need to be PRUDENT in what is uploaded by using our common sense. Other than that, please do not put more "regulatory requirements" on what I have observed to be a lucid, information-sharing group that represents the field of EMI Engineering well. Mike Conn
re: Graphics in posts
As I installed our companies original Internet connection and still
assist in keeping it up, I thought I would toss in some information
(food for thought) regarding network capabilities:
Our company original went on-line with a "dial on demand ppp" at 14.4
(several years ago). During that time we had newsgroups, web access
(the web came along later) and email all trying to go through the 14.4
modem. It pretty much stayed on-line most of the day to get the email
through. We have upgraded to a partial T1 (and killed newsgroups),
but even with the higher performance our line hits it's max. throughput
4 to 5 hours a day (we are going to upgrade again shortly). I know of
companies today that still have their entire company connected through
14.4 modems (maybe 28.8, but it still painful for them). It is possible
that people who's companies are tied in through the modem approach may
not know that their company uses "slow technology", because it is
transparent to the users.
Even with a fast pipe to the Internet there can be problems. It does
not take a lot of attached email files coming in, to clog up the email
system. Not long ago we had a case where it was taking our email server
over 8 hours to process the incoming and outgoing email. (One user who
was subscribed to a number of email lists was responsible for 90% of the
traffic - he is no longer with us.) Some of the emails contained time
critical data. We had to buy a bigger and faster machine for the email
gateway. No doubt it will become two machines someday. All of which
costs (yes it is the cost of doing business now days). Not long ago
I ran across a company that has a large pipe to the Internet, but ran in
to through put problems. It seems a number of people started to use
Pointcast and other similar services and they clog up their pipe. They
installed a proxy server to fix the problem.
History: Some of the reasons the limits were put on years ago was that
there were countries that only had 300 baud connections. I would have
to imagine that they have upgraded since then, but there could still be
some old slow links around. If there still are such countries still
around, it could be that they do not care about safety, because of the
lack of technology.
Another issue that needs addressed is that the UNIX email reader scrolls
the text part of the message off of the screen, when there is an attached
file, so I can not even see if it is anything I even care about. I save it
to a file then look at it with an editor. If the attachment is in the mime
format, I put it through a converter on my PC. If it is uuencoded I
convert it on UNIX. I have two email accounts one is UNIX (this is where
email lists go to) and a CC:Mail account on a PC.
It might make more sense to allow easy posting of the graphic on an ftp area
on the IEEE server with a http reference in the email. It would minimize
traffic, and people would still be able to access it easily. Anyone with
a websmart email reader can easily click on the reference in the email
and instantly get the file. Those who do not have such an email system
can probably cut and paste it into the web browser (which is what I do at
work).
The catch is more services are starting to take up more of the available
bandwidth and current services are consuming even more. Even though
any one item that consumes more bandwidth is not that big of a deal, sooner
or later there could be the feather that breaks it Having said
all of that I am actual neutral on attached graphics. I see both the
advantages and the disadvantages.
Jim
Jim Bacher, Senior Engineer_\\|//_ Monarch Marking Systems, Inc.
email:j...@mmsday.com (' O-O ') voice:1-937-865-2020
PO Box 608ooO-(_)-Ooofax:1-937-865-2048
Dayton, Ohio 45401-0608---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
170 Monarch Ln., Miamisburg, Ohio 45342--j.bac...@ieee.org
RE: Graphics in posts
To all, I agree with those that are resistant to being subjected to attached graphic files. I, and I'm sure there are others, do not have the time to spend trying to get an attached graphic viewable. I, personally, like text messages because they are very quick to download, the file sizes are typically small, and almost all of the time the pertinent information is described. In my opinion, forcing downloads of emails with attached graphic files is not at all desirable to those with don't want to receive attached files or those with limited resourses. I think that placing the graphic file in a public place would be the most agreeable since the people that prefer receiving emails with graphic files should have sophisticated enough equipment to do that easily. Just announce where the graphic file is and those that want to can then view the graphic to their heart's delight. In addition, there is always the possibility that an attached file contains (albeit, unintentionally) a virus that may do irreparable damage to an unsuspecting computer. I, for one, am unwilling to risk that. > I also vote for the FTP route. I like Egon's view of "if it's of any > interest to me, I can choose to download it." > Well, that's my 2 cents worth on this late Friday afternoon. Best regards, Ron Pickard
Re: Graphics in posts
If I can add a short request--whatever the file you attach to your messages, please try to give it a unique title. Sometimes my mail brings several messages, each with the attachement 'untitled.bin'. As you can imagine, the last overwrites the first, and the last one is usually not the most interesting. Thanks for my turn on the soap-box Frank McCaughey, Consultant frank_mccaug...@compuserve.com
Re: Graphics In Posts
Dear Martin G. Ditto to your response on this issue. Please, lets keep it simple people. Graphics should be considered a luxury at this time and not a necessity to accomplish the regulatory compliance needs of this industry. By-the-By when is the last time anyone saw a Graphics file in a compliance standard Kind regards to all those who oppose. My comments are in no way intended to offend or represent the opinions of my employer.
RE: Graphics In Posts
Industry patrons: , note: Dan Roman. Please, let's keep it a "Level Playing Field" for everyone to reap the benefits. Keep it simple for those of us that are semi-computer illiterate. I have always believed in sticking with the basics, "Everything in moderation". Oh by the way, I do own a name brand Pentium 1Billion MXX1V processor with a Double pipeline mega-watt hard drive, with all the expensive software. Still can't get the damn thing to do what I want, even with all the bells and whistles, "YOUR COMPUTER APPLICATION HAS STOPPED RESPONDING DO YOU WISH TO END THIS TASK???" .TIFF that JPEG this FORWARD that. Some times just prefer to use Mr. Fax for that bull-caca. Note: Dan Roman, I stand corrected Dan. My earlier statement "When was the last time you saw a Graphics File in a standard"??? was completely inaccurate. In fact, from what I've been told in the past, there are many helpful graphic files that can be created from any number of standards; schematics, diagrams and even text. If you decide to distribute partial copies of UL or BSI standards over the net without interfering with copy-write laws please let me know how this can be achieved? This company would prefer to computerize the entire document library. E-mail me directly. Thanks for your consideration. -Original Message- From: Dan Roman Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 1997 6:38 AM To: Steve Kuiper Subject:Re: Graphics In Posts Steve Kuiper wrote in part: > Ditto to your response on this issue. Please, lets keep it simple people. > Graphics should be considered a luxury at this time and not a necessity to A picture is often worth a thousand words, what could be simpler than that? I refuse to bow to the least common denominator and if a graphic gets the point across I'll use the technology available to do so. This is not rocket science. Encoding and decoding a graphic in email is child's play! It's time people were dragged out of the 80's, kicking and screaming if necessary. > accomplish the regulatory compliance needs of this industry. By-the-By when > is the last time anyone saw a Graphics file in a compliance standard Kind When is the last time you did not see a graphics file in a compliance standard? For instance, UL 1950 has over two dozen figures and if those aren't graphics files I don't know what are! -- Dan Roman | mailto:rom...@dialogic.com http://www.dialogic.com Compliance Engineer | Personal: mailto:da...@intac.com Dialogic Corp, NJ | Homebrew is better brew!
Graphics in Posts. Signatures.
Good folk of the EMC-PSTC. 1. Graphics. My Email is all managed by my Compuserve connection, and that now automatically, seamlessly (their word), and transparently (my word) decodes anything that comes in very succesfully, I simply get a screen message that xxx file is save as in the DOWNLOAD directory. It uses the MIME protocol, recognises most encoding, and - so far- is totally useful and succesful. I have a 28.8 phone connection, and simply click on the 'GET ALL' button and downloads, including all graphics, texts, WAV's, dogs, chickens and the smell of a pink rose at dawn rarely take more than 2-3 minutes to complete. I typically have 30-40 mails waiting when I connect. On a good day, simple text files complete downloading in 20-40 seconds, and it dials up, and hangs up in less than a minute. 2. Signatures. Compuserve (WinCim 2.6) doesn't have a facility for auto signatures, and I would spend a day typing out Email addresses, post adresses, phone numbers, dates, jokes, etc. on each mail I send/reply to, so I rely on the mail header (picked up by just about all mail software when the REPLY button is pressed) as my route back to me. One thing I do do, is add my geographical location to my signature, that has to be sensible. I dont supply my full address as I don't want Claudia Schiffer and Jennifer Aniston to find where I've moved to. On a world-wide forum such as this, we have submissions from all over the world, and probably some from Mars as well, and it puts a perspective on things if we know the source of the comments. Just an unsolicited bar of chocolates worth from the UK. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. Email: chris_dup...@compuserve.com tel: +44 (0) 1342 843154 fax: +44 (0) 1342 844219 mobile: +44 (0) 831 785514 page: +44 (0) 839 495284 in car pager +44 (0) 336 707070 ident No. 128163 Technical Manager, Scancard Inspection Systems Ltd., 8, Westminster Court. Hipley Street, Old Woking, Surrey GU22 9LQ UK Tel: +44 (0) 1483 728230 Fax: +44 (0) 1483 768815 Email 73041.3...@compuserve.com <> Home page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/chris_dupres/ etc. etc.
Re: Graphics in posts
> I support the idea of allowing attachments in this mailing list. Regarding the > size limitations I feel 50KB is too less, as some of the .BMP bit-map files > averages about 300-350KB Whoa there! I am highly computer literate and have no problem decoding any 8 to 7 bit conversion. You can even zip it if you want (in fact, please do!). But I'm usually on the road and often trying to connect on noisy lines, at low baud rates (eg. 2400 baud in Bangkok). The last thing I need is somebody sending me an unsolicited 350Kb file, when I' trying to download all my messages automatically (no, I don't want to have to download one by one, when there are 50 messages queued up!). Apart from the obvious tedium of such a download, and it's dubious value to me, the telecom charges in some countries can be quite outrageous. Let's keep in mind that this is an international forum, where not everyone has the luxury of access to T3 connections, or even 28.8 baud modems or IPs. BTW, Compuserve does not offer to accept attachments, it just bloody well downloads them. On the other hand, they have the best network of local numbers all over the world, so switching providers is not an option at this time. And don't even dream of sending a .BMP file! As stated in other messages on this thread, these files can be very easily converted to .GIF or .JPG, that are far more compact. If we're having a vote on this, I vote for the FTP route (possibly @ieee or @rcic?). Then, if it's of any interest to me, I can choose to download it. I really don't want any more junk mail! Please keep in mind the perspective that your highly inspired jewel of technical or artistic creativity, may be completely useless grot for the unwitting receiver. Alternatively, please keep it to less than 50Kb, or I'll get might hostile. :-) Egon __ Egon H. Varju, P.Eng. Friday, 18 July 1997 @ 9:29 PM CSA Pacific Region Tel: 1-604-244-6640 HAVE MODEM - WILL TRAVEL Fax: 1-604-244-6600 E-mail:eva...@compuserve.com var...@csa.ca e...@varju.bc.ca __
Graphics in Posts. Signatures.
Chris, Having to type in your signature over and over again is boring and, to say the least, uncivilized in this day and age. :-) I'm also using Compuserve for most of my e-mail. There is a nice little shareware program that makes it easy to add signatures to the messages. It's called "EMail Assist for WinCIM" and can be downloaded from Compuserve. Can't remember where it's located, but you'll find it if you search for "EAWC." Includes some other very useful features, like quoting messages in replies and spelling check. It basically upgrades WinCim to the level of the more sophisticated e-mail programs. Try it, you'll like it. Cheers, Egon > 2. Signatures. > Compuserve (WinCim 2.6) doesn't have a facility for auto signatures, and I > would spend a day typing out Email addresses, post adresses, phone numbers, > dates, jokes, etc. on each mail I send/reply to, so I rely on the mail > header (picked up by just about all mail software when the REPLY button is > pressed) as my route back to me. __ Egon H. Varju, P.Eng. Thursday, 24 July 1997 @ 12:27 AM CSA Pacific Region Tel: 1-604-244-6640 HAVE MODEM - WILL TRAVEL Fax: 1-604-244-6600 E-mail:eva...@compuserve.com var...@csa.ca e...@varju.bc.ca __ (D)inner not ready: (A)bort (R)etry (P)izza.
