Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi Syafril, On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, at 00:45:31 [GMT +0700] (18:45 where I live) you wrote: SH> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:12:25 +0100 Adam Rykala SH> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I think what he meant to say was "...Who have access to e-mail >> >> > but not the www." >> >> >> >> Yupe, it is c

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:12:25 +0100 Adam Rykala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > I think what he meant to say was "...Who have access to e-mail > >> > but not the www." > >> > >> Yupe, it is common in big company. > > fwn> If that is the case, I consider subscribing to TB* lists using > fwn> suc

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi flash, On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, at 08:54:26 [GMT +0700 (JAVT)] (02:54 where I live) you wrote: fwn> On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:33:03AM +0700, Syafril Hermansyah wrote: >> > I think what he meant to say was "...Who have access to e-mail but not >> > the www." >> >> Yupe, it is common in big

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi Syafril, On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 03:33:03 +0700 GMT (Aug 03, 02:18 my local time), you [SH] wrote SH> Yupe, it is common in big company. Also a cheaper option for lot of people in developing countries -- Cheers,Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP.

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi Thomas, On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:39:57 +0700 GMT (Aug 03, 00:24 my local time), you [TF] wrote TF> I've tried that. For some reason I have never managed to receive TF> or send emails without access to the internet. What am I doing TF> wrong? haha... God is punishing you for being too sarcastic

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:33:03AM +0700, Syafril Hermansyah wrote: > > I think what he meant to say was "...Who have access to e-mail but not > > the www." > > Yupe, it is common in big company. If that is the case, I consider subscribing to TB* lists using such a company email address is impol

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:33:29PM +0100, Marck D Pearlstone wrote: > So, at 1KB/sec that means a .775 second overhead per message to you. > That's ¤ 0.000222 per message. this calculation doesn't include 'unable to allocate memory problem' on list machine :-))) btw, without all of these luxurie

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:25:02 +0200 Jernej Simonèiè <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SP>> Keeping the subscribe/unsubscribe footers as it is will benefit > SP>those> who have an access to email but not the Internet. > TF> I've tried that. For some reason I have never managed to receive > TF> or send em

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Thomas, 2. avgust 2002, 20:39:57, you wrote: SP>> Keeping the subscribe/unsubscribe footers as it is will benefit those SP>> who have an access to email but not the Internet. TF> I've tried that. For some reason I have never managed to receive or TF> send emails without access to the inte

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, at 07:30:24 [GMT -0500], Allie C Martin wrote: ACM> If I get more OK's on this approach, especially from my fellow ACM> moderator Marck, then I'll work on a page this evening. I'm not an ACM> accomplished HTML author so don't expe

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Dierk, > I am still working on a filter that finds text... > ... > ... > ... Then a report is created and sent via e-mail to one of my > addresses. That's done by one of the default filters in Becky ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.60c _

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Syafril, > And you need type in bla...bla...bla text as above to make your own > posting not filter by your junk filter ? LOL! It's simple with a complicated RegExp. ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.60c __

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, August 02, 2002, Sudip Pokhrel wrote... ACM>> For important discussion list information please go to: ACM>> Upon going to the URL all the information in the footer will be ACM>> clearly displayed *and* explained. > Keeping the subscribe

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi Allie, On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:04:57 -0500 GMT (Aug 02, 17:49 my local time), you [ACM] wrote ACM> Personally, I believe in the use of a single link to which all ACM> the information given is displayed, such as: ACM> For important discussion list information please go to: ACM> Upon going to

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Friday, 8/2/02, 10:19 AM Hi Dierk, On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, at 18:41:15 [GMT +0200] (which was 9:41 AM where I live) you wrote about: 'TBUDL Bandwidth' DH> One exception, in Northrine-Westphalia there are some locales where DH> our next federal election will be held with the help o

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Marck! On Friday, August 2, 2002 at 2:44:12 PM you wrote: > Footers: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Vote%20Footers > URL: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Vote%20URL Undecided is (as always with elections*) missing. I don't have enough information to vote other than "undecided". *

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Miguel! On Friday, August 2, 2002 at 1:47:47 PM you wrote: > I have an even more sophisticated filter that looks for _significant_ > text I am still working on a filter that finds text that is significant to me, copies it out, puts it into a Word document, format it for clearance's sake.

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:00:38 +0200 "Miguel A. Urech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neither Winamp nor WinZip could determine which X-mailer was used to .. > > BTW. How many percent your filter give false positive result (at > > least at your point of view) ? > > I would say 20 to 50% ;-) An

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

ON Friday, August 2, 2002, 1:33:29 PM, you wrote: Let not forget that you also need to multiply this with the number of subscribers on this group. Als there is a sending as next to the receiving charge. In the end it al adds up. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Neither Winamp nor WinZip could determine which X-mailer was used to write the message that will appear above if you are using TB and select View/View threads by/Reference. If so, you will be able to also see who wrote it, the subject, the date and time it was written and the message ID. Anyway, m

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:58:45 +0200 "Miguel A. Urech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So you do not like brief one-liners that are to the point but prefer > > to receive long verbose messages? ;-) > > I agree with you, percentages can be quite tricky :-) Yupe, that's why Moderators not activate qu

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Thomas, > So you do not like brief one-liners that are to the point but prefer > to receive long verbose messages? ;-) I agree with you, percentages can be quite tricky :-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.60c ___

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jan, @02 August 2002, 09:34 -0400 (14:34 UK time) Jan Rifkinson in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck D Pearlstone: > Sorry to a bit thick here: are these to vote 'for' or > 'against' headers/footers? TIA If you want foo

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi Marck. At 8:44 AM on Friday, August 02, 2002 you wrote the following about [TBUDL Bandwidth]: MDP> Okay - can we have an off-list poll. Anyone who gives-a-fig can a MDP> hit one of these: MDP> Footers: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Vote%20Footers MDP> URL: mailto:[EMA

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Marck, On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:33:29 +0100 GMT (02/08/02, 18:33 +0700 GMT), Marck D Pearlstone wrote: MDP> So, at 1KB/sec that means a .775 second overhead per message to you. MDP> That's ¤ 0.000222 per message. At a hundred messages per day, this stays within affordability range for me. I

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Miguel, On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:47:47 +0200 GMT (02/08/02, 18:47 +0700 GMT), Miguel A. Urech wrote: MAU> I have an even more sophisticated filter that looks for MAU> _significant_ text in messages and evaluates its length in bytes. MAU> If significant text length is less than 5% of total mes

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Allie, @02 August 2002, 07:30 -0500 (13:30 UK time) Allie C Martin in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Jan Rifkinson on TBUDL: JR>> I tend to agree with you, Allie. Why don't we try it for a while & JR>> see what happens? > If I

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Rifkinson [JR] wrote: JR> I tend to agree with you, Allie. Why don't we try it for a while & JR> see what happens? If I get more OK's on this approach, especially from my fellow moderator Ma

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hi Allie. At 8:04 AM on Friday, August 02, 2002 you wrote the following about [TBUDL Bandwidth]: ACM> Personally, I believe in the use of a single link to ACM> which all the information given is displayed, such as: ACM> For important discussion list information please go to: ACM>

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marck D Pearlstone [MDP] wrote: MDP> The bottom line is that I sincerely believe there should be a MDP> footer but am open to suggestions about what is or is not vital MDP> information in it. Pe

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Syafril, > Maybe you may consider to create specific filter which only download > body text (content) without message header, or strip out some headers on > the fly while download messages :- I have an even more sophisticated filter that looks for _significant_ text in messages and eva

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, @02 August 2002, 17:06 +0700 (11:06 UK time) Thomas F. [TF] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Gerard on TBUDL: TF> I pay THB 35/hr (about ¤ 0.80/hr). My average download speed is a low TF> 1KB/sec. With the volume of th

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:35:47 +0200 "Miguel A. Urech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll be brief to be consistent with my "bandwidth conservation > campaign". So what! ;-) Maybe you may consider to create specific filter which only download body text (content) without message header, or strip out

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Marck, > All YahooGroups lists do. So do others. I'll be brief to be consistent with my "bandwidth conservation campaign". So what! ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.60c Current Ver: 1.

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Miguel, @02 August 2002, 12:13 +0200 (11:13 UK time) Miguel A. Urech [MAU] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Gerard: MAU> ... Of the 25+ mailing list I am subscribed to, only TB ones do MAU> use these headers. All YahooGroups

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Gerard, > I agree on your bandwidht concern. Thanks :) > As I understand it the headers function as menu items under > specials|mailing list but have to be present in each mail. Yes, I know. And, to me, some of the most useless menu options in TB. Of the 25+ mailing list I am subscrib

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello Gerard, On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:52:58 +0200 GMT (02/08/02, 16:52 +0700 GMT), Gerard wrote: G> I agree on your bandwidht concern. Give me (a DUN connection user) please a little math for this "waste of bandwidth". Please compare it to ML's that don't use these headers or footers, but many u

Re: TBUDL Bandwidth

ON Friday, August 2, 2002, 11:20:59 AM, you wrote: MAU> Hello all, MAU> The monthly Mission Statement reminder received yesterday reminded me MAU> of something I wanted to propose some time ago. MAU> Couldn't these headers: >> List-help: >> List-unsubsc

TBUDL Bandwidth

Hello all, The monthly Mission Statement reminder received yesterday reminded me of something I wanted to propose some time ago. Couldn't these headers: > List-help: > List-unsubscribe: > List-ID: The Bat! User Discussion List