On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:47:49AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:43:46 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > >The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size. > >There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large, > >useful ones. I don't think we should ignore large, useful attachments just > >because large, useless ones exist. > > As the size of an attachment increases, the value of it decresses.
I disagree. I maintain that the size and value of an attachment are orthogonal. > There comes a point where one should not send the attachment, period, and > use other means which have been available for years. Who are you to dictate this to me? If you can come up with a 100% transparent method of doing the actual file transfer via FTP or sendfile-type mechanisms, then that's excellent and it should be adopted. If not, I'll keep using email thanks. Perhaps it would be better if there were an 8-bit clean email system so that base64 encoding wasn't needed. That would save us a bunch of space too. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
