As one of those who followed Jeff's request and replied to the original
message 'privately',
I have been following this discussion with interest. I replied to him as
follows:

> I agree with you but with a slight modification of option 2. Let the
recipients know that
> an attachment was removed 'for their safety' and that they should contact
the sender
> 'privately' if they need a copy of it.

The reasoning behind my reply was:

1) Very few messages have attachments. Out of the 80+ messages that have
arrived here today, only 1 had an attachment and that was done by our ISP as
the character set was not supported by them and the message was put into a
text file.

2) Only enough details that will attract the attention of list members that
can help should be sent.

3) If messages are too large and require a lot of reading then they are
likely to get zapped early by a reader who could of helped. As an TV and
Radio advert running in the UK at the moment says 'LESS IS MORE'.

Well, that's my £0.02 worth.

Robert W.Mills (Windsong Services)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jansen, Eric [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 4:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Admistrivia: Good news - don't forget Usenet!!


Hi @,@.@

Why not keep it possible to send attachments and do the following:
1. download the attachment to a file on a central server @raven.utc.edu
2. create a link in the message to this file
3. send this changed message to everybody in the list

This way:
1. the message stays very small
2. you still have the ability to send any word/excel/...-attachment to the
listserver
3. anybody who wants to see the attachment can download it

I am not sure if this is technically possible but I think it is worth
trying.


Kind regards,


Eric JANSEN
Technical Consultant
Computer Design & Integration
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Phone:  201-931-1420 x313
Fax:      201-931-0101

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Brown [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Admistrivia: Good news - don't forget Usenet!!
>
>
> In article
> <[log in to unmask]>
> , James B. Byrne <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >> *1 No attachments:  Any mail containing attachments will be
> >> bounced back to the sender with an error message.
> >
> >This option has my vote.  Attachments, however generated,
> >have no business being sent to mailing lists.  The only way to
> >correct the problem is to bring to the attention of the offender
> >in a manner that cannot be overlooked.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Jim
>
> Hey, folks, remember that not everything on the HP3000-L list
> was mailed
> in directly.
>
> Some of it (and this in particular) is reaching you via the
> gateway from
> comp.sys.hp.mpe.
>
> And even though *I* know not to post attachments to comp.sys.hp.mpe,
> others might not.
>
> In which case, option (2), of stripping the attachment before
> it reaches
> HP3000-L, is a good idea, and certainly gets my vote.
>
> But option (1) of rejecting it to the sender (who may have no
> idea about
> the arrangements with HP3000-L) does not.
>
> If fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't breach an RFC
> somewhere :-)
>
> For similar reasons, 'silently' not accepting even the text
> part of such
> postings onto HP3000-L wouldn't get my vote either.
>
> There may be similar considerations regarding postings from
> 3kworld.com,
> too....
>
> --
> Roy Brown  'Have nothing on your systems that you do not know to be
> Affirm Ltd  useful, or believe to be beautiful'. (After) Wm Morris.
>