large attachements!!!!!!!!

Archiver · 2000-08-16 16:17

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, master_anthoni wrote:

> Les,
>
> I think that you only have to wait for an attachment to dl
> when you actually click to read it or dl it.
>

Wrong,, waiting for me to delete when I got home........317k

Dale Harwood [noparse][[/noparse] N4VFF ]

internet> dale@h...

ax.25> n4vff@n4vff.#cha.tn.usa.noam

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Archiver · 2000-08-16 16:54

Gary

Please refrain from sending such large attachements to the list. Not only is
it annoying to have to wait for a 200+ k file to download. But it wastes
valuable space on my harddrive. If large files need refering to, please
place them on a web site so people have a choice whether they want them or
not.

Regards
Les

Archiver · 2000-08-16 17:09

Les,

I think that you only have to wait for an attachment to dl
when you actually click to read it or dl it.

Nice post Gary.

Anthoni

--- In basicstamps@egroups.com, "Les" <les@t...> wrote:
> Gary
>
> Please refrain from sending such large attachements to the list.
Not
only is
> it annoying to have to wait for a 200+ k file to download. But it
wastes
> valuable space on my harddrive. If large files need refering to,
please
> place them on a web site so people have a choice whether they want
them or
> not.
>
>
> Regards
> Les

Archiver · 2000-08-16 17:55

Les <les@t...> said:

> Gary
>
> Please refrain from sending such large attachements to the list. Not only is
> it annoying to have to wait for a 200+ k file to download. But it wastes
> valuable space on my harddrive. If large files need refering to, please
> place them on a web site so people have a choice whether they want them or
> not.

valuable space?? a new 10G hard drive costs less than $200 these days.. that
means that to store a 200k file costs you about 0.4 cents (yes I calculated
it) The energy to get it there probably cost you more than the actual storage
space.

I'm not saying it's ok to send huge files, but you're complaining about
spending a penny or two.

________________________
Jason Lavoie

Archiver · 2000-08-16 18:43

I hardidly agree that attachments should only be sent via private mail if
requested. Not that I didn't want Gary's attachement. Still just blindly
sending attachments to the whole list should be a no, no..... ==Mac==

At 04:54 PM 8/16/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Gary
>
>Please refrain from sending such large attachements to the list. Not only is
>it annoying to have to wait for a 200+ k file to download. But it wastes
>valuable space on my harddrive. If large files need refering to, please
>place them on a web site so people have a choice whether they want them or
>not.
>
>
> Regards
> Les

Archiver · 2000-08-16 21:01

200K times the number of receipients to the list = very large
bandwidth!! Who pays for that??

.mark

>

>From: jlavoie@e...[noparse]/noparse]SMTP:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=D-0Crp6xigodhI2vC_g88cRvzhy5m3hgnapQc8pTpOSkDBR27kRd8sbYZLMz_4yt6NrxL8WOQJgVmzpdhtWXnQ]jlavoie@e...[/url
>Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 9:55 AM
>To: basicstamps@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] large attachements!!!!!!!!
>
>Les <les@t...> said:
>
>> Gary
>>
>> Please refrain from sending such large attachements to the list. Not only
>>is
>> it annoying to have to wait for a 200+ k file to download. But it wastes
>> valuable space on my harddrive. If large files need refering to, please
>> place them on a web site so people have a choice whether they want them or
>> not.
>
>valuable space?? a new 10G hard drive costs less than $200 these days.. that
>means that to store a 200k file costs you about 0.4 cents (yes I calculated
>it) The energy to get it there probably cost you more than the actual storage
>space.
>
>I'm not saying it's ok to send huge files, but you're complaining about
>spending a penny or two.
>
>________________________
>Jason Lavoie
>
>
>
>
>
>

Archiver · 2000-08-17 04:40

Sorry to hear ya got that slow of a connection.

MA

--- In basicstamps@egroups.com, Dale Harwood <dale@h...> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, master_anthoni wrote:
>
> > Les,
> >
> > I think that you only have to wait for an attachment to dl
> > when you actually click to read it or dl it.
> >
>
> Wrong,, waiting for me to delete when I got home........317k
>
>
> Dale Harwood [noparse][[/noparse] N4VFF ]
>
> internet> dale@h...
>
> ax.25> n4vff@n4vff.#cha.tn.usa.noam
>
> #include <std_disclaimer.h>

Archiver · 2000-08-17 12:51

All,

I agree. It's not about hard disk space, etc. it's about people that may be
using slow connections - I sometimes connect using cellular, and this gets
9600bps tops, so it would have miffed me a bit to have received this
attachement this way.

Basic netiquette dictates that it's 'forbidden' to send attachments with
messages posted to mailing lists, and that users should refrain from using
HTML in them - it doubles the effective size of a message.

Besides, binary attachments need to be encoded in ascii-form (UUEncode,
MIME, etc.) to make it compatible with all servers, gateways, etc. which
means in most cases doubling the size of the attachment itself.

You can do a simple test of this. Send to yourself some binary file, like an
.exe or .jpg, and see the dial-up connection status window. If the file is
50k, most times you'll be sending (and receiving) 100k.

Enough said I think.

All the best, and happy posting,

Mike

Mensaje original

De: schoon@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=f56VUw1K6-gu5y-29UPaoOk8sGzsXzV_AHARIWt41HggC_PnKHk3TypiSh5kW3cOrGLLrROXcQ]schoon@a...[/url
Enviado el: mi

Archiver · 2000-08-17 18:56

Concerned about bandwidth? Has anyone thought about the bandwidth this
massage tread is wasting?
lw

Lincoln J. Worsham
liworsha@g...
Neuro Engineering Laboratory
NASA Ames Research Center MS 269-1
Moffett Field CA 94035-1000
Phone 650-604-0461
Fax 650-604-3594

http://www.arc.nasa.gov/computing.html

Archiver · 2000-08-17 20:00

I was just thinking the same way as I read all those useless messages...
I also sent an attachment few weeks ago (instructions list), but I was
pretty new on this list.. I apologize ;-)))
Phil.

Original Message

From: Lincoln Worsham <liworsha@g...>
To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] large attachements!!!!!!!!

> Concerned about bandwidth? Has anyone thought about the bandwidth this
> massage tread is wasting?
> lw
>
> Lincoln J. Worsham
> liworsha@g...
> Neuro Engineering Laboratory
> NASA Ames Research Center MS 269-1
> Moffett Field CA 94035-1000
> Phone 650-604-0461
> Fax 650-604-3594
>
> http://www.arc.nasa.gov/computing.html
>
>
>
>
>

Archiver · 2000-08-18 05:09

Dale:

You may have your email client configured to automatically download
attachments...NOT a good thing.

Best regards,

AuntBea

>From: "master_anthoni " <master_anthoni@h...>
>Reply-To: basicstamps@egroups.com
>To: basicstamps@egroups.com
>Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Re: large attachements!!!!!!!!
>Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:40:40 -0000
>
>Sorry to hear ya got that slow of a connection.
>
>MA
>
>
>--- In basicstamps@egroups.com, Dale Harwood <dale@h...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, master_anthoni wrote:
> >
> > > Les,
> > >
> > > I think that you only have to wait for an attachment to dl
> > > when you actually click to read it or dl it.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong,, waiting for me to delete when I got home........317k
> >
> >
> > Dale Harwood [noparse][[/noparse] N4VFF ]
> >
> > internet> dale@h...
> >
> > ax.25> n4vff@n4vff.#cha.tn.usa.noam
> >
> > #include <std_disclaimer.h>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

large attachements!!!!!!!!

Comments