HTML size has a loose relationship to the text size, Especially if comments are put on the top (that was in my and Pascal's case). Ed/ > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch [mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 12:24 PM > To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Vasilenko Eduard > <vasilenko.eduard@xxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: The IETF's email mess [was: RE: Large messages to 6man list] > > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of S Moonesamy > <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 23 August 2023 08:55 > > Hi Eduard, > At 12:32 AM 23-08-2023, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: > >Maybe I do not understand what tools chairs have. > > There is a web page where the moderator/mailing list administrator > can adjust the default settings, e.g. maximum message size. > > >Pascal and I had a hot discussion about one technology. We were > >using HTML (that probably cross the 80k limit). > > I took a quick look at the mailing list traffic. There were three > emails over 80 KB. > > >Of course, we are subscribed to the 6man. > >Then Chair asked us to do something (plain text, cut history, > >whatever) to release him from the duty of approving manually our e-mails. > >Of course, it is not right that somebody should approve my e-mails > manually. > > The alternatives are: > > (a) increase the limit for maximum message size. > > (b) Get consensus on what you were requested to do. > > The first alternative is easier. > > <tp> > And the most anti-social IMHO. > > If you cannot say it in 80kbyte, then I do not want to read it:-( > > Tom Petch > > p.s. > When the e-mails gets large, for some meaning of the word, I look to edit out > the thread up to the last post of the person I am responding to. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy
