--On Thursday, March 15, 2012 00:00 -0400 Ross Callon
<rcallon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't like this proposal for two reasons: I frequently read
> email while not connected; When connected, bandwidths have
> gotten high enough that attachments on the most part are not
> slowing things down in an uncomfortable way.
>
> It might be okay for really large attachments, as long as only
> a few messages are affected.
Borrowing a bit from Randy, the solution to really large
attachments is to ban them. Personally, I'd find it perfectly
reasonable to have any message in the megabyte range or above
(or probably even an order of magnitude smaller) rejected with a
message that amounted to "if you have that much to say, write an
I-D, post it, and point to it". That is much more plausible
today, when the mean time between I-D submission and posting is
measured in minutes (except during blackout periods) than when
it was in days. During blackout periods, the last thing the
community needs is people adding to already-overloaded lists by
posting long documents in email.
If people want to use up part of their maximum size quota by
posting html in addition to text, or appending long disclaimers
or autobiographies, that shouldn't the community's problem.
john