> --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. You begin by talking about "banning large attachments". You then segue into a discussion where you talk about a maximum size that includes the primary message content, not attachments, then you throw in disclaimers, which may or may not be attachments. Other have followed up by supporting the limit on attachment size, others still have talked about banning attachments regardless of size. Do you see the problem here? The minute you start focusing on specifics of message content, you're in a rathole. What counts as an attachment? (And yes, we have a precise definition for what constitutes an attachement, but following that definition gives people the ability to route around it.) It follows that any limit needs to be on overall message size. (Even this is a little perilous because message sizes can change due to MIME downgrading or upgrading, both of which happen regularly.) I would not be opposed to imposing such a limit, although it's going to need to be higher than some people would probably like - it's surprising how easily you can approach 1Mb with a single part, plain text message containing nothing remotely resembling an "attachment". Ned