Re: bandwidth

[quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne)]

In message <v03130305b354e4505f6a@[206.106.147.12]> Philip Rose writes:

> But I wonder: wouldn't there be some straightforward way for our
> listmeister to prevent things such as binary-file posting and (especially)
> entire-digest-quoting by automatically rejecting any message that exceeds a
> reasonable size limit--something like 5 or 6K? Or maybe it's not so
> "straightforward" to detect (and return) a posting based upon its size?
> Also, an "understanding" to limit sig lines to one's Audi-and
> address-information could also be beneficial, IMHO.

Some perfectly legitimate items are pretty large.

Unka Bart posted his "Home again, at last!" at 9780 bytes.

Igor Kessel topped it in November with 11470 bytes about brakes.

Both were, IMO, excellent and well worth reading and paying for.  Size
per se is not the issue - it's [new] content.

(IMO the same goes for the massive missives we see occasionally about
 local events like Pikes Peak.  For those of us who can't get there ...)

I'm reluctant to suggest that anything over nKB be moderated, because
Dan already has enough to do.  It's all down to self-discipline.

And (IMO) we're picking nits, because this is already one of the best
mailing lists around.

--
 Phil Payne
 Phone: 0385 302803   Fax: 01536 723021
 (The contents of this post will _NOT_ appear in the UK Newsletter.)