I’m sorry sir Batsman but that [60668] mail is only around 4K (and I’m using
the very heavy client -ms outlook). I guess it depends on the client then…
sir Matz has set it to 16k, maybe you can ask him to raise it a bit…
[http://www.ruby-talk.org/60668] for instance is quite bigger than 10KB.
Even text-only messages might be longer than 20KB (and certainly more
than 10KB).
For some reason Mark’s post (60668) included the message twice (once
as an attachment), taking its size to around 17kb. Brennan’s follow-up
in the thread did the same for an even larger message. What do they
have in common? Client: Apple Mail.
It’s very unusual to have a no-nonsense text message > 16kb. But I’ve
found one exception: NaHi’s declaration (58018) that RAA project names
would freeze, which included all current project names. While this
post is obviously justified, a 16kb limit would not be too harmful in
this case: he could either put the list on the Wiki (or elsewhere),
or as a compressed attachment.
Gavin
···
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, 7:38:52 PM, Botp wrote:
[http://www.ruby-talk.org/60668] for instance is quite bigger than
10KB. Even text-only messages might be longer than 20KB (and
certainly more than 10KB).
I’m sorry sir Batsman but that [60668] mail is only around 4K (and
I’m using the very heavy client -ms outlook). I guess it depends on
the client then… sir Matz has set it to 16k, maybe you can ask him
to raise it a bit…
In message “Re: attachment:ot -was RE: A very humour game” on 03/01/07, “Peña, Botp” botp@delmonte-phil.com writes:
I agree. In fact, 10k limit is fine for me, too.
[http://www.ruby-talk.org/60668] for instance is quite bigger than 10KB.
Even text-only messages might be longer than 20KB (and certainly more
than 10KB).
I’m sorry sir Batsman but that [60668] mail is only around 4K (and I’m using
the very heavy client -ms outlook). I guess it depends on the client then…
sir Matz has set it to 16k, maybe you can ask him to raise it a bit…
If somebody had trouble about the new limit, feel free to ask me.
It’s very unusual to have a no-nonsense text message > 16kb. But I’ve
found one exception: NaHi’s declaration (58018) that RAA project names
would freeze, which included all current project names. While this
post is obviously justified, a 16kb limit would not be too harmful in
this case: he could either put the list on the Wiki (or elsewhere),
or as a compressed attachment.
Agreed. I had to do so. I’m sorry for bothering you all.
30kb mail was too much for me as well (Then, why did I do that?)
Back to the topic, I don’t have an idea to decide the limit of
this list. MIME alternative (text and html) mail tend to become
big. Prohibit HTML mail? I dislike it but…
ok, the problem is not really Apple Mail in particular but any mailers
that are set up to send both RTF or HTML and plain text copies of their
messages. normally this seems fine to me but I appreciate your argument
that it adds up quickly on a high-volume mailing list. I wish there
were some way to make a client only send RTF/HTML with certain
on-computer profiles or not send both to certain addresses, but there
are none unless the client can be scripted with something like
AppleScript (Mail can be, but I don’t know applescript).
is it possible to block attachments based on type with the software
this ML uses?
if so, why not block attachments of text/enriched or text/html?
in the meantime something to keep in mind is that several clients (Mail
and Eudora and Outlook) can set messages to plain text only on a msg
per msg basis. this could be done when one is about to send a large msg.
brennan
···
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 03:54 AM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
For some reason Mark’s post (60668) included the message twice (once
as an attachment), taking its size to around 17kb. Brennan’s follow-up
in the thread did the same for an even larger message. What do they
have in common? Client: Apple Mail.
At Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:05:49 +0900, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi nahi@keynauts.com wrote:
Back to the topic, I don’t have an idea to decide the limit of
this list. MIME alternative (text and html) mail tend to become
big. Prohibit HTML mail? I dislike it but…
Agree. Altenative HTML parts are almost useless and should be
stripped.
Back to the topic, I don’t have an idea to decide the limit of
this list. MIME alternative (text and html) mail tend to become
big. Prohibit HTML mail? I dislike it but…
–
Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@panoptic.com
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
“He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly – then you can let go and quickly move on.” (p. 70)
Agree. Altenative HTML parts are almost useless and should be
stripped.
Speaking of stripping; when replying people should generally strip out
any text they are not commenting on. Its wasteful to reply to say a 7k
message, quoting it verbaitum (sp?) and only adding a few bytes of new
material.
At Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:44:50 +0900, Robert McGovern wrote:
Speaking of stripping; when replying people should generally strip out
any text they are not commenting on. Its wasteful to reply to say a 7k
message, quoting it verbaitum (sp?) and only adding a few bytes of new
material.
Agreed, but it would be hard to do it automatically.
Speaking of stripping; when replying people should generally strip out
any text they are not commenting on.
Agreed, but it would be hard to do it automatically.
True, I must admit I wasn’t thinking that it should be done automatically.
Thought it could be an interesting little side project for someone. When
an email comes in, somehow analyze it against previous articles in the
thread & the levels of indentation (the >'s) and take only a select
(read definable) number of lines from the older articles and leave any
new text intact.
in some mail clients (like apple mail), if you select the text you want
to reply to in the original email, then press reply / quote, your new
message will only quote the highlighted text. this saves some cutting
after the fact.
brennan
···
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 06:20 AM, Robert McGovern wrote:
Speaking of stripping; when replying people should generally strip
out
any text they are not commenting on.
Agreed, but it would be hard to do it automatically.
Am Dienstag, 7. Januar 2003 14:52 schrieb Brennan Leathers:
in some mail clients (like apple mail), if you select the text you want
to reply to in the original email, then press reply / quote, your new
message will only quote the highlighted text. this saves some cutting
after the fact.
