Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:47:49AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:43:46 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> >The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size.
> >There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large,
> >useful ones. I don't think we should ignore large, useful attachments just
> >because large, useless ones exist.
>
> As the size of an attachment increases, the value of it decresses.
I disagree. I maintain that the size and value of an attachment
are orthogonal.
> There comes a point where one should not send the attachment, period, and
> use other means which have been available for years.
Who are you to dictate this to me?
If you can come up with a 100% transparent method of doing the actual file
transfer via FTP or sendfile-type mechanisms, then that's excellent and
it should be adopted. If not, I'll keep using email thanks.
Perhaps it would be better if there were an 8-bit clean email system so that
base64 encoding wasn't needed. That would save us a bunch of space too.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD.
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Reply to: