From: Dossy Date: 2003-01-07T21:41:35+09:00 Subject: Re: A very humour game On 2003.01.07, Brennan Leathers wrote: > you make a very valid point about technical lists. but again, for ppl > who want to post code samples of some sort, it is sometimes a practical > matter of not wanting to put a bunch of code inline the message. same > goes for NG. so this is why I think some attachments should be allowed, > but preferably they could be screened through a low-cost virus-catcher > server (which it looks like this list does?) and limited to under > 300-500k or so. If you're talking about attaching Ruby code to a message, we're probably talking about 10K on average. I think a limit of 25K for file attachments is /more/ than reasonable. Anything larger, and the poster should just put a URL to where the file(s) can be gotten from. Think about it: right now, there's 1173 members of the ruby-talk mailing list. If you sent a 25K attachment, that's 25K x 1173 =~ 29.3M worth of data transfer, plus probably another 250K worth of TCP and SMTP overhead to send those messages out. While 30M doesn't sound like a lot (and, /today/ it really isn't) ... chances are, the machine hosting the ruby-talk mailing list pays for bandwidth at some level. -- Dossy -- 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)