Re: 55 minute download

From: [email protected]
Date: 09/02/04-08:08:36 AM Z
Message-id: <1094134116.413729644318a@webmail.usask.ca>

Sandy (and the list)

I didn't mean to pin this on you Sandy, but I wanted to raise the issue that the
problem with attachments is not that it is inconvenient for some, but that it
has the potential to significantly increase the cost and time of managing this
list. So much so that it may not be possible to run the list without
generating some sort of income from it. I don't think revising my policy
banning attachments is worth the cost it would incur.

If attachments were as small and easy to manage as a plain text message - I
would have no problems with them.

Attachments through a mailing list have to be the least efficient way of
distributing large media files to a large number of people.

Distributing media file as web pages is one the easiest and most efficient for
the people on the receiving end. An image is just a click away. What could be
easier? The web was designed for this - it should be used.

Gord

Quoting Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>:

> Gordon wrote:
>
> >I disagree with Sandy. Why should I force people to buy into services they
> >don't need just because people can't follow directions?
>
>
>
> Gordon, and the rest of you, lean back in your chair and get a grip
> on reality. You are reading more into my message than is there. I
> have never sent an attachment to the list and am not advocating that
> the list should include attachments. All I said was that my computer
> processed the attachment in question in about two second and that if
> some folks need 5-55 minutes they should consider new technology.
>
> If the technology for broad band connection is not available in your
> area, or if it is available and you don't want to spend the money for
> it, so be it.
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >The other issues relate to the volume of data that attachments would create.
> >
> >What if there were numerous image files sent everyday? What if people
> replied
> >to messages with large image files and sent the image files back and forth.
> >
> >The voluume of data would be enourmous. I would likely have to pay for disk
> >useage of the archive. If I were to allow anyone to send attachments I
> would
> >likely have to give up archiving the list, or begin paying for an archive
> >service.
> >
> >This would mean I would have to charge a subscription fee for the list, or
> do
> >some sort of advertising to support archiving the list. I would not
> >be willing
> >to do the work necessary to support an advertising backed archive.
> >Someone else
> >would have to do this.
> >
> >Are people willing to pay for the cost attachments would incur? I
> >would assume
> >not.
> >
> >The choices are:
> >
> >no attachments with free archiving
> >attacments with a subscription fee and an advertising backed archive
> >attachments and no archive.
> >
> >Then there are the performance and security based issues of allowing
> >attachments
> >to go through the list. This would make the transmission of message much
> >slower, the likely hood of viruses going through the list higher.
> >
> >It could tax the U of S 's mailserver to such an extent that they would no
> >longer be willing to host this list at no cost.
> >
> >Sending attachments through the list has some real costs. Its not
> >just a matter
> >of catering to people who don't have high speed net access.
> >
> >
> >Gord Holtslander
> >List Manager
> >
> >Quoting Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> With regard to Ryuji's comments about the "unsubscribe" requests, I
> >> don't really believe he is that naive.
> >>
> >> But what is the big deal about the attachments? They downloaded on my
> >> system in less than two seconds. If your ISP requires 5 - 55 minutes
> >> it might be time to consider changing provider and joining the rest
> >> of us in the 21st century. Just a thought.
> >>
> >> Sandy
>
Received on Thu Sep 2 08:08:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/01/04-09:17:54 AM Z CST