[lug] NO Attachments!!!

[Jason Strnad]

On Thursday, Oct 24, 2002, at 12:19PM, John Hernandez <John.Hernandez at noaa.gov> wrote:

<SNIP>
>
>That said, I agree that it's inconsiderate to send very large messages
>to lists.  But it'll happen from time to time, no doubt.
</SNIP>

Making a message large is only one part of the problem.  Not only is it inconsiderate to assume I want to take the time to download it, it is also quite presumptuous to assume I can: 

1. Read/View the attached file in its current format (if it's text, put it in the message)
2. Execute the application which reads/views the attachment in my current environment. (i.e. telnet/ssh to get mail)

There are a great many pine/mutt/elm users in the world (myself included, yay mutt!), and yes if you are using a mailing list you have to be considerate of them, whether you think text mode mail clients are old fashioned or not.

Further regardless of file size it is rude to assume that you can treat the list archive host as your own personal file storage on the internet.

I believe it is quite appropriate to tell people when they behave rudely.  I believe that if you're sending an attached file you should know (not think or guess) that the recipient(s) won't mind.  Until/unless you have asked all members of a mailing list for (and received) permission or attachments are part of a lists charter, it is not appropriate to attach files to messages sent to the list.

The only exceptions in my mind are: 

1. Digital Signatures (PGP,GPG,etc)
2. REasonably sized ASCII text files (which should really just be put in the body of the message)

And while I'm on the subject, HTML mail is obnoxious too.  Even (especially?) when an alternate text version is included/attached.

blah.

-jasons