Fw: [plug][protocol] no attachments please

[William Kenworthy]

I agree, but another aspect is bandwidth - I dont want to get a 5 meg
attachment on my modem ISP account at home like I regularly do at work -
now that would create a real flame war!

Attachments are a fact of life in many fields - I cant do without the
facility!

BillK

On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 11:37, Tim Bowden wrote:
>  > So I think this current poll is flawed.  It has no option for allowing
> > attachments only for NECESSARY purpose - limited by senders' sensibility.
> > Or allowing requesting attachments via another form (eg webpost, alternate
> > list, etc. I don't know what other technical means might be sensibly used?)
> > Too much to ask?  Or shouldn't I ask?
> > 
> > Kind Regards,
> > wayne.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I have not followed this thread closely enough, but what is the
> problem with attachments?  Besides the odd virus which will only affect
> a very small minority of windows users that don't have adequate
> protection, for the life of me I cannot see the problem.  As Leon
> demonstrated with his pppd attachments they have their uses.  If you can
> handle 'necessary' attachments then why are 'unnecessary' attachments a
> problem?
> 
> Regarding signed postings- if someone thinks it is necessary or
> desirable to sign their own mail, who has the right to complain?  Is a
> signed message so hard to handle?
> 
> Tim Bowden
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk at iinet.net.au>
Home