Fw: [plug][protocol] no attachments please

[Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, wayne wrote:

> On Friday 23/8/2002, Tony replied to Russ:
> > That's basically what we're doing, the data gathered in the poll will be
> > submitted to the comittee to decide on.  If the matter is still an issue
> then
> > it can be brought up at the AGM.
> >
> > So, if you would like to choose an option your vote will be considered.
> 
> ....but on 20/8/2002, Tony had said:
> >> We don't write our messages and then forward them as
> >> attachments. They're just signed.

No I didn't .... your attribution is as flawed.
 
> ....to which, Wayne had replied:
> > Can't understand why in a club.
> 
> ....and Tony had also written:
> > And everybody just replied to the list!? It would've been far more
> > sensible to ask Colin to put up a poll on the PLUG site, than invite
> > another 20 messages into the thread.

Wrong.  As above.
 
> ....to which Wayne had (quite properly he thought) asked/suggested:
> > I want to hear all the proper arguments for using attachments,
> > not just  "rah, rah, rah; no change".
> 
> 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?

Wayne,
	I'm quite happy to help you work through this, can we do it off
list for the sake of everyone elses sanity :)

Yours Tony

   Jan 22-25 2003           Linux.Conf.AU            http://linux.conf.au/
		  The Australian Linux Technical Conference!