Re: 55 minute download

I disagree with Sandy. Why should I force people to buy into services they
don't need just because people can't follow directions?

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 Wed Sep 1 21:42:41 2004