xsprite:
That paste screwed up the digest and gave error messages? Maybe you should consider changing your mailing software..
No, the problem (error message from content filters or MIME-compliant mailers barfing on MIME inside plain text) is not on any software inside our control. However, we have decided in the past to take a two-pronged approach to this:
1. No attachments. This is actually good for other reasons, as it discourages HTML email and messages getting stupidly long.
2. Boot noncompliant mailservers. Of course, we can only do that as we find them, but we'd still appreciate not deliberately antagonising them.
What happens if someone quite innocently begins a line "begin 600 something"?
Yeah, it breaks stuff.
As for mail servers that don't allow xyz, if I insert a few words, let's see. "fuck", "echelon", "company secrets". That probably got a few.
Yep, we should be clear now until the next ones join the list.
It useful when you wish to send binary files quickly. I thought I was helping someone but obviously not.
You probably are, but you're hindering others. That's all.
If you're going to apply this rule, you should also apply it to anyone posting configuration files. What about command outputs? That's potential bloat.
Long config files I'd rather see placed in webspace somewhere than sent to the list, but I don't think that's been discussed here yet. Attachments have.
Command outputs are taking it to the absurd extreme. I'm no extremist.
As are all email signatures.
The four-line email signature is a long-standing compromise which I've no desire to disrupt, even though I don't always use four lines.
How many people wouldn't want to see hotmail/yahoo/whatever auto-free-advertising-signatures off the list? I don't think those providers are banned..
No, but they're normally quietly discouraged.
Putting it up on some webspace would actually use far more bandwidth than attaching it to the email per person. Instead of 15 lines of data, you would have to add on top of that dns traffic, http request headers and the request itself, http reply headers and then eventually the data you were trying to get.
You're assuming that every person will want it. I doubt that 10% of the 150+ subscribers to this list wanted that zip file (only one person requested it, so sending it offlist as an attachment would probably have sufficed), so I'm not sure how that would change your figures.
Are you going to provide the webspace and bandwidth for this?
There are numerous services for this already and I believe that Martyn's offer of free webspace and email accounts @alug.org.uk still stands.
It wasn't advertising, yet the signatures many webmail systems add is blatant advertising. That seems to have no problem.
There is action, but it is only mentioned in public infrequently because it happens so much. I don't recall mentioning uuencoded attachments in public before ever.
This seems somewhat pedantic and draconian, but whatever.
"Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever." Bloody USism.