that would be me :) I think you could do even better performaning things than this with plain bzip2/gz.

Look: I don't care how you format attachments, whether uuencode or MIME, but a significant number of people on this list do not wish to receive attachments, or are prohibited from receiving them by their mail server admins. This is not a rule we have come to without any debate or for no reason and it's a fairly simple one: NO ATTACHMENTS. Put the file on the web somewhere and send the list the URL. They screw the digest version up and get error messages sent to the list admins. Please don't do it.

As a corollary, I will be telephoning at least one organisation on Monday morning to ask them to correct their mail server misconfiguation *and* add the postmaster address before I talk to their uplink. All email addresses subscribed to this list must have a working postmaster at their top level. I don't think that's a common problem, as this is only the second I have encountered. linuxfreemail was the first, and they're banned not fixed, so avoid them if you want webmail for this list ;-)

Yep, I've got the stompy boots on today. I didn't think anyone still used uuencode attachments :-(

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.

xsprite:

ok, I didn't see uuencoding some content as attaching it

Problem between keyboard and chair?

(attaching usually refers to mime these days..).

Does it? Why did no-one tell me?

Pasting some config files are still attachments by this definition though.

No, it doesn't, although if they are long, it would be best not to post them, IMO.

Something in the faq/mailing list welcome/reminder, like this might help clear things up: "You should avoid attaching files of any kind, this includes MIME/Base64/uuencoded files. It is quite acceptable to post a short extract from any relevant configuration file or command output. For long contents and additional files, place them on an ftp or http site and post the url. Signatures should not exceed 4 lines. Avoid webmail systems that automagically attach advertising signatures."

Do we really need to add that, or are you just not reading what is already there? The bit about no attachments is already all over the place. The bit about sigs should be common sense and is already in the FAQ. The bit about webmail ads is probably worth adding.

How nannyish do we need to be? My only objective in restricting what can be sent to the list is to minimise complaints. HTML email and attachments generate lots of complaints and errors, so they are not allowed. Pasting relevant config file snips haven't caused significant complaints yet.

I've just had another complaint which indicates you may have killed all our OE-using members... OK, we can probably agree on how crap that email client is, but killing them before we convert them isn't helpful at all. :-( (Did any OE users get that message OK... and why are you using OE?!?)

well, the list isn't just accessible by ~150 people. Posts to the list outlast subscriptions, and yes, I've got this "but what if in $timeperiod someone has the same problem, and we already have a good archive of answers" in my head lots. Information (including addition files) need to be easily accessible to them. I have suffered too much from dead links in archives in the past.

If there's a MIME or UUencode splurge in the mail archives, it's not a hell of a lot of help to most people who may want that file, while the increased list traffic is an obstruction to today's users and people who download the mbox archive files.

[figures]

oh well.. guilty as charged. But maybe over time I shall be redeemed since the saving by sending via http can only decrease (or stay still) with time. :)

Only as long as people actually want that file ;-)

Correction. Pipermail simply includes the attachment within the body of the text, but that makes things just look ugly and the whole message very large and bulky.

Anyway, I hope that's all on the subject of attachments and this mailing list.

Regards,

Martyn