Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  PLEASE, NO ATTACHMENTS

    Posted 08-14-1998 17:42
    In Gary Wallace's recent post, he added an attachment. Surely none of
    us were able to read it, but had to page down through 100's of rows of
    meaningless characters.

    Virus? I doubt it, unless email illiteracy is a disease. I get
    episodes of it daily as I use the wrong protocol with different clients.

    Please, everyone, don't even try to insert/attach a document. There is
    no compatibility in the
    email world when it comes to attachments.

    If you have info that you can't paste as text to your post, here are
    some list-user friendly options:
    1. Give us an FTP site
    2. Add it to your web site
    3. Go to the trouble of writing a little summary
    4. Offer to mail it.

    There are just too many different email protocols, such as BINHEX,
    UUEncode, MIME, etc.

    Daniel J. Booth, Ed.D., Pres. & CEO
    THE BOOTH COMPANY
    Surveys Worthy of Feedback???
    2975 Valmont Road, Suite 230 Boulder CO 80301-1361
    800.332.6684 & 303.442.4500 Fx: 303.440.6067
    http://www.boothco.com


  • 2.  PLEASE, NO ATTACHMENTS

    Posted 08-15-1998 01:57
    On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:41:35 -0600, in Daniel Booth <Daniel@BOOTHCO.COM>
    wrote:

    >In Gary Wallace's recent post, he added an attachment. Surely none of
    >us were able to read it, but had to page down through 100's of rows of
    >meaningless characters.

    None of us?
    I certainly could and did. And my browser just showed the attachment as an
    icon at the bottom of a brief carrier message.

    >Virus? I doubt it, unless email illiteracy is a disease.
    Do you always make such strong assertions on such little evidence? My virus
    checker picked it up too, and dealt with it.

    >I get
    >episodes of it daily as I use the wrong protocol with different clients.

    I can't help wondering whether you need a more flexible mail package.

    >Please, everyone, don't even try to insert/attach a document. There is
    >no compatibility in the email world when it comes to attachments.

    Surely we can't accept this "locked in time by yesterday's packages"
    approach. Almost everybody using Netscape, Outlook Express, Internet
    Explorer, Agent, Pegasus, Eudora etc and all the common email packages
    should have no difficulty.

    >If you have info that you can't paste as text to your post, here are
    >some list-user friendly options:
    >1. Give us an FTP site
    >2. Add it to your web site
    >3. Go to the trouble of writing a little summary
    >4. Offer to mail it.

    Those are all good suggestions with which I agree.
    Most reputable online journals actively encourage attached files usually in
    word format. I really don't see the problem unless the attachment is a
    massive binary.
    >
    >There are just too many different email protocols, such as BINHEX,
    >UUEncode, MIME, etc.

    Any halfway competent email package has no trouble with any of those.

    regards


    --
    Brian Harmer
    "Our luck is even better than I expected Don Quixote exclaimed
    ... I'm going to attack those mighty giants and slay them in their tracks" - Cervantes
    http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~bharmer/


  • 3.  PLEASE, NO ATTACHMENTS

    Posted 08-18-1998 22:35
    Brian - obviously, you have unlimited time and unlimited funds to get all
    the latest stuff; or your institution provides all this stuff for you.
    You need to understand that many of us have limited time and funds, and
    work for institutions whose connectivity and ability to provide technical
    support are almost non-existent.

    The purpose of e-mail is to communicate. Why continue to encourage
    others to send stuff in formats that require extra work to decode, if one
    even has access to the special coding? My general response to such
    messages is to delete them, whether or not my own system has the
    capability.

    Tim Edlund, Morgan State University

    On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Brian Harmer wrote:

    > On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:41:35 -0600, in Daniel Booth <Daniel@BOOTHCO.COM>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In Gary Wallace's recent post, he added an attachment. Surely none of
    > >us were able to read it, but had to page down through 100's of rows of
    > >meaningless characters.
    >
    > None of us?
    > I certainly could and did. And my browser just showed the attachment as an
    > icon at the bottom of a brief carrier message.
    >
    > >Virus? I doubt it, unless email illiteracy is a disease.
    > Do you always make such strong assertions on such little evidence? My virus
    > checker picked it up too, and dealt with it.
    >
    > >I get
    > >episodes of it daily as I use the wrong protocol with different clients.
    >
    > I can't help wondering whether you need a more flexible mail package.
    >
    > >Please, everyone, don't even try to insert/attach a document. There is
    > >no compatibility in the email world when it comes to attachments.
    >
    > Surely we can't accept this "locked in time by yesterday's packages"
    > approach. Almost everybody using Netscape, Outlook Express, Internet
    > Explorer, Agent, Pegasus, Eudora etc and all the common email packages
    > should have no difficulty.
    >
    > >If you have info that you can't paste as text to your post, here are
    > >some list-user friendly options:
    > >1. Give us an FTP site
    > >2. Add it to your web site
    > >3. Go to the trouble of writing a little summary
    > >4. Offer to mail it.
    >
    > Those are all good suggestions with which I agree.
    > Most reputable online journals actively encourage attached files usually in
    > word format. I really don't see the problem unless the attachment is a
    > massive binary.
    > >
    > >There are just too many different email protocols, such as BINHEX,
    > >UUEncode, MIME, etc.
    >
    > Any halfway competent email package has no trouble with any of those.
    >
    > regards
    >
    >
    > --
    > Brian Harmer
    > "Our luck is even better than I expected Don Quixote exclaimed
    > ... I'm going to attack those mighty giants and slay them in their tracks" - Cervantes
    > http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~bharmer/
    >


  • 4.  PLEASE, NO ATTACHMENTS

    Posted 08-19-1998 07:06
    I do not understand what is to be gained by attempting to communicate at the lowest
    possible common denominator. The coding and decoding you refer to is not special in any
    way. And I for one do not have unlimited funds, but somehow manage to keep up within a year
    or two of the current technology.

    If you do not try to keep pace with the latest technology, you will fall further and
    further behind, since technological change is proceeding at an ever-increasing rate.

    My "vote" would be to keep encouraging folks to use the technology they have, and if some
    us want to use our delete key frequently, so be it.

    Tim Edlund wrote:

    > Brian - obviously, you have unlimited time and unlimited funds to get all
    > the latest stuff; or your institution provides all this stuff for you.
    > You need to understand that many of us have limited time and funds, and
    > work for institutions whose connectivity and ability to provide technical
    > support are almost non-existent.
    >
    > The purpose of e-mail is to communicate. Why continue to encourage
    > others to send stuff in formats that require extra work to decode, if one
    > even has access to the special coding? My general response to such
    > messages is to delete them, whether or not my own system has the
    > capability.

    --
    John P. Trebnik, Assistant Professor
    Department of Business and Economics
    Marian College
    3200 Cold Spring Road
    Indianapolis, IN 46222-1997
    (317) 955-6037 fax (317) 955-6448

    http://commerce1.marian.edu
    mailto:jtrebnik@iquest.net


  • 5.  PLEASE, NO ATTACHMENTS

    Posted 08-19-1998 09:05
    On 19 Aug 98 at 6:06, jtrebnik wrote:

    > I do not understand what is to be gained by attempting to
    > communicate at the lowest possible common denominator.

    Perhaps the most telling one is so that more people will read what
    you have to say! Isn't that the point? Why exclude people?

    > If you do not try to keep pace with the latest technology, you will
    > fall further and further behind, since technological change is
    > proceeding at an ever-increasing rate.
    >
    > My "vote" would be to keep encouraging folks to use the technology
    > they have, and if some us want to use our delete key frequently, so
    > be it.
    >
    I don't think you get a vote. Isn't it in the list rules? If you wish
    them changed, then the best path is to discuss it privately with the
    list owner.

    Beyond that there are probably a dozen OTHER reasons why people
    should NOT be sending attachments to ANY list, and they include:

    consideration for people who pay for their accounts by the byte or
    by time.
    consideration for people who have phone lines that are metered in
    some way.
    concern over viruses being inadvertently spread (and there is at
    least one or two cases a year just on the lists I am on).
    wasted bandwidth
    listservers that handle attachments oddly
    problems with digests and attachments

    ...there's more.


    > Tim Edlund wrote:
    >
    > > Brian - obviously, you have unlimited time and unlimited funds to get all
    > > the latest stuff; or your institution provides all this stuff for you.
    > > You need to understand that many of us have limited time and funds, and
    > > work for institutions whose connectivity and ability to provide technical
    > > support are almost non-existent.
    > >
    > > The purpose of e-mail is to communicate. Why continue to encourage
    > > others to send stuff in formats that require extra work to decode, if one
    > > even has access to the special coding? My general response to such
    > > messages is to delete them, whether or not my own system has the
    > > capability.
    >
    > --
    > John P. Trebnik, Assistant Professor
    > Department of Business and Economics
    > Marian College
    > 3200 Cold Spring Road
    > Indianapolis, IN 46222-1997
    > (317) 955-6037 fax (317) 955-6448
    >
    > http://commerce1.marian.edu
    > mailto:jtrebnik@iquest.net
    Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca NOW SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Co
    operative Communication. Samples and info at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm.(204) 888-9290