Tony Aiuto tony.aiuto at
Thu Jun 18 20:56:02 CDT 2020

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:01 AM Peter Corlett via cctalk <
cctalk at> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:50:20PM +0100, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
> [...]
> > Easy, pictures of unidentified components, sending out schematics that
> have
> > been reverse engineered, documentation, pictures of scope traces when
> trying
> > to find a fault, all sorts. I would agree on a size limit though.
> The kind of size limit required to keep attachments small enough to not
> annoy
> people who are not interested in them would be too low for this purpose.
> The
> annoyance increases further when people with broken email clients (or who
> just
> never bothered to learn their tools) include senders' attachments in their
> replies.

This is a tradeoff.

   - Allowing, let's say, 50MB attachments would enhance the experience for
   some people. I suspect there are many of them on this list.
   - Allowing any attachments at all would annoy some people. They tend to
   post a lot about how annoyed they would be. I suspect there are fewer of
   them than the others.
   - Allowing tiny attachments doesn't please anyone.

A typical digicam or scanner produces multi-megabyte files. Reducing them in
> size to fit within e.g. a 1MB limit would still cause the same level of
> inconvenience to the sender as uploading it somewhere and posting a link as
> well as reducing the quality and utility to those who are interested.

I also note an inverse relationship between the size of an email and the
> quality of its contents

> Further, an orders-of-magnitude explosion in the resources used by this
> list
> would reduce the number of people willing to host it. My shell server
> which I
> use for mail is perhaps typical: it has a 20TB/month transfer cap which is
> effectively infinite, but its 20GB disk would be eventually consumed by
> all of
> those attachments kept forever in the list archives that people also want.

A *person* willing to host it is the wrong approach. That makes the truck
number 1.
For redundancy you need to pay a service to host it, and have a few people
with administrative rights.
If people are scared of the service turning down and losing all history,
they can personally archive every message.

More information about the cctalk mailing list