RE: [802.3] Re: [EFM] RE: May we please eliminate file attachments from this reflector? -Re: VirusAlert
Excellent observation. If there is anything I can do to help promote this, let me know.
Otherwise, I am in the same predicament as Pat Thaler, living in hotels with extremely slow dial up connections. Zip files and mandatory maximum file size of <100K would be nice for me, otherwise.
From: Paul Booth [mailto:pbooth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 11:55 PM
To: Roy Bynum
Cc: pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx; bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: [802.3] Re: [EFM] RE: May we please eliminate file attachments
from this reflector? -Re: VirusAlert
My self-serving message would be to only stay at hotels with Ethernet
connections and then we would not have to spend time thinking about the
size of our files. And then we might encourage more hotels to install
it. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
At 12:11 PM 5/20/2002 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>The key to all of this is to keep the files sizes down. Howard has often
>complained of the "graphics" that are put in presentations that are more
>marketing oriented than part of the technical information of the
>presentation. Perhaps the group should start a "public humiliation"
>process for people that create and send large file presentations that
>contain extraneous graphics, the same way that we have a "public
>humiliation" for people that don't sign into the attendance books
>properly. Bad idea?
>At 10:47 AM 5/20/2002 -0600, pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>As someone who travels and connects over modem on the road fairly frequentl,
>>I would rather have small attachments sent with the emails rather than as a
>>URL. For small files, it takes a lot more time on the modem to go through
>>finding the emails that require a download, attach to the websites and do
>>the downloads than it does to just download them in the email stream even if
>>that means getting a few extra. And downloading from web sites takes my
>>time. As the file gets large, then it is more convenient to have the choice
>>of whether to download by going to a web site.
>>From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:35 AM
>>To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>>Subject: RE: May we please eliminate file attachments from this
>>I strongly disagree with your comment paraphrased as 'no attachements is
>>like taking away ink'.
>>Putting a url link to the material in your email (which is on your own web
>>site), allows free and open access to the material by those that choose to
>>view it. I can't see how this can damage the process, and the download time
>>is roughly the same. The url option gives people the choice to get the
>>information or not. These seems to fit the rules of an open democratic
>>process just as well as posting the attachment with an email.
>>[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Howard Frazier
>>Sent: 17 May 2002 18:03
>>To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>>Subject: Re: May we please eliminate file attachments from this
>>As one who travels frequently, thus having to put up with dial up
>>access to a POP3 server, and one who can't afford the LUXURY of being
>>able to filter or delete messages which contain attachments, I
>>have some sympathy for those who are similarly burdened. For this
>>reason, the stds-802-3-efm reflector imposes a limit of 250,000
>>characters per message, which bounces very long attachments to
>>the list administrator. If you have any familiarity with PDF
>>distillers, and you eliminate wasteful things like fancy corporate
>>logos and useless background patterns, it is easy to constrain
>>PDF files to this limit. Believe it or not, the principal reason
>>for PDF file size bloat is the corporate logo which appears on
>>so many presentation templates.
>>That said, I also agree with Frank's point. The free exchange of
>>information is essential to our process, and email is just too good
>>of a medium for information distribution. So, I offer the following
>>1) Be mindful of file size. Eliminate ridiculous background fill
>>patterns from your slides (monochrome backgrounds usually do not
>>cause problems, but gradient fills do). Eliminate logos which blow
>>up files. If you must use a logo (understandable) choose one
>>that compresses well. Your corporate marcom department can help
>>if you ask them. Choose your PDF distiller options carefully, and
>>use a high compression (lower quality) setting.
>>2) Most importantly, check your file size before you fire
>>off a message. If the size exceeds a quarter meg, you have done
>>3) Use a compression utility like PKzip to compact large files. You
>>might be surprised at how effective this is, but it shouldn't be
>>a surprise since the bloat is caused by redundant information which
>>compresses quite nicely, thank you. The unzip utillities are
>>freeware, and should not represent a barrier to the message recipients.
>>4) If all else fails, email a link to your material, rather than
>>emailing the file itself.
>>I realize that this sounds like a burden, and I don't want to discourage
>>the distribution of important material. Please realize that the few
>>minutes you spend following the steps above will save alot of time for
>>the thousands (!) of people on these reflectors.
>>Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force
>> > All,
>> > Eliminating file attachments is like stopping people from using ink.
>> > Attachments are one of the best features of Email.
>> > If you don't like attachments, then it is all to easy to set up your Email
>> > client to automatically delete them.
>> > As for the basic problem here, I've not noticed a huge volume of
>> > virus-induced Email coming from IEEE. I'm assuming that the IEEE
>> > server has installed filtering software. Are other peoples'
>> > experiences different? If so, the proper solution is to get better
>> > filtering software, not to turn off the attachment service.
>> > To Hugh's complaint, the slowness you refer to is caused by the
>> > medium (copper), and not the message (attachments). (Sorry, I
>> > couldn't resist.) As I've said, you can set up your Email
>> > client to not download large attachments.
>> > Regards,
>> > Frank Effenberger.
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hugh Barrass
>> > To: Clay_Hudgins@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Sent: 5/17/02 9:50 AM
>> > Subject: Re: May we please eliminate file attachments from this reflector?
>> > -Re: VirusAlert
>> > Clay,
>> > I agree with this. Many people have to access e-mail through slow links
>> > (because EFM
>> > hasn't finished yet) and attachments are painful. Anyone who wishes to
>> > distribute large
>> > files should post links (as most people do) or ask for interested
>> > parties to send
>> > separate e-mail to request the files.
>> > Hugh.
>> > Clay_Hudgins@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > > Hi, to who it may concern.
>> > >
>> > > I have a need for the useful and timely information distributed by the
>> > IEEE
>> > > 802.3 Reflectors.
>> > >
>> > > Having said that, I have no need whatsoever to receive file
>> > attachments via
>> > > these reflectors. I hope that the administration will consider
>> > removing
>> > > the capability to transfer files via these reflectors, in light of the
>> > fact
>> > > that junk mail distribution and virus distribution has become the
>> > > predominate use of the file attachment capability.
>> > >