[Beowulf] Apologies for the spam/virus yesterday

[Robert G. Brown]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Michael Will wrote:

> Completely usel.ess unless you plan to litigate and have to prove authorship

I generally concur -- besides, signatures don't have to be attachments
and one COULD except them from a rule against attachments anyway.
However, attachment replication on a list is very resource intensive --
you generate NxB bytes of data in mailboxes everywhere, most of which is
never even looked at.

It was my understanding that the proper netiquette was to put the object
you wish to distribute up on a webserver somewhere and then just post
the URL.  That makes it a client-pull action only by people who are
interested, not a server-push action, which conserves resources all
around.  I very much doubt that anybody on this list with an attachment
they WANT to distribute will not have a webserver accessible to
facilitate the distribution.

I also can't stand html formatted email messages in general (not
messages with links, messages that can only be "read" in a browser) and
my spam filter doesn't like them either, just in case anyone on list
ever sends me such a hyperformatted message and wonders why I don't
respond...;-)

    rgb

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Chris Samuel [mailto:csamuel at vpac.org]
> Sent:	Wed Nov 08 19:20:28 2006
> To:	beowulf at beowulf.org
> Subject:	Re: [Beowulf] Apologies for the spam/virus yesterday
>
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 11:28, Bill Broadley wrote:
>
>> I'd vote for banning ALL posts with attachments, HTML, vcard, .exe.
>>
>> Has there ever been a useful attachment sent to the beowulf list?
>
> PGP signatures..
>
>

-- 
Robert G. Brown	                       http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Phone: 1-919-660-2567  Fax: 919-660-2525     email:rgb at phy.duke.edu