On Thu Mar 15 01:28:00 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-03-15 13:33, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
...
> I suppose I could live with this - but not actively support it -
if the
> stripping was limited to abusively large attachments - say ones
over 5Mb or
> thereabouts.
+0.9; maybe set the limit a bit lower, for those who still have
network
capacity issues. However, it would be extremely inconvenient to
have small
attachments stripped.
I'd be against this - any cut-off picked would be an arbitrary
number, and given there exist well-deployed, well-supported
specifications for accessing internet message stores without
downloading all parts of a message, I see no need for this at all.
I'd prefer rejecting outright particularly large messages, to
mangling them in unpredictable ways - however, I have been reading
IETF lists over expensive and slow networks for years without running
into any such messages.
> But otherwise it's a TERRIBLE idea, and will simply result in
> everyone including the draft or whatever in the primary message
text in order
> to avoid this nonsense, which results in a degradation of list
quality for all
> concerned.
+1
Right, we're merely introducing damage for people to route around.
If we're seriously making a statement that messages with attachments
cannot be handled properly in the deployed network due to Technical
Reason X, then I would be very interested to hear what X is. The
message Russ quotes merely suggests that large messages are a problem
in themselves - if they are genuinely a problem, how? And why on
earth are they a problem in this group?
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)dave(_dot_)cridland(_dot_)net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade