|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Frank Reed (no email)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 12:18:53 EDT
[sorry to take so long replying to this... I've been at the beach]
Geoffrey Kolbe wrote:
"Given the nature of this list, I can envisage circumstances where many of
us might prefer to use an older computer, which is still adequate for
certain tasks like keeping up with emails while on the move, but which
won't be a serious loss in the event of an inundation."
Sure. I'm a big believer in old computers (except for certain specific
tasks). But one can carry this too far. Three-year-old machines are usually
available for a song, and they can handle nearly any net-based task.
And:
"The computer I was using at the weekend certainly falls into that category.
Its go faster stripes are now seriously faded, and the email reader does
not have the option of leaving attachments."
Does it have a basic web browser? There are numerous free, web-based e-mail
services (just one example: hotmail), and apparently all of them conveniently
separate attachments from plain text so that the attachments can be
downloaded later (IF you want them).
And concluded:
"As things stand on the Nav-L list, I have no "issue". If the list was to
allow general uninvited attachments (effectively spam), just because some
of us are too discourteous or lazy to find out who actually wants the
attachments, then I certainly would have an "issue"."
"Spam" is a phenomenon quite distinct from the issue of attachments.
Attachments can be extremely useful. Myself, I have not used them on the list since
I have access to lost of extra web site space, but that's just me. I don't
think it's correct to label anyone as "discourteous or lazy" for using
attachments on a mailing list. Those folks who have used them --Fred Hebard, Joel
Jacobs, Richard Langley, etc.-- were not being discourteous or lazy.
-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
|