On Thursday April 23 2009, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/04/23 15:53 (GMT-0700) Randall R Schulz composed:
On Thursday April 23 2009, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/04/23 12:51 (GMT-0700) John Andersen composed:
1-the overall load large attachments put on the email system (and the whole internet) generally, not on specific subscribers on slow or metered connections
Preposterous!
So being wasteful yourself is in general OK because others waste more? That's no less preposterous.
It's not waste (because it's meaningful communication) and it's not excessive because it's a vanishingly small fraction of the extant data traffic.
The bulk of email traffic worldwide is spam, for one thing.
So?
So adding a tiny, tiny sliver of genuinely valuable traffic is eminently justified.
Secondly, email attachments use only a vanishingly small portion of "the whole internet's" capacity.
OK, so you're OK with being and promoting brown instead of green. I'm not.
I have no idea what you're saying here.
Thirdly, intelligent quote trimming would more than make up for any reasonable use of attachments.
A very good thing, but not directly related to the points made. If I was a list admin, both (all) attachments and top-posted M$-style full quotes would be fully deleted by filtering.
It most certainly is relevant. If you want to rail against unnecessary consumption, rail against _genuinely_ unnecessary consumption, not merely consumption for which you personally have no need.
This silliness about email attachments is infinitesimal in comparison.
Waste is waste. When you have a meaningful choice, choose not waste, choose green.
It's not waste. Its use. Recreational use of petroleum-fueled motor vehicles is genuine waste. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org