> Arrggh--another 4k bounce. Mark, you really should up that a little.
The vast majority of replies that bounce due to size limits are
because people include a bunch of crap in their replies that just
doesn't need to be there.
And quite aware of the irony, here's a previous exchange on this
subject.
mjb.
----
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fot] List message sizes
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:38:14 -0700
From: Bill Babcock <billb@bnj.com>
To: Mark J. Bradakis <mark@bradakis.com>
CC: fot@autox.team.net
Okay, makes sense, I'll do that.
I had assumed it was a storage issue, and since storage is
essentially free these days, or at least it's cheaper than I ever
could have imagined, I thought the concern might be a little
obsolete. Never thought about the archive and search issues. Of
course I imagine a pretty simple program that would clean that all up
as it sticks data in the archive, but I'm not volunteering to write
anything. I don't imagine anyone would be thrilled with software
written in Foxpro, which is the only language I remember, other than
some vague recollections of Pascal, C, and AWK.
On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Mark J. Bradakis wrote:
> Finally getting around to answering an old question. Sorry for the
> delay.
>
> Bill Babcock wrote:
>
>> First one bounced--too big. Hey Mark, isn't 4K a bit too restrictive?
>>
>>
> Well, yes and no, sort of. It is an arbitrary limit I just
> picked. On
> some of the
> other big lists, though, it is only 3K. Basically the problem lies in
> the default
> behavior of many popular email clients in use today. When people
> respond
> to a message, the *entire* message is added to the end of the
> response.
> Unlike
> this message, which has only one pertinent line included, at the
> beginning, where
> it is clear to see the issue under discussion.
>
> So what happens is that as people continue discussion on a topic, the
> messages
> keep getting longer and longer and longer and longer. There may be
> only two
> or three lines still pertinent to the discussion or necessary for
> context, but all
> the useless verbiage keeps getting dragged along for the ride.
>
> Last time I actually ran some statistical programs on the Team.Net
> lists,
> about 70 - 80 percent of the character count of list messages was
> text
> that was included for no real reason at all. That's about the same as
> buying
> a 6 pack of your favorite beverage, and getting one or two that are
> the
> actual fresh, new beverage, the rest are, uh, recycled product.
>
> All this extra, useless text does is slow down the Team.Net network
> line,
> transmitting bits that it doesn't need to transmit. It slows down
> the list
> archiving processes, as they have to go over the same text again
> and again.
> Gee, nothing like getting 50 hits on your search only to find that
> 48 of
> them
> are the same old paragraph added again and again and again to peoples
> replies. The added replies slow down the mail processing, adding to
> the delays in getting the messages out to the list.
>
> If the preceding paragraph is too much computer jargon for you to get
> your mind around, then think of it this way - how would your race
> car start
> behaving if every time you crossed the start/finish line you had to
> stop and
> take on another 50 pounds of ballast?
>
> And of course, there is the time I have to spend cleaning up bouncing
> addresses because all the clueless replies filled up the mailboxes of
> hapless subscribers who've hit their limit.
>
> I know that I'm never going to be able to singlehandedly change human
> behavior, but it sure would be nice if a few more folks spent an extra
> few seconds on their list messages. Set your mailer to NOT include
> the
> original in your reply, just paste in the appropriate line or two
> as I did
> above. Or at least delete the text that serves no purpose in your
> response,
> rather than just absentmindedly trying to stuff it down the
> Team.Net pipe
> for no useful reason.
>
> If you do have a lot to say and your all-original message does hit up
> against the size limit, I do try to stay somewhat current with admin
> requests, and I'll approve such messages and get them on their way
> as I have time.
>
> Gee, this message is getting kind of long. Wonder how many folks will
> respond, and include it in its entirety in their response? For
> now, I'll
> just send it off and then spend some more time wading through the
> 7,664 unread messages cuurently in my Team.Net admin mailbox.
>
> mjb.
_______________________________________________
http://www.team.net/donate.html
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|