From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 01:41:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 01:41:39 -0400 Received: from cx570538-a.elcjn1.sdca.home.com ([24.5.14.144]:3712 "EHLO keroon.dmz.dreampark.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 01:41:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3B68E74B.E4A9E481@randomlogic.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:38:19 -0700 From: "Paul G. Allen" Organization: Akamai Technologies, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: OT: Virii on vger.kernel.org lists In-Reply-To: <20010801235724.A23000@werewolf.able.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "J . A . Magallon" wrote: > [SNIP] > > That is the always repeated answer. I could get a web page at some box at the > University, but there are many people that have not a permanent address. Going > to the mess of using a ISP-provided web page is a pain. Instead of bzip your > patch and send it to the list you have to go through bizarre http interfaces > to manage your web page (tell me about a ISP that lets you telnet/ssh/ftp to your > account). > > I do not see why a bzipped patch is so bad. The only person I was aware he won't > read anything but plain text is Linus (and now some on this thread look with > the same feeling). > There are a few reasons why zipped attachments, large attachments, and even large text-only patches are bad on a mailing list such as this: 1. Not everyone uses a mail client that will support the various attachment encodings and therefore can not get the attachment without jumping through hoops. Why subject them to this? 2. Some mail clients pervert the standard attachment formats, such as Outlook Express, making them undecipherable by anyone using anything other than that very same client. Again, why subject people to that? 3. Many, many people PAY PER BYTE for their Internet connection. Adding a large attachment, or sending a large text patch file, costs them money. Many times they do not want it anyway and you are costing them money by forcing them to D/L it. 4. Not everyone has a high speed connection and with the volume that a list like this creates, it is a LARGE burden on them to wait, and wait, and wait, for the few messages they want, and/or need, to see. So, as with other large projects I've worked on (though none quite this large) involving a mailing list, the best solution is to a) strip attachments atthe mailing list server and b) provide a repository for people to D/L patches, new kernels, etc. for public access. PGA -- Paul G. Allen UNIX Admin II/Network Security Akamai Technologies, Inc. www.akamai.com