Re: C.T.E. and message/partial

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 08:09:59 CDT


Brad Templeton said:
>> - agents MUST NOT prevent the use of message/partial just because the
>> whole message or a given piece would be under some limit;
> I'm confused. Why would anybody care if a message was under a limit?

I don't know. But I don't want it to happen.

> The reason for saying "don't do a multi-segment message if your
> article is less than [Size]" is to reduce or in fact eliminate the need for
> things like message/partial outside of groups for mpegs. Meaning
> the groups are far cleaner, and the software is simpler to write unless
> you want to write it to reassemble and handle large mpegs.

But a general-purpose newsreader would need this facility anyway, so why
would it be limited to reassembling mpegs ? I know groups that post their
FAQs in parts for their own reasons - I'd much rather these were
message/partial than have to reassemble by hand, and I don't want them
dropped just because the author splits them in 50kb chunks.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.