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@on-the-train.demon.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 03 2001 - 17:58:50 CDT


In message <20010702105814.C23324@main.templetons.com>, Brad Templeton
<brad@templetons.com> writes
>We probably should include a line that any multi-article article (We need
>a vocabulary here) SHOULD be posted as a single thread (not just
>message/partial
>but we won't name uuencode by name) so that people can rightly complain
>about unthreaded multi-article articles.

I wouldn't object to that.

>But with a decent article size minimum (say 5MB) a general newsreader doesn't
>have to worry about article reassembly, and by and large they don't today,
>nor should they have to. The typical size systems can handle will probably
>increase in line with what people want to post.

I disagree. I don't see multi-parts going away any time soon, and
general newsreaders will be made to deal with them, even if they aren't
also mail handlers.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather    | Internet Expert      | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet       | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | Thus plc             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address


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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.