On the other hand, Andy has some valid points:

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Warren <fastfwd@IX.NETCOM.COM>

>    Keep in mind, Robert, that there are over 1200 PICLIST
 >   subscribers.  Even if you received a HUNDRED requests, that still
 >   means that over 90% of the list membership DIDN'T ask for your
 >   files.
******
Not really an appropriate number analysis here, Andy. I only heard 1 big
complaint out
of 1100 lurkers trying to suck up information. 90% did not vote against
receiving the
attachments; they didn't express their opinion, and as such can't be counted
in the against
or even uninterested column.

******
>    One should NEVER attach files to PICLIST messages... People who
 >   receive the "digest" form of the list can't decode your
 >   attachments without going to a whole lot of trouble, and many of
 >   the others can't decode attachments even if they receive PICLIST
 >   messages one at a time.
******
Hmm. This really seems like a format or systems problem. How many out of the
1200
get this through the digest? Does it really screw the digest up, or is it
just an inconvenience
to the digest users?

******
>    Also, many PICLIST members pay for their internet access by the
 >   byte... When you send them 81K of data that they don't want,
 >   you're costing them money.
******
Who still pays by the byte? I did an informal survey the last time this came
up, and I
got bupkiss for an answer. I asked my kid to check around at school, and he
came up empty,
too.

I pay for storage above a certain reasonable amount. If I get my mail every
two months or so
I never exceed it.

******
>    And... The PICLIST is archived on the web.  If your attached
 >   files aren't filtered out by the archiving software, they take
 >   up valuable space there.
******
Yeah, they should probably be filtered out. How to do that is the real
question.

******
 >   Finally, it's inconsiderate to force the listserver to mail out
 >   94 megabytes of your data (81K of images * 1200 subscribers),
 >   especially since the recipients are overwhelmingly NOT
 >   interested in it...
******
Bummer. This is a real issue, I guess, and reflects the state of Internet
technology
vis-a-vis the state of the encapsulating technology: we can communicate in
pretty
pictures, which just isn't done very efficiently yet, and wasn't really
planned for by
the original designers.

So how much of the listserver is actually eaten up by this activity, and how
much of
that time would have been used in some other way? Or was it just idle cycles
that
got used? And, if we start to use idle bandwidth for this stuff, should we
review the
infrastructure for possible future impact?

Maybe we need a policy discussion here.

******
>    The best way to distribute binary files is to put them up on a
 >   web page or ftp site somewhere, then just post a short message
 >   to the list which describes the files and their location.
******
That's one way that works for users with a web site, but then it puts the
contributor
in a support position. So if we solicit the documents, even in the most
casual way,
there's a lot more responsibility associated with responding.

Emailing privately to those that request it has its own drawbacks, too.
Isn't this what a
listserver is designed to do? Maybe the problem is that the listserver
technology isn't
up to the complexity of the distribution task, which should be no surprise
to anyone.

Food for thought, anyway.

--Tom Rogers