Topics

Allowing attachments

Reginald Beardsley
 

As there was no problem raising money (other than way too much) to support Tekscopes, could we allow attachments?

It would surely make discussion of technical topics easier.

Have Fun!
Reg

Carsten Bormann
 

On 2020-05-16, at 17:06, Reginald Beardsley via groups.io <pulaskite=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

As there was no problem raising money (other than way too much) to support Tekscopes, could we allow attachments?
+1

The main reason attachments were originally not such a great idea on yahoo was that everybody would have forcibly received all attachments, and that might overtax their connection.

No longer a problem on groups.io:

https://groups.io/g/TekScopes/editsub
(Open Advanced Preferences, set “Max Attachment Size”.)

Time to switch attachments on; it regularly confuses people here that they can’t send attachments.

Grüße, Carsten

 

On 5/16/2020 11:15 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2020-05-16, at 17:06, Reginald Beardsley via groups.io <pulaskite=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
As there was no problem raising money (other than way too much) to support Tekscopes, could we allow attachments?
+1

The main reason attachments were originally not such a great idea on yahoo was that everybody would have forcibly received all attachments, and that might overtax their connection.

No longer a problem on groups.io:

https://groups.io/g/TekScopes/editsub
(Open Advanced Preferences, set “Max Attachment Size”.)

Time to switch attachments on; it regularly confuses people here that they can’t send attachments.

Grüße, Carsten


Completely agree. Please allow attachments. Those that don't want them can turn them off.
Win-win



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Tom Phillips
 

I wholeheartedly agree that allowing attachments would greatly enhance the ability of users to clarify questions and provide responses. The old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words comes to mind. The information flow is much better when a figure or photo is embedded directly in the discussion thread.
Cheers,
Tom

Dave Daniel
 

I DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF ATTACHMENTS FOR WHICH I HAVE NO USE AND FOR WHICH I HAVE TO PAY DATA FEES TO MY ISP.

If one wants to provide photos, put them in the photos section of the group. Don’t be stupid and don’t do dumb things.

DaveD

On May 17, 2020, at 10:37, Tom Phillips <tjtomphillips@...> wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree that allowing attachments would greatly enhance the ability of users to clarify questions and provide responses. The old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words comes to mind. The information flow is much better when a figure or photo is embedded directly in the discussion thread.
Cheers,
Tom


Mark Jordan
 

Yes, don't be stupid and just set your Groups.io account to NOT RECEIVE ATTACHMENTS if you don't want them.

    Mark Jordan

On 17-May-20 12:09, Dave Daniel wrote:
I DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF ATTACHMENTS FOR WHICH I HAVE NO USE AND FOR WHICH I HAVE TO PAY DATA FEES TO MY ISP.

If one wants to provide photos, put them in the photos section of the group. Don’t be stupid and don’t do dumb things.

DaveD

On May 17, 2020, at 10:37, Tom Phillips <tjtomphillips@...> wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree that allowing attachments would greatly enhance the ability of users to clarify questions and provide responses. The old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words comes to mind. The information flow is much better when a figure or photo is embedded directly in the discussion thread.
Cheers,
Tom


Jim Strohm
 

I agree with Dave on attachments -- not JUST for the cost to deliver (some
folks are still on metered feeds), but also for:
1) the time to download files. I have a fast web connection (at least by
2005 standards) but when somebody inadvertently or ignorantly loads a 1.5
GB file as an attachment, I'm pretty much h0zed until it finishes
downloading. Rebooting doesn't kill the process, since my browser defaults
to "resume download" and so does yours.
2) the file contents. I've been watching trojan files with subtle bemusent
since about 1984, when an associate developed an autoexec file with its
"visible" property in DOS set to "no." He uploaded it to every
public-access computer at the local libraries. Anybody who used A: got the
file, and every time they put that floppy into another computer, it
propagated.

So for both reasons, I'd be happy if attachments were limited, if not
banned altogether.

73
Jim N6OTQ

Richard Knoppow
 

A couple of things: Some news clients will leave attachments on the server until told to download them. I am not sure if Thunderbird will do this but have used others that do.
   Secondly, there may be a setting on the list server that limits the size of an attachment. One can set it at some reasonable size.
   Thirdly, I think many mail servers have a limit on attachment or message size. I have gotten notices from Earthlink that something I sent was too large.
   Before deciding to ban attachments altogether I think alternatives should be explored. For instance, someone on a metered or slow link might be able to use a setting to leave attachments on the server. I don't know if this is possible for those using the web site rather than a mail client because I rarely use web mail clients but those who do can find out fairly easily.
    I think for a highly technical list like this one being able to post relatively small attachments is almost a necessity. However, I agree that the size be limited. I suggest also that if no attachments are allowed or only small ones are that we find a suitable web site for posting them. There are quite a number but some require a membership or registration. A bit of a PITA but maybe necessary to prevent hacking.

On 5/17/2020 10:24 AM, Jim Strohm wrote:
I agree with Dave on attachments -- not JUST for the cost to deliver (some
folks are still on metered feeds), but also for:
1) the time to download files. I have a fast web connection (at least by
2005 standards) but when somebody inadvertently or ignorantly loads a 1.5
GB file as an attachment, I'm pretty much h0zed until it finishes
downloading. Rebooting doesn't kill the process, since my browser defaults
to "resume download" and so does yours.
2) the file contents. I've been watching trojan files with subtle bemusent
since about 1984, when an associate developed an autoexec file with its
"visible" property in DOS set to "no." He uploaded it to every
public-access computer at the local libraries. Anybody who used A: got the
file, and every time they put that floppy into another computer, it
propagated.

So for both reasons, I'd be happy if attachments were limited, if not
banned altogether.

73
Jim N6OTQ

--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@...
WB6KBL

Siggi
 

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:25 PM Jim Strohm <jim.strohm@...> wrote:

I agree with Dave on attachments -- not JUST for the cost to deliver (some
folks are still on metered feeds), but also for:
1) the time to download files. I have a fast web connection (at least by
2005 standards) but when somebody inadvertently or ignorantly loads a 1.5
GB file as an attachment, I'm pretty much h0zed until it finishes
downloading. Rebooting doesn't kill the process, since my browser defaults
to "resume download" and so does yours.
If you're referring to email delivery of attachments here, then this - as
many have mentioned - is avoidable.
Please go take a look at your subscription settings at
https://groups.io/g/TekScopes/editsub, and expand the "Advanced
Preferences" section. Under there is a "Max Attachment Size" setting,
which you can set from 0 (no attachments) through to "Unlimited".

If you're worried about your browser auto-downloading attachments as you
browse the web interface, then that's unfounded, as that's not how it works
at all. Take a look at e.g. this message (
https://groups.io/g/HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment/message/106185), which
has a PDF attachment. In your browser it'll manifest as a link you must
click to download the attachment.

I am a member of the HPAK group as well, where attachments are
allowed. While I've turned my email delivery settings to no attachments
there, I find that I sometimes click through the link to the message in the
groups.io web interface to look at inline images. I think the value of the
archive is a fair bit higher when images can be attached and are displayed
inline to the thread.

I'm also a member of other forums whose archives link out to image hosting
sites. As a result, many of the images have bitrotted or been perverted as
the linked image hosting site went out of business and was acquired by
<expletive> <unprintable> people.

victor.silva
 

How about allowing attachments with these limitations:

1. Users should be able to disable whether or not they receive them.
2. Place a limitation on size - a 1.5GB attachment is ridiculous, there must be a way to limit the size.

--Victor

John Miles
 

How about allowing attachments with these limitations:

1. Users should be able to disable whether or not they receive them.
2. Place a limitation on size - a 1.5GB attachment is ridiculous, there must be
a way to limit the size.
There is. I just went to my groups.io user profile page following Siggi's link, and although the option isn't obvious (you have to click on an 'Advanced Preferences' button that looks like a heading rather than a button) you can easily tell it not to send attachments at all, or to limit them to one of several sizes. Looks like 500 MB is the max.

That wouldn't be a big issue if people would courteously resize their photos before attaching them to emails that go out to thousands of people, but I know that's easier said than done on some common platforms these days.

Bottom line: yes, attachments can and should be enabled for the list because anyone who doesn't want them can easily disable them on a per-user basis.

Now back to the regularly-scheduled ESR meter discussion...

-- john, KE5FX

bobh@joba.com
 

You can embed links in your emails now to files, pics, etc. either on groups.io or elsewhere. I don't see any advantage to sending attachments.

Bob.

On 5/17/2020 12:36 PM, Siggi wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:25 PM Jim Strohm <jim.strohm@...> wrote:

I agree with Dave on attachments -- not JUST for the cost to deliver (some
folks are still on metered feeds), but also for:
1) the time to download files. I have a fast web connection (at least by
2005 standards) but when somebody inadvertently or ignorantly loads a 1.5
GB file as an attachment, I'm pretty much h0zed until it finishes
downloading. Rebooting doesn't kill the process, since my browser defaults
to "resume download" and so does yours.
If you're referring to email delivery of attachments here, then this - as
many have mentioned - is avoidable.
Please go take a look at your subscription settings at
https://groups.io/g/TekScopes/editsub, and expand the "Advanced
Preferences" section. Under there is a "Max Attachment Size" setting,
which you can set from 0 (no attachments) through to "Unlimited".

If you're worried about your browser auto-downloading attachments as you
browse the web interface, then that's unfounded, as that's not how it works
at all. Take a look at e.g. this message (
https://groups.io/g/HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment/message/106185), which
has a PDF attachment. In your browser it'll manifest as a link you must
click to download the attachment.

I am a member of the HPAK group as well, where attachments are
allowed. While I've turned my email delivery settings to no attachments
there, I find that I sometimes click through the link to the message in the
groups.io web interface to look at inline images. I think the value of the
archive is a fair bit higher when images can be attached and are displayed
inline to the thread.

I'm also a member of other forums whose archives link out to image hosting
sites. As a result, many of the images have bitrotted or been perverted as
the linked image hosting site went out of business and was acquired by
<expletive> <unprintable> people.

 

Hi John,
Where did you see 500MB as the Max? I think you misread it. On my web browser it says 5MB is the Max.
Dennis W7pF

-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of John Miles
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 1:56 PM
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Allowing attachments

How about allowing attachments with these limitations:

1. Users should be able to disable whether or not they receive them.
2. Place a limitation on size - a 1.5GB attachment is ridiculous,
there must be a way to limit the size.
There is. I just went to my groups.io user profile page following Siggi's link, and although the option isn't obvious (you have to click on an 'Advanced Preferences' button that looks like a heading rather than a button) you can easily tell it not to send attachments at all, or to limit them to one of several sizes. Looks like 500 MB is the max.

That wouldn't be a big issue if people would courteously resize their photos before attaching them to emails that go out to thousands of people, but I know that's easier said than done on some common platforms these days.

Bottom line: yes, attachments can and should be enabled for the list because anyone who doesn't want them can easily disable them on a per-user basis.

Now back to the regularly-scheduled ESR meter discussion...

-- john, KE5FX






--
Dennis Tillman W7PF
TekScopes Moderator

victor.silva
 

The selection is (1) no attachments, (2) 100KB, (3) 500KB and (4) 5MB - but there is also an (5) UNLIMITED selection!

--Victor

John Miles
 

-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of
Dennis Tillman W7pF
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 6:53 PM
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Allowing attachments

Hi John,
Where did you see 500MB as the Max? I think you misread it. On my web
browser it says 5MB is the Max.
Dennis W7pF
Sorry, you're correct, 5 MB is the max. A lot of people wouldn't be able to receive files much larger than that anyway.

I think I was misreading the "500 KB" option...

-- john, KE5FX

Reginald Beardsley
 

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 07:51 PM, bobh@... wrote:


You can embed links in your emails now to files, pics, etc. either on
groups.io or elsewhere. I don't see any advantage to sending attachments.

Bob.
Embedded links are the primary mechanism for spreading malware these days. The victim thinks they are looking at a photo but instead their machine is hijacked. I do *not* open embedded links even from people I know.

Reginald Beardsley
 

I'd like to point out that *everyone* opposing attachments is:

1) making specious arguments that do not reflect the current state of affairs

2) has failed to appropriately configure *their* subscription option

If you don't want attachments, you won't get them so long as *you* take the trouble to manage your subscription. *Your* failure to do that is not the fault of, nor should it be an impediment to anyone else.

If you have a problem with attachments it's a personal issue. Of yours.

Reg

ArtekManuals
 

The Malware & virus threats are the biggest reason NOT to have attachments as well ...in my book.

Dave
NR1DX
manuals@...

On 5/18/2020 8:17 AM, Reginald Beardsley via groups.io wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 07:51 PM, bobh@... wrote:

You can embed links in your emails now to files, pics, etc. either on
groups.io or elsewhere. I don't see any advantage to sending attachments.

Bob.
Embedded links are the primary mechanism for spreading malware these days. The victim thinks they are looking at a photo but instead their machine is hijacked. I do *not* open embedded links even from people I know.

--
Dave
Manuals@...
www.ArtekManuals.com
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

satbeginner
 

Nowadays it's only a few mouse clicks extra to

Put the images (relevant to a new or sny topic) in an new TekScopes album,

Copy & paste the link to that album into your TekScopes message and all is ok:

The images are there for those who want to see them, no forced bandwidth usage;

The link between topic discussion and relevant images is preserved;

The images themselves are saved for the future;

Sounds like problem solved?

Just my 2 cents,

Leo

Richard in Edenton NC
 

I agree to allowing attachments to emails to the group. I set my settings to 100k so I only get smaller size attachments unless I choose to see them depending on the topic.

73 Richard W4MCD