Message-ID: <39FD949B.7EA71093@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:32:43 -0500
From: Dave Tweed <dtweed AT acm DOT org>
Organization: almost none
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47  (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Bat Out of ???
References: <01C04237 DOT C423F820 DOT davidru AT home DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

david rust wrote:
> 
> Those are two very good and constructive ideas Dave. Do you mind if I
> forward them to DJ? I do sense a robo presence in the response to my post.
> "Bat Out of Heck" Really! That's Robo logic for you.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Dave Tweed [SMTP:dtweed AT acm DOT org]
> Sent:   Sunday, October 29, 2000 6:00 AM
> To:     opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:        Re: Bat Out of ???
> 
> Hmm. Given that the list is at least robo-moderated, I wonder if DJ
> couldn't set it up to strip all attachments before sending them out.
> I've seen this done on other lists. Then you'd have been saved the
> embarassment.
> 
> A bonus feature would be to set aside, say, 10 MB of space on his
> web server to use as a sort of cache for such attachments, then
> tack a URL that points to the attachment to the end of the message
> for those people who *would* like to see/hear the attachment anyway.
> 
> This would solve Pat's HTML problem as well.
> 
> -- Dave Tweed

Not at all. I assumed he read the list himself.

Just to expand on the "cache" idea: It would really be a simple
FIFO. As new attachments come in, they would be given sequential
filenames in the cache directory. If there isn't room for a new
attachment, the oldest one(s) would be deleted to make room. With
luck, there'd be a window of at least a few days in which anyone
who wanted an attachment could fetch it using the URL in the
message.

-- Dave Tweed