Re: [Phys-l] Allowing inline pictures / attachments

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

Yes it is I.  I had to try reducing its size several times * before I 
got it below 50K [I thought it was 50 so that may be another problem 
ended up trying w/ 48K] .  Above that it automatically was rejected w/ 
the note "too big". 

However, I haven't received the pic, contrary to Dan's msg.  (My 
fault?)  Also since I replied to JD's request on the success of UTF-8, 
no one new that Netscape 7.2 works fine (w/ encoding / decoding set at 
UTF-8!) except for a missing super script asterix (*).   Perhaps JD typo'd.

In answer to the question:

Wow!

What an improvement, now if we could incorporate pics ...

As well as I could see all symbols reproduced.

bc. pleased almost as punch.




pic deleted here:




* After the first try I sent it to myself and turned on the size column 
in my in box.

bc

p.s. I don's know how to post stuff to my web site (a friend did what's 
there), so it would be very convenient to be able to include in line 
pics and scanned drawings, etc.  40/50K is probably quite adequate for 
showing equip. pics and included drawings, etc.



John Denker wrote:

> This is a test of the features of the phys-l mailer, which was recently
> upgraded from listserv(tm) to mailman(tm).  This message uses the utf-8
> encoding, as discussed at e.g.
>   http://www.av8n.com/computer/htm/encoding.htm#sec-unicode
>
> All of the following look nice in *my* mailer (Mozilla) and will probably
> look fine if you view the archives with a decent browser (if earlier
> tests are any guide).
>
>
>  
cut



Dan MacIsaac wrote:

> Mark (and everyone):
>
> I just let an inline photo message go to see what would happen.  I am  
> not
> generally in favour of letting inline photos and attachments go through
> until we have good virus sweeping proofed.  At one time the size of
> recipient mailboxes and internet connection speeds were a major  
> constraint
> on PHYS-L subscribers.  I'm not sure if this is still an issue given  
> that
> times have changed.  However, we will need some max cap on message size
> to avoid flooding mailboxes regardless of the above (to prevent huge  
> photos
> or dissertation length attachments etc).  It'd be nice to get some
> subscriber feedback on this.
>
> I think I prefer to move slowly and conservatively on this; given  
> that we
> are still getting our feet under us again.
>
> Dan M
>
> Dan MacIsaac, Associate Professor of Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College
> 222SciBldg BSC, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 USA 716-878-3802
> <macisadl@buffalostate.edu>  <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu>
>
> On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Mark O. Kimball wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Dan,
> >
> > what is the rule regarding the use of inline or attached photos? As  
> > you
> > have probably seen, Bernard Cleyet is trying to post a photo of (who I
> > believe to be) himself. However, the default message size of <40 kB is
> > preventing this from happening. This size may be adjusted up or down.
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > Mark O. Kimball
> > Gasparinilab, University at Buffalo  |  Low temp physics
> > mok2@physics.buffalo.edu  |  URL: enthalpy.physics.buffalo.edu
> > lab phone: 716-645-2017x132  Fax: 716-645-2507
> >    
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-l mailing list
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>