Subject: Re: Email messages: How large is too large? size matters, not

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:19:38 +0000 (GMT)

jon crowcroft writes:

> i dont care what SIZE it is - i only care whether i have the
> application to view it - microsoft users sdjhould be educated in the
> simple fact - not everyone has word or powerpoint or wants to buy
> them - so NEVER EVER send a word or ppt or excel attachment except
> to someone you are co-authoring a paper/talk/expense claim with and
> have agreed the package in advance by text mail

But distributing a file in an unspecified version of powerpoint which
then appears on the web to be downloaded by an reader base with an
unknown toolset is perfectly acceptable?

http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/%7Erichard/research/topics/royalsoc1999/crowcroft.html

[Royal Society 'network modelling in 21st century' two-day symposium
 
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/%7Erichard/research/topics/royalsoc1999/
 
 diffserv, router design, optical and Internet economics stuff. alas,
 neither the slides Van Jacobson prepared nor the slides he actually
 whipped up and gave in response to other presentations are available
 yet. And you'll need powerpoint for some, in the absence of
 postscript files rendered from them.]

> publically avaialble standards exist for the excchange of text and
> graphics, and we do not need to tolerate a monopoly who fails to
> serve the maximum public good by failing to publish their
> interchange formats.

We don't need to tolerate them. We don't have to promote them, either.
But then that's a matter of convenience; a measure of the difference
between individual and societal good.

L.

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/CCSR/Other/
it's getting to be a really crowded namespace out there.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:51:18 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Jon Crowcroft wrote:

> sure - and we could not even bother giving out the talks in any
> form - would be nice if people said _thanks_ ever.

Good point.

Thanks!

L.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:51:18 +0000 (GMT)

Good point.

Thanks!

L.

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:42:32 +0000

the royal society is going to publish papers from this meeting - the
talks are being made avaiallbe on a best effort (NOT distributed to
people, but made availabe) which seems to me to quite a different
thing from unsolicted unreadable content

if you care, the draft paper and talk i gave are at
ftp://cs.ucl.ac.uk/darpa/royal-society-network-modelling.ps.gz
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/jon/rs/

frank kelly's much more interrsting
paper (as announced at the meeting) is via
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/smi.html
("Models for a self-managed Internet ")

In message <[email-masked]>, L

 >>unknown toolset is perfectly acceptable?

see the word _attachment_ above.

 

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:42:32 +0000

cheers

   jon