>> You gotta be kidding me. We're just starting to get the braindead DOS
 >> tossers to move away from the 64k message (which is against spec now
 >> I might add), and you want to shove us all back?

 >       Now if we could only get rid of braindead non-dos mailers that don't
 > want to rise above fts-1 mail sessions.  Are we through insulting OSs now
 > and can we get back to discussing what will work in Fido.

The specifics of a particular operating system, handling messages of
unlimited length, and FTN mail sessions - resource consumption is the issue
here, but it should not be.  If a developer is whinging about lack of
resources using a particular operating system then perhaps they should
start to look at their programming habits, or if all else fails switch to
something they can use.


 > Unbounded messages has never been a realistic goal.

I disagree.  Why do you say this?

Have you ever used a word processor with an unlimited document size?

FWIW, I've never understood why a lot of developers insist on dynamically
allocating system memory for an entire message text body.


 > 64k could be and from actual daily FidoNet use I see very few cases
 > where it wouldn't be more than sufficient to handle mail traffic.

Perhaps that is the case today, but don't assume that this situation will
continue in a few years time.


 >> I take it you're not a member of Usenet?

 >       Actually, yes I do have InterNet access.  But right now I don't read

I don't see what this has to do with Usenet newsgroups.  This is FidoNet.


ZeeYa...
Andrew.

---