MB> Some folks forget that others run software that might crash or not
 MB> pass on large messages. 

speaking as one of those folk, /i/ don't forget... i _know_ that there is
software available for those who can't/don't want to handle large
messages... this software can cut/split (by FTSC proposal) messages too
large for their systems to handle... i've said this for years... in fact,
i've had this stance ever since the ^aSPLIT proposal was presented to the
FTSC... i have /always/ believed it the responsibility of the -=recieving=-
system to split messages according to _their_ capabilities rather than
"forcing" everyone else to succumb to their individual
restrictions...

 MB>  Even though many of us run systems capable of handling large 
 MB> messages; all to often the software cannot or at least is not 
 MB> configured to do so.

that is the operator's problem, IMHO... the real "problem" is
getting folk to look at the other side of the coin...

 MB> At least squish is smart enough to skip them. 

and thus loose mail... there's one part of that blackhole that folk speak of...

 MB> I suspect there are tossers that stop up completely when they 
 MB> encouter very large messages? 

i don't doubt that... that's one of the main reasons why i see that ^aSPLIT
proposal is written and directed to the wrong folk...

 MB> Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

educate folk and teach them to cut messages up to what /their/ systems can
handle and don't restrict others in what they can handle ;) O:)

)\/(ark