Received: from  ([206.46.170.106])
 by fonix.org (wcSMTP v5.5.450.2)
 with SMTP id 829718500; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:53:41 +0000
Received: from BobDial ([67.248.207.175]) by out006.verizon.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP
          id 
          for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:53:37 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Bob Dial" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Fido Attachments/ALL
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:57:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out006.verizon.net from
[67.248.207.175] at Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:53:36 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: 50-500mm Sigma Lens


> [fonix.photo]
>
>  Da> So who ever runs this don't like attachments??

>  >
>  > Yes - I got the attachment OK. It was more than 400k though and not
sure
>  > how that sits with the rules and regs here.
>  > Regards
>  > Chris
>  >
>
>  The attachment was so large it overflowed my 640k dos memory space,
>  requiring a reset of the dos computer.  Above is how your messages are
>  received by one using a text based system.

Everything on Fido should originate as text, not HTML, and attachments are
not allowed.  This has been stated on a number of occasions in the past but
manages to come up again and again.  Confusion rises due to so many using
Internet connections.  Lots of FidoNet Photo participants also use other
group sites for posting mutual interest photographs and are welcome to then
discuss them here on FidoNet.  When a message arrives from a gateway site
such as Fonix thru Chris or Tom Lebens site at Fanciful the traffic gets
intertwined and sometimes may appear that photo echo members are sending
attachments through the echo.
That isn't the case.  For sure, attachments are not carried on the relays to
Zone 1, 2, or 3, which encompass most of the world.

What does happen is that attachments posted to FidoNet cause hangups that
delay mail exchanges when the operational software goes about stripping them
from the body of text messages.  It's a futile cycle which never
satisfactorily may get the attachment further than into a trashcan somewhere
along the line.  Post pictures to an Internet site operated for that
purpose, then if you wish it is fine to discuss those posted pictures in the
Photo Forum of Fido.  The pictures never belong in a FidoNet post.  Post
pictures to a dedicated picture site and give its URL so that anyone
interested may go directly to it for viewing.

If anyone has questions about this please contact either Stu Turk or myself
by independent E-Mail.  Such things used to be done by NetMail but that
applies only to those accessing the echo thru FidoNet BBS locations--which
isn't many, now.
E-Mail can reach us either way so it would be appreciated if that medium is
used for personal information topics to the moderators.

>  unnecessary HTML because one wanted to use the Rich Text format of the
>  Outlook Express to create a pretty email, then attach a picture to the
>  bottom and it becomes undecipherable.

Exactly correct!

>  This is FIDO, attachments are allowed in some conferences, not this
>  one I believe. (Ruling moderators please)

I'm not aware of any FidoNet Tags which allow large file attachments.
Perhaps some areas now allow music files, which is more of the same--large
files not designed to be carried on the FidoNet Backbone.  We do not allow
attachments in Fido messages because they cannot be handled properly on a
text based system with the programs currently in use to move Fido traffic.

>Remember FIDO and BBS's were
>  set up to handle Unix compatable 7 bit characters, requiring one of the
>  bits out of each 8 bit byte as a steering bit, and even use of the
>  extended character set was illegal. Using a program such as UUE/D one
>  could encode and decode executable files and pictures, changing their 8
>  bit characters to 7 for transmission and restoring them to 8 bit at the
>  receiver.  Using programs such as C-Split one could break those giant
>  encoded messages into acceptable sized chunks of data to be handled by
>  the FIDO sysops as they spent their own money on long distant calls
>  transferring your messages for you as a hobby.  Back then it was
>  considered inconsiderate to send mail that someone else was paying to
>  deliver, unless it was appropriate and fit with in the limits of
>  responsible behavior.  A 400,000 byte picture file is larger than most
>  executable programs were and is even to large to fit on the 360K floppy
>  in use during the hey day of FIDO.
>

Again, technically accurate information!  That is the way Fido was
structured.

>  Just because Microsoft has made it so easy to click on the attachment
>  button, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do unless you are sending
>  an email over the inter-NET. You might be receiving your photo echo
>  messages in email from the your FDO source. You might have the latest
>  whiz bang computer and feel a need to show off it's prowess, however I
>  know some folks who are still receiving their FIDO Net traffic over the
>  old BBS path, folks who are also using old Apple's, dos based PC's and
>  even one guy still using an old TI from Texas Instruments.  Making the
>  assumption that everyone has the latest whiz bang computers leaves
>  those folks out in the cold.  If one has a picture they want others to
>  see, post it someplace and place the URL of where it can be seen in
>  your message.
>

Comprehensive and precisely correct, Sir!  Thanks for taking time to cross
the T's and dot the I's for those who were unaware.  Using Tom's volunteered
Fanciful site to distribute the FidoNet Photo Echo was a move to insure that
everyone who had been a member could continue to participate even though
their local BBS site was no longer in operation.  Without the gateway
locations which import Fido and put it out to mail servers, anyone who
wished to follow the traffic would have to call LD at their own expense,
twice a day, to do so.  That is not a satisfactory solution for many of us.
Thanks to Tom and Chris, we only pay for ISP connections and they pick up
the other expenses -- which are considerable!

If your ISP allows Telnet or similar usage you may also participate in the
Photo Echo through such excellent sites as Doc's Place which has been as
flawless as any other over a span of many years.  As you should know, QWK
packets, or live online reading and replies are also possible at Doc's,
Fanciful, Fonix, and other sites set up to provide those services.  Your
choice.

FidoNet is an entity unto itself.  The Internet is a means of travel and
distribution, so far as Fido is concerned.  

Thanks, Bobfer, for the explanations.  Feel free to get grumpy any time you
like!

Bob Dial, Co-Moderator
FidoNet Photo Echo


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5