By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,236 Members | 1,833 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,236 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

P: n/a

Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachments."

to:

Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
.....
Anyone disagree ?
Jun 5 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
130 Replies


P: n/a
In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.
The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
we'd never see the attachments at all.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jun 5 '07 #2

P: n/a
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000, Gianni Mariani
<gi*******@mariani.wswrote in comp.lang.c++:
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
No, it's not.
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachments."

to:

Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
....
Anyone disagree ?
I do. In addition to agreeing with Jerry's response, I don't open
attachments from strangers. Even though I don't use a web browser as
a newsreader.

Besides, once the camel's nose is in the tent, you'll start seeing a
lot of attachments that aren't just source code files.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Jun 5 '07 #3

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
No.
>
Anyone disagree ?
Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows
would be very cautious opening attachments.

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 5 '07 #4

P: n/a

"Jerry Coffin" <jc*****@taeus.comwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.sunsite.dk...
In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
>>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
we'd never see the attachments at all.

In some cases, servers will not even post messages containing attachments.

>
--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Jun 5 '07 #5

P: n/a
Ian Collins wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
No.
>Anyone disagree ?

Many I would imagine. Anyone unfortunate enough to be using windows
would be very cautious opening attachments.
My newsreader (Thunderbird) shows CPP files inline. There is no need to
open it. It's very convenient.

Jun 5 '07 #6

P: n/a
Jerry Coffin wrote:
In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
we'd never see the attachments at all.
Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?

It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.

Jun 5 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Jun 5, 6:31 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.
It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4
from:
Do not post "attachments."
to:
Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
....
Anyone disagree ?
Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.

And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Jun 5 '07 #8

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Jerry Coffin wrote:
>In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
>>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract
code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any
news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such
old antiquated rules.

The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news
servers strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries'
hierarchies. As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that
could handle them, we'd never see the attachments at all.

Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?

It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
Well, I think it's not a matter of fixing... many servers are just free
services, like the one that I'm using, and either include the access to
binary newsgroups for a fee, or prevent it at all. It also a matter of
traffic, not handling the binary newsgroups the server can reduce a lot
the workload.

Unfortunately, usenet it''s a quite old technology and it has got some
technical limitations in it.

Regards,

Zeppe
Jun 5 '07 #9

P: n/a
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000, Gianni Mariani wrote:
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

It's time for a change.
Well, I'll not disagree any more than others already did :-) But I'm
curious: why do you find that easier? (I may sort of understand the
"extract" part, but as to posting... any decent newsreader will offer
you to chose whether you want to attach the file or paste its contents
inline)

--
Gennaro Prota -- C++ Developer, For Hire
https://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/
(replace 'address' with 'name.surname' to mail)
Jun 5 '07 #10

P: n/a
James Kanze wrote:
....
>Anyone disagree ?

Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.

And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).
Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)

Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
now (mostly available).

I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.

There is nothing different in this argument. NOTHING. We'll need to
rally an ISP or two to get them to fix a few settings, but this is not a
big deal.

So what's the deal ?

Jun 5 '07 #11

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
James Kanze wrote:
....
>>Anyone disagree ?

Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.

And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).

Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)

Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
now (mostly available).

I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.

There is nothing different in this argument. NOTHING. We'll need to
rally an ISP or two to get them to fix a few settings, but this is not a
big deal.

So what's the deal ?
I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably
paranoid about opening attachments.

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 5 '07 #12

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachments."

to:

Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
....
Anyone disagree ?
I don't know about you guys, but I find it easier to look at the code
inline. No switching windows, no downloading anything, all right there,
simple as can be.
I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but
this one? What is source code? Plain text. What is this message? Plain
text. I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just
send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server
will do.
It's not a matter of being "antiquated" or "luddite," it's a matter of
need. Why fix what ain't broke? To get an extra feature or three most
won't use anyways? Sounds like bloat to me. I dunno, that's just my two
cents.

--
[there are no x's in my email]

I have the right to remain silent
(and should probably use it as much as possible)
Anything I type can and will be used against me
in a court of idiocy
I have the right to be wrong
(and probably am)
If I can not furnish my own wrongness
I'm sure someone will provide it for me.
Jun 5 '07 #13

P: n/a
* Gianni Mariani:
James Kanze wrote:
...
>>Anyone disagree ?

Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.

And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).

Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)
I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in
some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are
totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very
likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless
majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed",
then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded
attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Jun 5 '07 #14

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
[...]
Anyone disagree ?
Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that
will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters,
which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do
you really need that?

Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup
message] is an important part of getting the problem solved. Often
the problem becomes less such while in the preparation for posting.
We cannot deny anybody that important step in their development as
C++ programmers.

BTW, have you taken your aspirins yet? Sounds like you haven't...

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Jun 5 '07 #15

P: n/a
Devon Null wrote:
....
I don't know about you guys, but I find it easier to look at the code
inline. No switching windows, no downloading anything, all right there,
simple as can be.
Here is a posting I made a while back that shows the code even though it
is an attachment. Thunderbird also shows it as an attachment.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....16f3add?&hl=en

I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but
this one? What is source code? Plain text.
often news readers will munge text when it is posted - not so when it is
attached.
... What is this message? Plain
text.
Actually - it's formatted by the news reader before posting. It's
properly justified.
... I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just
send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server
will do.
One of the nice things about NNTP is that it is archived. There are
plenty of messages I posted 15 years ago still available - source code
and all.

It's not a matter of being "antiquated" or "luddite," it's a matter of
need. Why fix what ain't broke?
IMHO it is broke. Anything I spend doing where a computer can do for me
is a waste of time. If I can click on your attachment and auto-compile
it I would. It would lower my threshold in terms of checking other
people's code.

Many of the features that go unused, were put there for good reasons.
Refusing to use them or at least suggesting improvements is being a luddite.
... To get an extra feature or three most
won't use anyways? Sounds like bloat to me. I dunno, that's just my two
cents.
I remember the first time I saw people use a browser. "Aw - heck, I can
use ftp to problem, why would I need to use html".

I can see this is going to be a miracle.

Go reread your previous post and tell me that this system is the best
thing since sliced bread. Having to reassemble broken lines because it
broke a string or a comment. Every second I do that is time I don't
spend helping the poster.

Jeez fellas, are you really all crustier than I ?

Maybe it's time I stop wasting my time altogether.
Jun 5 '07 #16

P: n/a
Victor Bazarov wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>[...]
Anyone disagree ?

Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that
will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters,
which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do
you really need that?
I don't know about you, but I spend more time reassembling the code I
copy from the message than actually figuring out what's going on.
>
Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup
message] is an important part of getting the problem solved.
Well, that's kind of the point. I'd rather the poter be told to try to
compile the file before posting. Posting a file as an attachment kind
of forces that they at least put the code in a separate file. Otherwise
we get what we see here, either code edited in the message, missing
important detail. We still get the monster posts of code anyway.
... Often
the problem becomes less such while in the preparation for posting.
We cannot deny anybody that important step in their development as
C++ programmers.

BTW, have you taken your aspirins yet? Sounds like you haven't...
I obviously need lots more.
Jun 5 '07 #17

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
>Gianni Mariani wrote:
>>[...]
Anyone disagree ?

Hell, yes. Attachments do make it easier to post code, but that
will put more work on the shoulders of the readers than the posters,
which in turn means more traffic and fewer questions answered. Do
you really need that?

I don't know about you, but I spend more time reassembling the code I
copy from the message than actually figuring out what's going on.
You either take up answering questions that are too tough, or those
that have not been prepared well enough (code not distilled or the
error messages have not been spelled out or lines with errors have
not been indicated), or something else (I'd rather not elaborate on
that one).
>Working on distilling one's own code [to be posted in a newsgroup
message] is an important part of getting the problem solved.

Well, that's kind of the point. I'd rather the poter be told to try
to compile the file before posting.
That's a given. But there is no relationship between compiling and
the form of posting (inline vs attachment).
Posting a file as an attachment
kind of forces that they at least put the code in a separate file.
Yes, but does it force them to try compiling it afterwards? No.
The fact that people ask about their code means that they have at
least tried compiling it [in its original form]. Many will actually
remove something they don't want others to see before they attach
files, which means more work for them. Making those files will not
force them to compile, it will just create more problems for
everybody: posters need to make copies of files, readers will have
to copy them into temporary directories to look at them, etc.
Otherwise we get what we see here, either code edited in the message,
missing important detail. We still get the monster posts of code
anyway.
And we will, still. Those who want and are able to provide decent
information, have, do, and will. Those who [most likely] are unable
(incapable) haven't, don't, and won't, regardless whether it's in
an attachment or inline with their post.

It sounds like you're looking for a better solution to your problem
of having to reassemble the code when answering questions here. Do
you really think it should be done by making everybody else's lives
more difficult?

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Jun 5 '07 #18

P: n/a
On Jun 5, 3:25 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
Jerry Coffin wrote:
The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
we'd never see the attachments at all.

Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?

It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
I wish my friends and relatives didn't make use of attachment
technology so well - love getting huge emails with pictures/videos :-(

Linking should always be preferred to attaching. Can't you put the
code on an ftp or web site somewhere and link to it?

Jun 5 '07 #19

P: n/a
On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
James Kanze wrote:
...
Anyone disagree ?
Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).
Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)
Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see
any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to
propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful.

There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment
might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file
when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases,
however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to
justify changing anything.
Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
now (mostly available).
You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just
to change.
I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
There is nothing different in this argument.
There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Jun 5 '07 #20

P: n/a
On Jun 5, 3:37 pm, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
Devon Null wrote:
...
I can understand some newsgroups needing attachment capabilities, but
this one? What is source code? Plain text.
often news readers will munge text when it is posted - not so when it is
attached.
So change the reader. A news reader shouldn't munge text.
... What is this message? Plain
text.
Actually - it's formatted by the news reader before posting.
It shouldn't be. Google Groups had this misfeature for a very
short time, but dropped it quickly, because it makes technical
groups unusable. In practice, a newsreader reads news---any
editing should be passed off to your favorite editor. (Unless,
of course, it is your favorite editor which is reading the
news---GNUS doesn't have much "passing off" to do if your
favorite editor is emacs:-).)

I don't know about Thunderbird, but Firefox certainly allows
using other editors for the post boxed Google sends---I
regularly use gvim for all of my posting.
It's properly justified.
You probably mean improperly justified:-). If that's the case,
change newsreaders to something decent.
... I personally don't see the need. If it is all that large, just
send it via email of ftp (if you have access to one). Hell, a web server
will do.
One of the nice things about NNTP is that it is archived. There are
plenty of messages I posted 15 years ago still available - source code
and all.
Just a nit, but that's not a feature of NNTP. NNTP is mainly a
question of transport, and normally, messages will "expire"
after a relatively short time. But some sites have always tried
to archive, and of course, today, there's Google.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Jun 5 '07 #21

P: n/a

Gianni Mariani wrote in message...
Jerry Coffin wrote:
In article <4664e716$0$22437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract
code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.
The problem isn't with newsreaders -- it's that quite a few news servers
strip all attachments in newsgroups outside the 'binaries' hierarchies.
As such, even though most of us use newsreaders that could handle them,
we'd never see the attachments at all.
Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?
It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
Cast my vote for NO attachments!!

You want attachments because *you* are too lazy to copy/paste?

--
Bob R
POVrookie
Jun 5 '07 #22

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract
code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any
news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such
old antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be
changed:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachments."

to:

Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of
the context of the question. ....
Anyone disagree ?

Yeah, it's fairly dumb. Modern technology makes it easy to copy and
paste whatever text needs to go in a message. Code that is posted here
needs to be reduced to a minimal state anyway.

Attachments just encourage people to send big source files that no one
will bother with anyway.

I have my newsreader set to NOT render attachments.


Brian
Jun 5 '07 #23

P: n/a
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani
<gi*******@mariani.wswrote,
>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.
File attachments are inappropriate in discussion groups. Get a
newsreader that allows you to "paste" source code directly into the text
of your posts at the point where it is relevant. Replies to your post
will often contain some lines quoted from that code interspersed with
the discussion of it. Your convenience in posting shouldn't overrule
that of everybody (hopefully a larger number) who will read and may
reply.

If your purpose in posting is posting and extracting files instead of
discussion, use a group with ".binaries." in the name.

Jun 5 '07 #24

P: n/a
David Harmon wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:31:18 +1000 in comp.lang.c++, Gianni Mariani
<gi*******@mariani.wswrote,
>Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.

File attachments are inappropriate in discussion groups. Get a
newsreader that allows you to "paste" source code directly into the text
of your posts at the point where it is relevant. Replies to your post
will often contain some lines quoted from that code interspersed with
the discussion of it. Your convenience in posting shouldn't overrule
that of everybody (hopefully a larger number) who will read and may
reply.
How can I possibly control the news reader that other posters use ?

Most of my posts are in response to other OP.

OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and inefficient
methods because they see no reason to improve, I will cede the argument.

It's time for me to move on.
Jun 5 '07 #25

P: n/a
On Jun 5, 1:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
James Kanze wrote:

...
Anyone disagree ?
Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).

Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)
Gianni,

I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.

Jun 5 '07 #26

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:

OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and
inefficient methods because they see no reason to improve, I will
cede the argument.
Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.
It's time for me to move on.
First sensible thing you said.


Brian
Jun 5 '07 #27

P: n/a
Owen Jacobson wrote:
....
>
Gianni,

I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.
Owen,

Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.

If this conjures visions of vile intellectual dishonesty in you, then
this is something you need to deal with. Good luck with that.

In this case, there are technologically superior methods of dealing with
this news group when it comes to attaching code. I have made
references to the issues I raised and *all* the responses are of the
form - "I like it the way it is, no need to improve". If we all have
that kind of attitude, no progress will be made.

I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest. Maybe I could do a
better job of making my case, but I know I am saying exactly what I
think. My only motive here is to improve the collective experience of
posting on this NG.

I have posted over 3000 times over the last few years so I think I'm
qualified to have a founded opinion on the qualities of the system.

Let me throw this one back at you. To accuse someone of being
dishonest, you must have some kind of reason to believe I have lied or
been fraudulent in some way. Why would I lie ? I've made it pretty
clear (I think) why we need to make some change. It looks to me like
you need to reflect on your use of the term "dishonest".

G
Jun 5 '07 #28

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:

>OKOK Given that everyone wishes to continue to use old and
inefficient methods because they see no reason to improve, I will
cede the argument.

Demonstrating that you Don't Get It.
It demonstrates that we have a very different perspective. I think I
see yours, I don't think you see mine.

When I look at both perspectives, I see the balance of the merits in the
perspective I advocate.

What exactly don't you think I get ?
>
>It's time for me to move on.

First sensible thing you said.
Probably.
Jun 5 '07 #29

P: n/a
Ian Collins wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
....
>So what's the deal ?
I don't care one way or another, but many windows users are justifiably
paranoid about opening attachments.
Most of the reasons to be paranoid are not justified with attachments of
source code. Most browsers will show the code (without line breaks)
without needing explicitly open the attachments.
Jun 5 '07 #30

P: n/a
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
....
>Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)

I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in
some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are
totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very
likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless
majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed",
then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded
attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs.
Is your argument that the volume of nonsense posts will go up ? We
already have a large quantity of nonsense posts because this is not a
moderated group we have bought into explaining the rules to newcomers.
I don't think the volume of nonsense posts will be any different to what
it is today.

Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.

I'm no longer trying to convince you because I have given up on the
cause, however, I do think you need to rethink your position since it
makes little sense to me.
Jun 5 '07 #31

P: n/a
James Kanze wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
>James Kanze wrote:
...
>>>Anyone disagree ?
>>Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
>>And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).
>Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)

Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see
any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to
propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful.
h
OK. I think this may be our difference in opinion. I do think there
are many good reasons to have source code attachments.

a) One click - save file - compile is simpler than open file, copy,
paste, correct the justification mangling etc.

b) Posting back a response is simply select drag-drop.

c) Attached code is more easily identified in the archives making it
easier (theoretically in the future) to search for.
>
There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment
might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file
when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases,
however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to
justify changing anything.
I'd like to see how you justify that statement.
>
>Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
now (mostly available).

You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just
to change.
I think it's obvious but maybe my earlier comments give you a better idea.
>
>I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
>There is nothing different in this argument.

There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful.
The inference being file attachments are not ? Go figure.
Jun 5 '07 #32

P: n/a
On 2007-06-04 21:31:18 -0700, Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wssaid:
>
Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract
code from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any
news reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such
old antiquated rules.

It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

from:

Do not post "attachments."

to:

Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
....
Anyone disagree ?
I disagree. Anything that could be valid to post here as an attachment
is plain text (i.e. source code, excerpts from the standard), anything
else couldn't possibly be on topic. And, if anything you could possibly
need to post as an attachment is plain text, then why not just post it
as plain text?

--
Clark S. Cox III
cl*******@gmail.com

Jun 5 '07 #33

P: n/a
In article <46650fef$0$22414$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...

[ ... ]
Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?
They _are_ fixed.
It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.
In this case, we choose not to use the technology at hand because the
technology would serve little useful purpose under the circumstances. In
fact, my own opinion is that allowing attachments in this newsgroup (or
essentially any other I frequent) would be highly detrimental.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jun 6 '07 #34

P: n/a
Clark Cox wrote:
On 2007-06-04 21:31:18 -0700, Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wssaid:
....
>Anyone disagree ?

I disagree. Anything that could be valid to post here as an attachment
is plain text (i.e. source code, excerpts from the standard), anything
else couldn't possibly be on topic. And, if anything you could possibly
need to post as an attachment is plain text, then why not just post it
as plain text?
How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?

Jun 6 '07 #35

P: n/a
Jerry Coffin wrote:
In article <46650fef$0$22414$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...

[ ... ]
>Is it not time to get those news servers fixed ?

They _are_ fixed.
>It appears the reasons we choose not to use the technology we have at
hand is because we're too lazy to make better use of them.

In this case, we choose not to use the technology at hand because the
technology would serve little useful purpose under the circumstances. In
fact, my own opinion is that allowing attachments in this newsgroup (or
essentially any other I frequent) would be highly detrimental.
You opine without basis in fact. Please elaborate. Surely one who is
enlightened with technology can make a convincing argument on such a
simple issue.


Jun 6 '07 #36

P: n/a
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:21:52 +1000, Gianni Mariani
<gi*******@mariani.wswrote in comp.lang.c++:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
...
Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)
I don't know the reasons for James' position. But in general, if in
some aspect of life there are very hard rules that sort of work, but are
totally unreasonable to those able to use their heads, then it's very
likely that the rules are there to contain the excesses of the headless
majority. E.g., if plain text source code attachments were "allowed",
then soon MS Outlook Express users would be posting Base64-encoded
attachments, and all and any would be posting binary programs.

Is your argument that the volume of nonsense posts will go up ? We
already have a large quantity of nonsense posts because this is not a
moderated group we have bought into explaining the rules to newcomers.
I don't think the volume of nonsense posts will be any different to what
it is today.

Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.
Gosh, you're awfully generous with volunteering the time and effort of
the moderators. Perhaps you should run it by them before you make a
commitment for them?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Jun 6 '07 #37

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Owen Jacobson wrote:
....
>>
Gianni,

I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.

Owen,

Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.
That argument assumes there is technological progress to oppose. It
looks pretty clear form the responses to this thread that those who care
don't see any advantage and some see potential risks.

As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
open editor than save a file and open it.

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 6 '07 #38

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 11:09 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.
Hyperlinking is more technologically progressive than
attachments. Yet you insist on attachments. You luddite!

Jun 6 '07 #39

P: n/a
In article <466609b4$0$22414$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...

[ ... ]
You opine without basis in fact.
Not true. I didn't express the facts, but that's different from claiming
that there IS not factual basis.
Please elaborate. Surely one who is
enlightened with technology can make a convincing argument on such a
simple issue.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise, but the argument is quite
simple: this is a _discussion_ newsgroup. Attachments are not
discussion.

Yes, attachments can/could reduce some problems due to lines in source
code being wrapped by various poorly configured editors/readers, etc.
While true as far as it goes, this has little relevance. First of all,
as has already been pointed out, many of us wouldn't open attachments
from unknown sources. Second, many (most?) newsreaders assume that
attachments are binaries and treat them in a manner suitable for
binaries, not as part of the message body where it belongs (given that
this IS a discussion group, so nothing really belongs outside the body).

If you really want to ensure against munging of posted source code,
there are better ways. Years ago, on Fidonet, a number of people noted
roughly the same problem. One of the solutions that was posted was a
program called csplit.c. This had a number of advantages over
attachments. First and foremost, the source code stayed in the body of
the message, and remained in a reasonably readable format. Second, since
it was still simple text, there was no way for anybody to hide something
people really don't want, as is trivial with an attachment. Third, it
actually did other "cleanup" on the code to make it ready for posting
(e.g. it automatically expanded tabs to a specified number of spaces,
since readers often don't display tabs quite the same as a programming
editor).

The method you're advocating is quite invasive and accomplishes little.
Other methods can minimize the invasiveness while accomplishing
considerably more.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jun 6 '07 #40

P: n/a
On 2007-06-05 17:03:47 -0700, Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wssaid:
Clark Cox wrote:
>On 2007-06-04 21:31:18 -0700, Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wssaid:
...
>>Anyone disagree ?

I disagree. Anything that could be valid to post here as an attachment
is plain text (i.e. source code, excerpts from the standard), anything
else couldn't possibly be on topic. And, if anything you could possibly
need to post as an attachment is plain text, then why not just post it
as plain text?

How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?
Many times. Why is that relevant?

--
Clark S. Cox III
cl*******@gmail.com

Jun 6 '07 #41

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 1:03 pm, Old Wolf <oldw...@inspire.net.nzwrote:
On Jun 6, 11:09 am,GianniMariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.

Hyperlinking is more technologically progressive than
attachments. Yet you insist on attachments. You luddite!
Yeah - I thought of linking, however it does not follow the message
and when my server goes down, the message becomes useless. Much
better to have it as part of the message, i.e. an attachment.

Jun 6 '07 #42

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 12:00 pm, Jack Klein <jackkl...@spamcop.netwrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:21:52 +1000,GianniMariani
<gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote in comp.lang.c++:
....
>
Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.

Gosh, you're awfully generous with volunteering the time and effort of
the moderators. Perhaps you should run it by them before you make a
commitment for them?
I think you can easily auto filter inappropriate attachments.

I often have my responses auto filtered saying I've quoted too much of
the original message. That's one of the reasons (not the only one) I
don't use c.l.c++.mod...

Jun 6 '07 #43

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 12:21 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
GianniMariani wrote:
Owen Jacobson wrote:
....
>Gianni,
I have to object strenuously to this post. Whether intentional or
not, you've engaged in a particularly vile form of intellectual
dishonesty by labelling other posters as "luddites". You have an
opinion, which stands quite well on its own; don't sully it with
insults.
Owen,
Vile or not, I think anyone (including me) who opposes technological
progress with no substantive reasoning is a luddite by the very (modern)
definition of the term.

That argument assumes there is technological progress to oppose. It
looks pretty clear form the responses to this thread that those who care
don't see any advantage and some see potential risks.
All the responses so far have not addressed the issues I raised.
>
As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
open editor than save a file and open it.
Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
code?

Jun 6 '07 #44

P: n/a
* Gianni Mariani:
On Jun 6, 12:00 pm, Jack Klein <jackkl...@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:21:52 +1000,GianniMariani
<gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote in comp.lang.c++:
...
>>Actually, I think it makes sense to allow code attachments to clc++.mod
because the moderator can nuke posts with non code attachments.
Gosh, you're awfully generous with volunteering the time and effort of
the moderators. Perhaps you should run it by them before you make a
commitment for them?

I think you can easily auto filter inappropriate attachments.

I often have my responses auto filtered saying I've quoted too much of
the original message. That's one of the reasons (not the only one) I
don't use c.l.c++.mod...
Sorry, that's incorrect.

Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
cross-posting to unsupported groups.

However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
the loop* if you don't think of the readers...

Cheers,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Jun 6 '07 #45

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 5:19 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <a...@start.nowrote:
....
>
Sorry, that's incorrect.

Postings to clc++m are never automatically rejected, except for
cross-posting to unsupported groups.

However, the moderation software flags articles that in a limited
statistical sense are overquoted, and it also flags articles quoting the
clc++m banner, which generally means the poster hasn't even bothered to
try -- there is a high chance of rejection *by the human moderator in
the loop* if you don't think of the readers...
Even worse then. I don't remember the exact postings but it was a
couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure I quoted only the significant
portions of the message and placed my responses inline. It happened 3
times and I have not bothered to post there (often) since. If I take
the time to respond to someone, the last thing I want to have happen
is to have some human get in the way of getting that message out there
for some lamo reason.

There are other reasons - like moderator propagation delay - which
causes one question to be answered many times. This makes the level
of noise unacceptably worse IMHO than c.l.c++.

Moderation is a nice concept, I don't see it working other than in low
traffic NG's like comp.std.c++ which (for whatever reason) I expect to
have more in depth discussions.
Jun 6 '07 #46

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 1:40 pm, Jerry Coffin <jcof...@taeus.comwrote:
In article <466609b4$0$22414$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi3nos...@mariani.ws says...

[ ... ]
You opine without basis in fact.

Not true. I didn't express the facts, but that's different from claiming
that there IS not factual basis.
Please elaborate. Surely one who is
enlightened with technology can make a convincing argument on such a
simple issue.

I'm not sure I agree with your premise, but the argument is quite
simple: this is a _discussion_ newsgroup. Attachments are not
discussion.

Yes, attachments can/could reduce some problems due to lines in source
code being wrapped by various poorly configured editors/readers, etc.
While true as far as it goes, this has little relevance. First of all,
as has already been pointed out, many of us wouldn't open attachments
from unknown sources. Second, many (most?) newsreaders assume that
attachments are binaries and treat them in a manner suitable for
binaries, not as part of the message body where it belongs (given that
this IS a discussion group, so nothing really belongs outside the body).

If you really want to ensure against munging of posted source code,
there are better ways. Years ago, on Fidonet, a number of people noted
roughly the same problem. One of the solutions that was posted was a
program called csplit.c. This had a number of advantages over
attachments. First and foremost, the source code stayed in the body of
the message, and remained in a reasonably readable format. Second, since
it was still simple text, there was no way for anybody to hide something
people really don't want, as is trivial with an attachment. Third, it
actually did other "cleanup" on the code to make it ready for posting
(e.g. it automatically expanded tabs to a specified number of spaces,
since readers often don't display tabs quite the same as a programming
editor).

The method you're advocating is quite invasive and accomplishes little.
Other methods can minimize the invasiveness while accomplishing
considerably more.
I have a vague memory of csplit. I'll go check.

You may an assertion about "invasive", I don't concede on that point.
Explain what is so invasive to you.
Jun 6 '07 #47

P: n/a
Gianni Mariani wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:21 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
>As I said upthread, I don't care, but I prefer to cut and paste into an
open editor than save a file and open it.

Have you never had to deal with message formatting messing with the
code?
Sometimes, but I'd wager most attached code would have DOS line endings
I've have to filter out. I'd rather fix a small snippet than wade my
way through scores of lines of someone else's code.

We should encourage posters to post the smallest example that shows
their problem, as others have said, this helps them find their own
solution. If we accept attachments, I bet we'd get loads of "my program
doesn't work" postings with large code attachments.

The main issue isn't technical, it is human.

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 6 '07 #48

P: n/a
Clark Cox wrote:
On 2007-06-05 17:03:47 -0700, Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wssaid:
....
>>
How many time have you posted code or cut code from a posting ?

Many times. Why is that relevant?
I almost never find code a simple cut-n-paste.

Here is a very recent classic example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....2222c5d?&hl=en
Jun 6 '07 #49

P: n/a
On Jun 6, 1:31 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
James Kanze wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.wswrote:
James Kanze wrote:
...
Anyone disagree ?
>Definitly. I do not open attachments, even in email, unless I
know the source; I would never open one posted in a newsgroup.
>And I have absolutly no problem "extracting" bits of source code
embedded in the text of a message, even though I'm reading and
posting via Google (which as many can attest to, isn't the best
newsreading interface in the world).
Why is it that you're being such a luddite on this one ? (I thought I
was old and crusty...)
Maybe it's because I am old and crusty. But I just don't see
any real advantage, and attachments ARE used far more often to
propagate viruses and such than they are for anything useful.
OK. I think this may be our difference in opinion. I do think there
are many good reasons to have source code attachments.
a) One click - save file - compile is simpler than open file, copy,
paste, correct the justification mangling etc.
If I'm going to reply, I've already got the original posting in
vim. So I don't even have to click to get a window up with the
original code, and prepare it for compilation.
b) Posting back a response is simply select drag-drop.
??? Posting back a response means writing something, no?
c) Attached code is more easily identified in the archives making it
easier (theoretically in the future) to search for.
Except that this isn't the right group for that. The goal here
isn't to post code that someone might find useful; it is to
answer questions, and otherwise discuss issues concerning the
language.
There are potentially two cases where I think an attachment
might be useful: to post a UML diagram, and to post a tar file
when the problem concerns multiple files. In both cases,
however, I don't consider the advantages important enough to
justify changing anything.
I'd like to see how you justify that statement.
What is there to justify? It's certainly easier to follow class
diagrams, etc., in some sort of graphic representation than in
ASCII art. But since, once again, this group is concerned with
the language, and not more general software design issues, it's
not that important.
Fellas, it's time we move forward a little bit. You can't really
justify sticking to the old technologies when better ones are available
now (mostly available).
You've yet to show where it's better. I'm against changing just
to change.
I think it's obvious but maybe my earlier comments give you a
better idea.
I've not seen any reason as to why it would be better. Either
you're newsreader isn't up to par, or you don't know how to
configure it, so you want everyone else to suffer.
I remember having the same discussions when we were pushing 7 bit emails
and everyone was saying "we're not going to allow sending 8 bit emails
because there are too many servers out there that will munge your
emails". Well, guess what, all the 7 bit email servers have died. They
also got fixed very fast when the first message broke.
There is nothing different in this argument.
There's an important difference: 8 bit codes are useful.
The inference being file attachments are not ?
Correct. I don't see any real utility for them in this group.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Jun 6 '07 #50

130 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.