Rodger brings up a good point.
I think it's probably best if we just use the free image hosting sites.
This will help keep the email file sizes down.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Rodger Whitlock <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 13:12, Peter Flynn wrote:
> > On 14/02/12 14:12, Michael Brady wrote:
> > > Okay, the list robot stripped off the JPEG.
> > I think this was asked for many years ago as the default behaviour.
> > It's easy to set to allow attachments if people want...do we?
> > Or it can be set to allow specific MIME Content-Types...
> Allowing attachments would be a-okay if everyone behaved sensibly,
> intelligently, and honorably. Unfortunately, humans tend to be silly,
> and dishonorable with too great a frequency to put such a Utopian scheme in
> An intermediate and more realistic approach would be to forbid attachments
> an individual until he/she has posted, say, six sensible postings, then
> them. With the privilege to be permanently revoked in the event of
> stupidity, or dishonorable intentions. Or perhaps invoke hand moderation
> of any
> one subscribers first few attachment-adorned postings.
> There are plenty of free websites where you can stash images and point to
> with a URL.
> Rodger Whitlock
> Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
> Z. 7-8, cool Mediterranean climate
design & art direction