NavList:

   

Reply

Gary LaPook writes:

As the winner, I decided to see how I had been able to achieve this
exalted honor. I reviewed my postings this month and figured it out.
On two occasions I wanted to add small attachment to suppliment my
previous posts but I did it by replying to the existing emails that
already had large attachments so those large attachments were sent
around a second, un-needed time. I will watch this in the future.

Some other groups I post to have a "files" section on the site to
which I send the attachments which are then just referenced in the
actual post and members are free to go to the "files" section and
download only the attachments which interest them. Does google groups
have such a system?

gl

On Jul 24, 9:37 pm, frankr...@HistoricalAtlas.net wrote:
> I agree with Bill that we need to keep an eye on the sizes of file
> attachments. There's no question that most of us find them useful, but as
> you can see by the attached graphs, there has been a big increase in total
> file sizes recently. Also, if you see your initials in the lower graph, and
> there's a tall bar above it, please just be careful about reducing the sizes
> of your images whenever you can.
>
> The grand total for attachments so far this month is slightly more than 16
> megabytes, which is more than 85% of the total traffic for NavList this
> month. This is nothing compared to the size of a lot of other Internet
> content, like a short video, for example, but bear in mind that attachments
> are sent out to all NavList members so we're responsible for about 8
> gigabytes of network traffic this month. That's like downloading ten
> full-length movies. So in other words, our attachments represent as much
> traffic as one file-swapping college freshman on a Friday night :-). But for
> NavList members with limited bandwidth, it's still a pain in the neck.
>
> The top graph (see attachment!) shows the total megabytes for all
> attachments larger than 100k sent out in the past five years. The current
> month is on the left. The lower graph shows attachments per person in the
> same period for all list members who have used attachments. Attachments
> smaller than 100k are not counted in the totals. NEARLY ALL of these
> attachments were relevant and useful. Attachments have always been used in
> this group, since long before I was "list owner", and the technology for
> producing them just gets better and better. I think this is the primary
> reason for the increase in file size. Incidentally, I excluded two very
> large attachments which were sent accidentally (one for certain, because
> there was a sincere apology ten minutes later, the other probably an
> accident since the content surely had no relation to traditional navigation
>  --both before I was "list owner" incidentally).
>
> One specific suggestion from me personally: please try to avoid quoting back
> a complete message ESPECIALLY when it contains graphics or an attachment. If
> you send a message that says something short like "thanks" or "I agree" and
> you auto-quote an earlier message that is 500,000 bytes in size then you
> will re-send those 500,000 bytes to all list members. So have a look at your
> email software and see if you can figure out how to turn off auto-quoting in
> replies.
>
>  -FER
>
>  atch1.gif
> 32KViewDownload
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply