Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: FD should block attachments
From: Troy <thmaillists () yahoo com>
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 10:30:53 -0800
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:29:16 -0700, Michael Gale <michael.gale () bluesuperman com> wrote:
The point -- how many people are on this list ? Lets say 10,000 -- some one sends a e-mail to the list containing a 1MB attachment. We just wasted / costs lists.netsys.com 10GB of transfer. Now lets those 10,000 list subscribers, 50% do not care about the attachment and delete it, but the other 5,000 each response with their 1MB attachment.
If 1MB attachments were regularly sent on this list, I might agree with you, but they're not. There is no epidemic of huge attachments being sent to the list. I have kept all messages sent to this list since January 21 of this year. I just ran my attachment manager plugin on those messages. There were 142 attachments for a total of 909,498 bytes, *including* HTML attachments. The largest was 111,573 bytes. The second largest was 34,856. If you remove the HTML, there were only 51 attachments totalling 571,076 bytes. So, of the binary attachments, the average file size is 11,198 bytes, or just under 11 KB. If you take the single "large" attachment out of the picture, the average size of binary files drops to about 9 KB. When you come to think of it, the binary attachments consume about 7.5KB worth of bandwidth per user per day. The HTML attachments average 4.5 KB per user per day.
Look at all the bandwidth we wast, the money we cost other people and the examples we set. Posting a link to a file is much better way -- only those who want to see the attachment will download it.
888KB is nothing compared to the amount of bandwidth the messages on this list take up.
IRC servers have this type of setup I believe -- maybe the FD could setup a HTTP server where list subscribers could post files -- have a cron to auto delete any file older then 30 days or less.
On any other list, I would agree. If this were Usenet, I'd agree. However, Full Disclosure, by its very nature, needs to be unmoderated and unfiltered. That's what makes this list unique. -- Troy _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: FD should block attachments, (continued)
- Re: FD should block attachments Niek Baakman (Apr 03)
- Re: FD should block attachments petard (Apr 02)
- FD should block attachments Michael Gale (Apr 02)
- Re: [FD] FD should block attachments Andrew J Caines (Apr 02)
- Re: Re: [FD] FD should block attachments morning_wood (Apr 02)
- Re: Re: [FD] FD should block attachments Luke Norman (Apr 02)
- Re: [FD] FD should block attachments Andrew J Caines (Apr 02)
- Re: FD should block attachments Michael Gale (Apr 03)
- RE: FD should block attachments Sean Crawford (Apr 03)
- Re: FD should block attachments Michael Gale (Apr 03)
- Re: FD should block attachments Michael Gale (Apr 03)
- Re: FD should block attachments Troy (Apr 03)
- Re: FD should block attachments Nick FitzGerald (Apr 04)
- Re: FD should block attachments fd (Apr 04)