Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 5 May 2006 20:04:14 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
No, Walt,
The message that came back indicates it is up to the listowner's discretion
if there is any limitation on message size.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: List Policy was: coax question
>I think it's nothing more than a server software default.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: List Policy was: coax question
>
>
> They had that idiocy on the old list serve too, doesn't make sense to me =
> but oh well. I don't run the list. Usually if I get that warning that I =
> went over I don't even bother shortening my messages anymore.=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Ham Steve=20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: List Policy was: coax question
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I wonder what the logic is now of limiting posts to the list to 250 =
> lines.=20
> If there were no limitation, then I could post the article on =
> soldering=20
> coaxial cable directly to the list. But, as it is, it exceeds the =
> limit by=20
> 100 lines.
>
> The message from the listserv indicates that these limits are up to=20
> individual listowners and not a functional limitation of the server.
>
> Take my advice, I don't use it anyway
>
> Steve
> Lansing, Mi
>
>
|
|
|