what's going on with yahoo and gmail lately?

Mon Jun 21 15:50:02 UTC 2004

In a message written on Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:33:59AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> it is easy to generate a lot of bytes.  it is hard to generate
> content.  this list is a rekknown example.

Content is in the eye of the viewer.

While you may have no use for a spiffy new camera phone, and e-mailing
video clips to each other a teenager might value having an e-mail
account not provided by their parents where friends can send all
the video clips they want without running out of disk space.

Just because you use a text e-mail client and don't like your e-mail
HTML formatted with 250kb JPEG's as signatures doesn't make you
part of the majority (at least, of e-mail users).  Sadly, far too
many people want to send an HTML formatted message, with embedded
company logos and graphical signatures attaching videos, or various
Microsoft Office formatted documents (if you want to give it a
business spin).  To the users, that is all content.  To you it is
likely bloat.

I know many corporate e-mail users (eg, account execs, sending
flashy proposals) who would blow through a gigabyte of e-mail in
under a month.  While I never want such trash to appear in my e-mail
box, as a provider of network services I take great pleasure that
people want to do that to their e-mail, because in the end it is
more bits moving across my network.  If google helps people send
bigger e-mails, with more attachments and more graphics and so on
good for them!  More bits for all of us to bill.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040621/c0d4430c/attachment.sig>