Re: (iso Pythonic code) -- if Usenet allowed a small image embedded in a msg, ...

On 2/26/24 03:51, Colin Macleod wrote:
> There's a big difference between encoding gigabyte videos into 
> hundreds of posts, and including a small picture or graphic *as part 
> of a message* just as one might do in an email.

There is and there isn't at the same time.

What differentiates someone from sending thousands of messages with 32 
kB binary to make up the image from someone else that sends a 32 kB 
graphic to discuss?

Specifically what differentiates the two discrete messages as seen by 
the spam filter on the news server?

In short, nothing differentiates the two.  Playing with the numbers is 
nothing but a whack-a-mole game.

Either you allow binary attachments or you don't.

Thus far, the general consensus of the text only portion of Usenet has 
decided to both not allow binary attachments and to actively try to 
filter them.

N.B. there are other parts of Usenet that do allow binaries.  It's just 
that text only servers have chosen to not support -> filter them.

> I think it would be very helpful to allow the second more generally, 
> with sensible limits on attachment size.

I agree in concept.

But I also agree in the text only portion of Usenet more.  Hence I run 
my servers as text only.

N.B.  My servers means my choice.



-- 
Grant. . . .