On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:01:54 -0500 Dan Wheeler <WHEELER@UCBEH> said: >Isn't there an official policy on limiting the size of files sent by >Bitnet? I think I remember reading very recently that the limit was >being changed from 100K to 300K--and that sites did not have to change >immediately to 300K if it caused problems. Oh, please. The US part of BITNET has had a 300k file size limit due to its proverbial inertia and the fear of certain officials to do anything which might potentially stand a chance of introducing a risk of pissing off a nonzero amount of decent, law-abiding, dues-paying members, not to mention people whose vocabulary simply doesn't include the word "no". So the situation was that 300k was the limit just like in 1982, so that the handful of sites genuinely concerned about this wouldn't get angry, but then nobody would object if you sent larger files, so the large amount of sites which want to actually use the network's binary file transfer facility for what it's meant to transfer would not complain. The limit has been raised to the still ridiculously low 1M with an option for 3M in july (note that one of the data files required for the operation of the network, and without which we would not have a network to enforce limits on, is 3M and is being sent over the network as a matter of routine). >But I'd be more comfortable if I could guarantee my subscribers that >they won't get email digests over a 1000 lines long. You'll be able to guarantee that, and lots of good it will do them. You still won't be able to guarantee that nobody posts a message longer than 1000 lines to the list. You won't be able to guarantee that LISTSERV commands never generate evil longer-than-1000 responses, nor that nobody will ever dare to store a data file longer than 1000 lines which they won't be able to order. Eric