I'm not disputing your point, but waste is waste.  I suppose I'm thinking in terms of marginal utiiity.  I reviewed 14,000 posts taking 35 Megs on one lists last year and found that some 60% of content was HTML code and quoting, the vast majority of which was excessive.  Space did not appear to be a concern to the site maintainer and a request for 50 Megs for archives rendered 60 on that one list to our surprise.  All our lists no longer allow HTML, attachments, and I've already mentioned quotes.  The disk space of the server has less to do with anything if you want to preserve portability of the data and may have to move to space restricted in some manner.  On a list, a 60% saving is a 60% saving.

Michael


At 12:21 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Paul Karagianis wrote:
>
>True, particularly because you're on a server with extremely limited
>disk space and the local Listmaster bugs you (that's a collective "you"
>to all the owners on that server) about it periodically.  I tend to be
>skeptical about "bandwidth" arguments over ascii e-mail in a virtual world
>where GIF's and MPEG's abound, but in this case space really does matter.