>...if I were to set our list to accept
>attachments, will it mess with the digest folks?  

It was with some fear and trepidation that I started allowing photographs in
JPEG format on my birdlist about a year and a half ago.  There were some
repercussions of a nontechnical nature, such as people sending very poor
quality images as well as not conforming to the size requirements.  I
advised the digest people to set to index so they would know whether to get
a post or not, using the code PHOTO as a key.  A few only changed to index
and those who did switched back to digest, saying they would rather scroll
through the screens of code than having to get the messages.  

Ultimately, I took over the posting of the JPEG images. I did find the
effort was greatly enhanced by creating one (and ultimately two) websites,
which have been quite popular with hits from faraway places, such as the
Cocos Islands.  I had not trouble of any kind from allowing the JPEG images
to be attached.

An example is at the bottom of this post:
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0410E&L=floridabirds-l&P=R267

See:  CEWA1.jpg [image/jpeg] which you may click on.

To keep others from posting images now, I lower the limit to about 250 lines
(using V. 1.8d), but raise it when I decide to post.  Roughly a 50K photo
will run about 800 lines of code.  I have just about stopped posting the
images and put them on the website only because I can use larger ones and
they are much easier to access.  And the amount of time was a factor, too.

Just as a follow-up of an older subject while I am writing: One problem with
having the URLS of my sites in the bottom banner, about which I have written
before, is that AOL is always putting us on the spam list with that as an
excuse.  I have found that the AOLers in general get the posts reputed to
have been bounced, even though they may be reported to me as being
permanently and fatally bounced.  One of the people on AOL's short list
(those--about 15--who are repeatedly included as the bouncees) told me she
was informed by AOL support that they would still get the messages if our
list address was in their address book.  Since then others have also told me
so.

I am more or less disregarding the AOL messages and no one has yet
complained they are not getting their messages. AOL cuts off its nose to
spite its face, or so it seems to me.  

Sorry to be combining these two topics, but they just ran together.

Barbara Passmore