[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: Statalist etiquette
It is my understanding that the list-owner can set some switches to make
it impossible to send attachments via the list. Although I have not
noticed this to be a problem on the list, if there is a concern the switch
could just be set. That way anyone attempting to send an attachment would
be alerted to that fact and would then have a chance to re-send the
message *sans* attachment.
Just a thought.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Nick Cox wrote:
> Someone wrote
> > It's probably against etiquette to ask the same question again
> This issue, raised in one current thread, is germane to several
> It is addressed in detail in the Statalist FAQ. Please see
> In brief:
> 1. If you got no answer first time, consider why that was.
> Perhaps your question was unclear and needs rewording.
> 2. Three reposts of the same question, and you are out of
> ASCII, not HTML etc.
> Another issue which will not go away is the Statalist
> request for everyone to use plain ASCII format, not (e.g.)
> HTML-enabled text, and for everyone not to use attachments.
> I know from bitter experience that it is easy
> to goof on this, as when someone's else winmail.dat
> gets attached to my replies, like dirt sticking to a shoe.
> Also, not everyone has control over their own email
> settings, especially in some corporate situations.
> However, the injunction against HTML and attachments
> is based on very good principles, including
> 0. Viruses and other nasty things are spread this way.
> 1. Not everyone's mailer is configured to interpret
> these beasts.
> 2. Many people get Statalist in digest form:
> attachments and HTML-enabled text are often
> rendered totally unreadable by the digesting
> 3. Some of the people who are most active in
> answering questions on Statalist just will
> not read such posts, as a matter of principle.
> For these reasons, you make answers to your
> questions less likely if you do not follow
> the ASCII way.
> The Statalist FAQ points to a very
> detailed statement at
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
* For searches and help try: