I would like to second Ron's suggestions, especially as to the attachments.
Sometimes we do gather useful information from an attachment. Of course,
for those many times that we do not, I believe that the delete key has
proven to be an easy way to flush those things right out of my hair.
(Sorry, couldn't resist...) Personally, I enjoy any opportunity to prove to
myself that little things like this attachment gripe are easy to handle and,
in the real scheme of things, that and auto-responders are "chaff in the
wind".. Having a delete key and a sense of humor makes enjoying this list a
bright spot in my day..
So, with this personal comment, I will leave you all to enjoy a beautiful
day!
Dianna Carter
Librarian
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
3737 Glenwood Avenue, Ste 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
(919) 420-1747 office
(919) 420-1800 fax
dcarter@kilpatrickstockton.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Huttner [mailto:rshutt@netspace.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:18 PM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Cc: Yared, Michael
Subject: Re: Attachments - Reply To Mike Yared's Posting
I cannot think of any good reason why *all* attachments should be banned on
this List. On many occasions I have found attachments to be very handy
indeed. Just as on many occasions I have found them - like Mike Yared - a
nuisance. Seems to me that any binding rule on this issue is likely to
fail. Perhaps all that is required is simply a request that all
List-contributors think twice before they add an attachment, and *only* do
so if it really is necessary and adds something of value. *And* that the
attachment be small - so as not to cause unnecessary inconvenience to the
e-mail systems of disinterested recipients. Frankly, I find the use of
auto-responders by many List-members infinitely more irritating than
attachments !! Every time I post anything to the List I get a minimum of a
dozen auto-responds telling me who is "out of town" and for how many days,
hours and minutes, and precisely who is deputising in her/his absence. As
if the average poster to a *List* could actually care less !! So - if we
are about to start banning things - and I am certainly not advocating such
- let's "kill all the auto-respnders first" (pace William Shakespeare) !!
Just my (at a very unfavourable exchange rate) Australian 2 cents worth !
Ronald S Huttner LL.B (Hons)
Barrister And Solicitor
Consultant And Trainer In Computer-Assisted Legal Research
Lecturer In Advanced Computerised Legal Research,
Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne (02.10.95 to 02.10.98)
"vidElex - See The Law" - http://videlex.com
rshutt@netspace.net.au (Principal E-Mail Address)
rshutt@pocketmail.com.au (Mobile)
Ph: (03) - 9509 - 7023 (Home/Business)
Ph: 0402 - 459 - 103 (Mobile)
"Ignorance of the law never prevented any lawyer from collecting his fee"
>Can LAW-LIB forbid attachments? I hope the listserv owner can change a way
>for someone who send a message to the list with an attachment, it will be
>rejected and returned to them. This means no attachments of any kind,
>including "virtual business cards", Word documents, and so forth. Also will
>not distribute HTML (web page) documents.
>
>Thank you.
>Mike Yared
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:36:13 PST