Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

I really shouldn't have to send a 158K message including the original attachments to someone in order to convince him that he did in fact send me attachments. I suppose he doesn't think I can tell the difference between a URL and an attachment, or that I can't tell how large a message is? (It's not like I'm seeing pictures and assuming they're attachments -- I'm using a text-only mail reader. I see more than a thousand lines of base-64 crap and know it's not just a URL.)

But if that's what it takes ...

... Let's just hope it's enough, and that he believes me now when I tell him that Netscape did not do what he thought it was doing. He said he couldn't possibly have sent a message that large because it would have taken all day to send the 3000 copies. My guess is that he's connecting to an MTA operated by his ISP, and only one copy of the message ever went out from his computer, exploding to 3000 copies at his ISP's mail server. (Thank goodness he did use Bcc for most of the list, though I'm still wondering why so many addresses were posted in the clear.)

Things like this are why I think it's important to try to convey at least some part of How The Net Works to people, not just "you push this button and mail goes out". End-users do not have to be network gurus, but it might be good to understand that there's a water heater in the basement which can be temporarily exhausted and which has a pilot light which can usually be ignored but occasionally needs re-lighting, rather than only "this is the hot-water tap, and it turns this way".