MB> Some folks forget that others run software that might crash or not   
    MB> pass on large messages.    
      
   speaking as one of those folk, /i/ don't forget... i _know_ that there is   
   software available for those who can't/don't want to handle large messages...   
   this software can cut/split (by FTSC proposal) messages too large for their   
   systems to handle... i've said this for years... in fact, i've had this stance   
   ever since the ^aSPLIT proposal was presented to the FTSC... i have /always/   
   believed it the responsibility of the -=recieving=- system to split messages   
   according to _their_ capabilities rather than "forcing" everyone else to   
   succumb to their individual restrictions...   
      
    MB>  Even though many of us run systems capable of handling large    
    MB> messages; all to often the software cannot or at least is not    
    MB> configured to do so.   
      
   that is the operator's problem, IMHO... the real "problem" is getting folk to   
   look at the other side of the coin...   
      
    MB> At least squish is smart enough to skip them.    
      
   and thus loose mail... there's one part of that blackhole that folk speak of...   
      
    MB> I suspect there are tossers that stop up completely when they    
    MB> encouter very large messages?    
      
   i don't doubt that... that's one of the main reasons why i see that ^aSPLIT   
   proposal is written and directed to the wrong folk...   
      
    MB> Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.   
      
   educate folk and teach them to cut messages up to what /their/ systems can   
   handle and don't restrict others in what they can handle ;) O:)   
      
   )\/(ark    
      
    * Origin:  (1:3634/12)