[mdlug] List archive and long lines

[Aaron Kulkis]

Wolfger wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis3 at hotpop.com> wrote:
> 
>> Webmail is great if you like waiting all day for 80k of HTML to read
>> a 2k message...which could have been downloaded already in one giant
>> grab, along with all the others, while still reading the first message.
> 
> Are you living in the early 1980's?  Waiting all day for 80k? I don't
> even wait a noticable amount of time for 1 Meg.

Lucky you!


> 
>> Even in the comfort of home, I don't have that kind of time to
>> waste.  Here in Baghdad, some days, I'm lucky to read my mail
>> at all.
> 
> Well, I don't know what kind of net infrastructure exists over yonder,
> but here in the states it's plenty good enough for webmail to be as
> popular as it is (i.e. Hugely).

Satellite dish, and even when the bandwidth isn't being hogged up
by video-chats, it's slow.

> 
>> And dealing with spam on webmail... ARGH.
> 
> Gmail filters out 99.99% of my spam, and I don't have to deal with it
> at all, except to periodically review it for false positives and
> delete it en-masse.

either way, you still have to check for false positives...
unfortunately, as spam piles up, it takes more than one page,
then doing an en-mass deletion is an invitation to also
deleting false positives..

> 
>>  I'm getting about 2 MB
>> of spam every day....somewhere around 300+  I definitely don't have
>> time to play html-clicky-reload-clicky-reload-clicky all day with
>> both the incoming box AND also the spam box (false positive spam
>> identification is far too frequent).
> 
> False positives... I get it periodically from the autoresponder of my
> blog when I do e-mail posts. Other than that? Nada.
> 

Again, consider yourself lucky.

> Not to mention the filters I can apply, like "star"ing the e-mail if
> it's got an obvious reply to me (like your post did), so that, when
> I'm busy, I can attend to only the important e-mails. If anything
> webmail helps me process my e-mail faster!