PipeChat Digest #2071 - Monday, April 30, 2001
 
Re: file transfers
  by "Adrianne Schutt" <maybe@pipcom.com>
Re: file transfers
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: file transfers
  by "Adrianne Schutt" <maybe@pipcom.com>
Re: file transfers
  by "David Carter" <david_n_carter@hotmail.com>
Re: I speak for myself (no anger here) x post Re: A Very SimpleQuestion
  by "David Carter" <david_n_carter@hotmail.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: file transfers From: "Adrianne Schutt" <maybe@pipcom.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:15:11 -0400   At 11:10 PM 4/29/2001 -0400, Carlo Pietroniro wrote: >3MB.........about 5 minutes for me to send............   Bear in mind that typical POP3 mailboxes have a 2mb capacity, and =   that sending an attachment via email adds roughly 50% in size due to encoding. Overstuffing will either bounce the message back or throw a wrench into the mailbox. Email is a very bad idea for transferring files of more than 500k.   If you really must keep tabs of who gets which file, I suggest parking them on a freebie web server and sending out the url via private mail. Even so, don't count on that "keeping track" of who gets to hear things. I think you'd be very surprised just how fast and how far files can multiply and spread....even within this little group over the course = of just one IRC session. :)   Have fun! Ad ;->    
(back) Subject: Re: file transfers From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:19:08 -0400   I have unlimited e-mail. I've sent files as big as 15MB, and have received larger.....   no problem on my end   Carlo    
(back) Subject: Re: file transfers From: "Adrianne Schutt" <maybe@pipcom.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:37:10 -0400   At 12:19 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, you wrote: >I have unlimited e-mail. I've sent files as big as 15MB, and have = received >larger.....   Well at least we know you won't mind the bounce messages. lol   Have fun! Ad ;->      
(back) Subject: Re: file transfers From: "David Carter" <david_n_carter@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:02:21   Another option, is to obtain an account on one of the free web-based disk storage sites, such as xdrive.com. They allow you to set up space, where you can upload files. You then set the file for sharing, give intended recipients a username/password to use, and they are then able to download the file through the web, without having to worry about email size restrictions on their email server. At work, I think I have a list of some =   of the other web-based storage sites, I'll post it if I get a chance.   David Carter     >From: Adrianne Schutt <maybe@pipcom.com> >Reply-To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> >To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> >Subject: Re: file transfers >Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:15:11 -0400 > >At 11:10 PM 4/29/2001 -0400, Carlo Pietroniro wrote: >>3MB.........about 5 minutes for me to send............ > > Bear in mind that typical POP3 mailboxes have a 2mb capacity, = and >that sending an attachment via email adds roughly 50% in size due to >encoding. Overstuffing will either bounce the message back or throw a >wrench into the mailbox. Email is a very bad idea for transferring files >of more than 500k. > > If you really must keep tabs of who gets which file, I suggest >parking them on a freebie web server and sending out the url via private >mail. Even so, don't count on that "keeping track" of who gets to hear >things. I think you'd be very surprised just how fast and how far files >can multiply and spread....even within this little group over the course = of >just one IRC session. :) > > Have fun! > Ad ;-> > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >   _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com    
(back) Subject: Re: I speak for myself (no anger here) x post Re: A Very SimpleQuestion From: "David Carter" <david_n_carter@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:28:36   I couldn't imagine singing something like Verdi's Requiem in any language but Latin, which was performed (WARNING: Shameless plug to follow!) in = early April by the Sacramento Choral Society and Orchestra. Latin is such a beautiful and flowing language. Try singing in Russian, = now that's a real bear.   David Carter     >From: Bob Elms <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> >Reply-To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> >To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> >Subject: Re: I speak for myself (no anger here) x post Re: A Very >SimpleQuestion >Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:45:19 +0800 > >Nothing wrong with Latin in liturgical music. Often better than the >translation!! >Bob Elms.y > > > Why would ANYONE use Latin, except as a knee-jerk reaction to V II? >Latin's been a dead language for CENTURIES, and > > should be treated as such. However, I DO credit two years' worth of >Latin study with my ability to learn any of the Romance > > languages fairly quickly. So, academically, it's not a "trivial >pursuit". But for use in liturgy? It just perpetuates the "Dark Ages > > > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >   _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com