Please Identify

[Anne Kilmer]

Rebecca Jolly wrote:
> 
>      Dear all,
> 
>      I must have been one of the lucky few to get the encoded picture
>      ok - and I'm glad I did as it was lovely!  I was wondering if
>      sending things like pictures as an attachment would solve the
>      problem.  Those that can cope with them can then do so without
>      having to get to a web site.  Those that can't shouldn't then end
>      up with a jumbled mail, they just don't need to open the
>      attachment.  Mind you I don't know lots about browsers etc so I
>      may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!).
> 
>      Best wishes
>      Rebecca Jolly
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Please Identify
> Author:  mjemm at village.ca at INTERNET-MAIL
> Date:    29/07/98 06:23
> 
> All,
> 
> I'm very sorry to have caused all the fuss.  I have rarely ever posted
> to a newsgroup before.  Personally BFJ, I appreciated DR. JAMES ADAMS
> comments the least.  I expected more from an educator.
> 
> Shawn Jemmett
> 

Once long ago (I can feel the place in frosty weather still) somebody 
sent us all a book-longth manuscript in Swahili, attached. Took it half 
an hour to arrive. It was supposed to be a picture. 
The missive annoyed one of our colleagues, who added the note: "I think 
it's garbage" (or words to that effect) and slammed it back at the 
perpetrator. And all the rest of us. 
	Attachments arrive and take up space. They may not be able to 
leap out and injure your computer if you don't open them, but they can 
tie up your system for ages. 
At the moment, with Netscape and Microsoft both having accidentally 
fixed their browsers so that computer viruses can move in and play any 
time, I'm not looking at any unsolicited attachments anyway.
Sorry I missed the picture. Lot of nice letters and numbers there 
though.
And I thought James' remarks were mild, in the circs.
Anne Kilmer
South Florida