Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 21.09.2005 04:09:45 von Felix Tilley

I am using Linux Thunderbird 1.0.6.

It is a Eudora look-alike. Except it takes 16 Megs of RAM. That is
excessive. But it is free. That is what I paid for it.

Any comments?

--
Felix Tilley
MAJ, LARTvocate
Fanatic Legions
1-800-555-LART

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 21.09.2005 05:09:28 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1019-1127272174-0007
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Felix Tilley writes:

> I am using Linux Thunderbird 1.0.6.
>
> It is a Eudora look-alike. Except it takes 16 Megs of RAM. That is
> excessive. But it is free. That is what I paid for it.
>
> Any comments?

16 Mb for an X client app, with a fairly sophisticated UI, is actually
pretty good:

[mrsam@laptop ~]$ ldd /usr/lib/thunderbird-1.0.6/thunderbird-bin
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f66000)
libmozjs.so => not found
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x076a8000)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00d5f000)
libatk-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 (0x007fc000)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (0x006d7000)
libpangoxft-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoxft-1.0.so.0 (0x0067d000)
libpangox-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangox-1.0.so.0 (0x006ee000)
libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0x00739000)
libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x005d8000)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x00616000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00432000)
libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00537000)
libxpcom.so => not found
libplds4.so => /usr/lib/libplds4.so (0x00507000)
libplc4.so => /usr/lib/libplc4.so (0x00501000)
libnspr4.so => /usr/lib/libnspr4.so (0x0061b000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x00523000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x00438000)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 (0x00cd2000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x0040d000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00b84000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00b48000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x002e1000)
libXrandr.so.2 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.so.2 (0x00511000)
libXi.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x00673000)
libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXinerama.so.1 (0x0051b000)
libXft.so.2 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.2 (0x006a5000)
libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x001ca000)
libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x00233000)
libXcursor.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXcursor.so.1 (0x006c3000)
libXrender.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x006b9000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xb7f40000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x002c7000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x00dd6000)
libexpat.so.0 => /usr/lib/libexpat.so.0 (0x00684000)

I'm suprised that, with all of this stuff going on, it only eats 16MB for
you. For me, it's close to 24MB, but then I have a hefty IMAP mailbox open.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1019-1127272174-0007
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDMM7ux9p3GYHlUOIRAuCcAJ97tnIugUjG4byA2zH1WqK4yOSlWgCf RjKw
SM7zvKWhQMwPPuIbWXtkFRk=
=wJND
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1019-1127272174-0007--

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 22.09.2005 08:48:32 von Alan Mackenzie

Sam wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:09:28 -0500:
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means
> that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed
> messages. The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was
> published in 1996. To open this message correctly you will need to
> install E-mail or Usenet software that supports modern Internet
> standards.

Hey, Sam, do you think you could leave that bit out from now on? I mean,
it appears at the top of _all_ your posts, and isn't relevant to very
much at all. It's also boring. I'm trying to think of the word for
something which is posted again and again and again and again..., but it
kind of escapes me at the moment.

Why do you bother putting in a "signature" at all? A signature is
something which establishes who wrote something, but seeing how you don't
say who you are anyway, putting it on your posts is a bit silly. In
fact, it makes you look like a pretentious wanker, though I'm sure you're
not one really.

And this "signature", just like HTML posting, can easily double the size
of a plain-text post without adding any content. So, could you maybe
think about just leaving the "signature" out entirely?

Thanking you in advance, and wishing you a happy and prosperous autumn,

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 22.09.2005 12:53:37 von Sam

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 22.09.2005 15:41:29 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>
> > Sam wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:09:28 -0500:
> >> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means
> >> that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed
> >> messages. The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was
> >> published in 1996. To open this message correctly you will need to
> >> install E-mail or Usenet software that supports modern Internet
> >> standards.
> >
> > Hey, Sam, do you think you could leave that bit out from now on? I mean,
> > it appears at the top of _all_ your posts,
>
> No, it doesn't. It only appears to you if your E-mail client is broken.
>
> > and isn't relevant to very
> > much at all. It's also boring.
>
> Then fix your broken E-mail client.

How does fixing his E-mail client help for News articles? :-)

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 23.09.2005 01:08:55 von Sam

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 23.09.2005 09:15:18 von chris-usenet

Sam wrote:
> It's not my fault if someone's E-mail or Usenet reading software is broken,
> and fails to properly implement a decade-old Internet standard.

Could you remind me, please, which RFC recommends (or even permits)
PGP for usenet articles.

Thanks,
Chris

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 23.09.2005 10:59:33 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Alan Mackenzie writes:
> >>
> >> > Sam wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:09:28 -0500:
> >> >> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means
> >> >> that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed
> >> >> messages. The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was
> >> >> published in 1996. To open this message correctly you will need to
> >> >> install E-mail or Usenet software that supports modern Internet
> >> >> standards.
> >> >
> >> > Hey, Sam, do you think you could leave that bit out from now on? I mean,
> >> > it appears at the top of _all_ your posts,
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. It only appears to you if your E-mail client is broken.
> >>
> >> > and isn't relevant to very
> >> > much at all. It's also boring.
> >>
> >> Then fix your broken E-mail client.
> >
> > How does fixing his E-mail client help for News articles? :-)
>
> s/E-mail/Usenet/
>
> Same thing.

No, it isn't. But I guess, for me and you, there is no point in
starting that (non) discussion all over again.

> It's not my fault if someone's E-mail or Usenet reading software is
> broken, and fails to properly implement a decade-old Internet
> standard.

I guess this time I'll let the others discuss whether that statement
is valid or not.

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 23.09.2005 12:52:37 von Sam

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 28.09.2005 17:00:27 von Alan Mackenzie

Sam wrote on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 05:53:37 -0500:

> Alan Mackenzie writes:

>> Sam wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:09:28 -0500:
>>> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means
>>> that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed
>>> messages. The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was
>>> published in 1996. To open this message correctly you will need to
>>> install E-mail or Usenet software that supports modern Internet
>>> standards.

>> Hey, Sam, do you think you could leave that bit out from now on? I
>> mean, it appears at the top of _all_ your posts,

> No, it doesn't. It only appears to you if your E-mail client is broken.

You mean, just like HTML posts?

And stop being obtuse! The ever-repeating paragraph is _present_ at the
top of all your posts. And even if I did reroute your post to email and
configure my E-mail client to filter it out, it would still be ~800
content-free bytes on each of your posts.

>> and isn't relevant to very much at all. It's also boring.

> Then fix your broken E-mail client.

My modem finds it boring. So does the Internet, passing, as it does,
content-free gigabytes consisting of nothing but your "signature" and an
apology for it. The millions of Usenet servers, which fill up
millions of disk blocks with it, also find it boring.

Why do you put this "signature" on your messages anyway? Your reply
suggests you do it just to annoy people. Is that true? Or could it be
that it's a default option on your News client, and you couldn't be
bothered to configure it properly?

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 29.09.2005 00:43:31 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-13136-1127947413-0003
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alan Mackenzie writes:

> Sam wrote on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 05:53:37 -0500:
>
>> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>
>>> Sam wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:09:28 -0500:
>>>> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means
>>>> that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed
>>>> messages. The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was
>>>> published in 1996. To open this message correctly you will need to
>>>> install E-mail or Usenet software that supports modern Internet
>>>> standards.
>
>>> Hey, Sam, do you think you could leave that bit out from now on? I
>>> mean, it appears at the top of _all_ your posts,
>
>> No, it doesn't. It only appears to you if your E-mail client is broken.
>
> You mean, just like HTML posts?

Yup. If your E-mail client does not handle MIME properly, and barfs raw
HTML at you, instead of using either the text/plain version in a
multipart/alternative, or politely informing you that it does not know how
to handle the message's MIME type.

> And stop being obtuse! The ever-repeating paragraph is _present_ at the
> top of all your posts. And even if I did reroute your post to email and
> configure my E-mail client to filter it out, it would still be ~800
> content-free bytes on each of your posts.

And if people continue to whine, I'll make it even longer.

>>> and isn't relevant to very much at all. It's also boring.
>
>> Then fix your broken E-mail client.
>
> My modem finds it boring. So does the Internet, passing, as it does,
> content-free gigabytes consisting of nothing but your "signature" and an
> apology for it. The millions of Usenet servers, which fill up
> millions of disk blocks with it, also find it boring.

Yes. I'm sure all of them appointed you to be their spokesman, and you
accurately reflect their wishes.

> Why do you put this "signature" on your messages anyway?

Why not?

> Your reply
> suggests you do it just to annoy people. Is that true?

Only partially true. It's there to annoy people who go out of their way to
annoy others, first.

I can't prevent anyone, from being an annoying, obnoxious twit. The only
thing I can do is to be even a bigger annoying, obnoxious twit in return.
But only to the other obnoxious twits.

> Or could it be
> that it's a default option on your News client, and you couldn't be
> bothered to configure it properly?

It's not the initial default option, but once I explicitly enabled it, all
my messages, E-mail or Usenet posts, are automatically signed without any
extra commands, other than the usual ones that post E-mail or Usenet
messages.

Your problem is that you really don't know much about the subject at hand.

It is logically impossible for a client, E-mail or Usenet, to automatically
sign messages by default. It goes without saying that, to do that, it needs
to know what your private key is. It can't pull it out of thin air, and
invent one, of course.

I think that if you took the time to research and educate yourself about the
subject at hand, you would find it to be time well spent.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-13136-1127947413-0003
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDOxyVx9p3GYHlUOIRAjtnAJ9xDgK7u6q9pHBTOqhW3aBpg3IqAACf TLm6
JW4ibzW40XqZUBcs3hgZm2Q=
=3+dO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-13136-1127947413-0003--

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 29.09.2005 12:24:18 von Alan Mackenzie

Sam wrote on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:43:31 -0500:

> Alan Mackenzie writes:

>> Sam wrote on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 05:53:37 -0500:

>>> Alan Mackenzie writes:

>>>> Sam wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:09:28 -0500:
>>>>> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it
>>>>> means that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME
>>>>> signed messages. The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC
>>>>> 2015, was published in 1996. To open this message correctly you
>>>>> will need to install E-mail or Usenet software that supports modern
>>>>> Internet standards.

>>>> Hey, Sam, do you think you could leave that bit out from now on? I
>>>> mean, it appears at the top of _all_ your posts,

>>> No, it doesn't. It only appears to you if your E-mail client is
>>> broken.

>> You mean, just like HTML posts?

> Yup. If your E-mail client does not handle MIME properly, and barfs
> raw HTML at you, instead of using either the text/plain version in a
> multipart/alternative, or politely informing you that it does not know
> how to handle the message's MIME type.

The appearance on the screen is only one aspect of the problem. The
waste of disk space and transmission bandwidth is the other. In this
respect, multipart/alternative News posts are even worse than pure HTML
posts.

>> And stop being obtuse! The ever-repeating paragraph is _present_ at
>> the top of all your posts. And even if I did reroute your post to
>> email and configure my E-mail client to filter it out, it would still
>> be ~800 content-free bytes on each of your posts.

> And if people continue to whine, I'll make it even longer.

Please don't. And I'm not whining.

>>>> and isn't relevant to very much at all. It's also boring.

>>> Then fix your broken E-mail client.

Again, your boilerplate text being boring is only part of the problem.

>> My modem finds it boring. So does the Internet, passing, as it does,
>> content-free gigabytes consisting of nothing but your "signature" and
>> an apology for it. The millions of Usenet servers, which fill up
>> millions of disk blocks with it, also find it boring.

> Yes. I'm sure all of them appointed you to be their spokesman, and you
> accurately reflect their wishes.

Well, they haven't appointed me spokesman, but I've been on the net long
enough to know that on this point I _do_ reflect their wishes.

>> Why do you put this "signature" on your messages anyway?

> Why not?

Because it wastes resources, makes your articles less readable to some,
and improves their readability for nobody. Again, what postive benefit
do you or anybody else gain from your signature?

>> Your reply suggests you do it just to annoy people. Is that true?

> Only partially true. It's there to annoy people who go out of their
> way to annoy others, first.

Well, I can assure you I don't post on Usenet to annoy people - Life's
too short for that. But you're using a blunderbuss weapon - far more
"innocent" people are going to be annoyed than your few targets. It's a
bit like using a nuclear bomb as an assassination weapon. You'll
certainly kill the target, but you'll kill a lot of others too for no
good reason.

> I can't prevent anyone, from being an annoying, obnoxious twit. The
> only thing I can do is to be even a bigger annoying, obnoxious twit in
> return.

That's completely false. Other alternatives are putting them into your
killfile or just ignoring them - "don't feed the troll".

> But only to the other obnoxious twits.

Again, false. Anything obnoxious you post on Usenet annoys everybody who
reads it. Most of them aren't obnoxious twits.

>> Or could it be that it's a default option on your News client, and you
>> couldn't be bothered to configure it properly?

> It's not the initial default option, but once I explicitly enabled it,
> all my messages, E-mail or Usenet posts, are automatically signed
> without any extra commands, other than the usual ones that post E-mail
> or Usenet messages.

Can your client be configured to add signatures only to emails?

> Your problem is that you really don't know much about the subject at
> hand.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I'm familiar enough with the RFC you cite. But
a digital signature is a solution to problem. With a lot of email, it's
important to be certain who wrote it. But who gives a damn who wrote a
Usenet article? Nobody really cares much who you are (apart from your
mother, maybe), any more than they care who I am.

What is the problem that adding your signature to your Usenet posts
solves?

> It is logically impossible for a client, E-mail or Usenet, to
> automatically sign messages by default. It goes without saying that,
> to do that, it needs to know what your private key is. It can't pull
> it out of thin air, and invent one, of course.

That's true. But you're using a single client for both mail and news.
You might have configured it simply to "add signatures", rather than the
more discerning "add signatures to emails". Or something like that.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 29.09.2005 17:06:54 von Steve Baker

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:24:18 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>Again, what postive benefit
>do you or anybody else gain from your signature?

Well, it signs his posts. He has his reasons and probably figures his
reasons are his business. I'd probably sign my posts too if I was him.
Hmm... I think that makes sense. ;-)

Steve Baker

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 30.09.2005 00:45:11 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-24398-1128033912-0003
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alan Mackenzie writes:

> Sam wrote on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:43:31 -0500:
>
>> Yup. If your E-mail client does not handle MIME properly, and barfs
>> raw HTML at you, instead of using either the text/plain version in a
>> multipart/alternative, or politely informing you that it does not know
>> how to handle the message's MIME type.
>
> The appearance on the screen is only one aspect of the problem. The
> waste of disk space and transmission bandwidth is the other. In this

Traffic volume in non-binary newsgroups is an infinitessimal fraction of the
total volume of junk in alt.binaries.

Every news admin will gladly replace all posts in alt.binaries with the same
number of digitally-signed messages of typical lengths.

>>> Why do you put this "signature" on your messages anyway?
>
>> Why not?
>
> Because it wastes resources,

With disk space typically being allocated in large blocks, most messages
don't really end up taking up any extra overhead, due to the digital
signature.

> makes your articles less readable to some,

Tough.

> and improves their readability for nobody. Again, what postive benefit
> do you or anybody else gain from your signature?

The same benefit that the world at large gains from having me publish some
medium size files via BitTorrent, even though there's been a grand total of
two downloads in the last seven days, according to the tracker.

Every time digital signatures, or BitTorrent downloads, are used, it further
validates, encourages, and advocates their usage.

>> I can't prevent anyone, from being an annoying, obnoxious twit. The
>> only thing I can do is to be even a bigger annoying, obnoxious twit in
>> return.
>
> That's completely false.

It most certainly isn't. I can assure you that I'm fully capable of being a
very big, annoying, obnoxious twit, when the situation calls for it.

> Other alternatives are putting them into your
> killfile or just ignoring them - "don't feed the troll".

The Mahatma Gandi approach may be appropriate in some situations, but not in
all of them. Sometimes it is necessary to force the issue to come to bear.

>> But only to the other obnoxious twits.
>
> Again, false. Anything obnoxious you post on Usenet annoys everybody who
> reads it.

I do not agree.

> Most of them aren't obnoxious twits.

That remains to be seen.

>>> Or could it be that it's a default option on your News client, and you
>>> couldn't be bothered to configure it properly?
>
>> It's not the initial default option, but once I explicitly enabled it,
>> all my messages, E-mail or Usenet posts, are automatically signed
>> without any extra commands, other than the usual ones that post E-mail
>> or Usenet messages.
>
> Can your client be configured to add signatures only to emails?

Yes.

>> Your problem is that you really don't know much about the subject at
>> hand.
>
> Oh, I wouldn't say that. I'm familiar enough with the RFC you cite. But
> a digital signature is a solution to problem.

That's your opinion. My opinion is different, and I'm the one who gets the
final word on how my messages look like.

> With a lot of email, it's
> important to be certain who wrote it. But who gives a damn who wrote a
> Usenet article?

The same person who would give a damn who wrote an E-mail message.

There is no difference between a Usenet message, and an E-mail message,
except for the method of distribution, and its audience.

> Nobody really cares much who you are (apart from your
> mother, maybe), any more than they care who I am.
>
> What is the problem that adding your signature to your Usenet posts
> solves?

The problem that it makes it possible to prove that only the same author
could've posted two separate messages. Furthermore, with an established,
length history of automatically-signed posts, a plausible argument could be
advanced to repudiate a message that does not have a valid signature.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-24398-1128033912-0003
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDPG54x9p3GYHlUOIRAgGKAJ94GYUr0ODhcw7JLf0nEy5amQ8IRwCf Xoc5
6dxRQ4MVgwDoCBcW9x5ZyPc=
=PkLR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-24398-1128033912-0003--

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 30.09.2005 16:55:55 von Alan Mackenzie

Sam wrote on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:45:11 -0500:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:

>> Sam wrote on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:43:31 -0500:

>>> Yup. If your E-mail client does not handle MIME properly, and barfs
>>> raw HTML at you, instead of using either the text/plain version in a
>>> multipart/alternative, or politely informing you that it does not
>>> know how to handle the message's MIME type.

>> The appearance on the screen is only one aspect of the problem. The
>> waste of disk space and transmission bandwidth is the other. In this

> Traffic volume in non-binary newsgroups is an infinitessimal fraction
> of the total volume of junk in alt.binaries.

Spammer justification: "There's so much junk flying round the net
already, my few (million) emails won't make any difference, so where's
the problem?".

> Every news admin will gladly replace all posts in alt.binaries with the
> same number of digitally-signed messages of typical lengths.

alt.binaries is very big, but it's content (for some value of "content"),
not overhead.

>>>> Why do you put this "signature" on your messages anyway?

>>> Why not?

>> Because it wastes resources,

> With disk space typically being allocated in large blocks, most messages
> don't really end up taking up any extra overhead, due to the digital
> signature.

The wasted space is independent of block size (more or less). If you use
4k blocks rather than 1k blocks, the excess bytes only go over a block
boundary a quarter as often, but they waste four times as much space each
time they do.

>> makes your articles less readable to some,

> Tough.

You don't care about making your stuff as readable as possible. Why?

>> and improves their readability for nobody. Again, what postive benefit
>> do you or anybody else gain from your signature?

> The same benefit that the world at large gains from having me publish
> some medium size files via BitTorrent, even though there's been a grand
> total of two downloads in the last seven days, according to the
> tracker.

> Every time digital signatures, or BitTorrent downloads, are used, it
> further validates, encourages, and advocates their usage.

Ah, right. Now I'm beginning to twig. But you're mistaken - if you
annoy people with your digital signature (and you do), you're going to
DIScourage their use - a typical reaction will be "I don't want to post
like that twerp.". Only if you use signatures for a sound reason (say,
for signing a contract), will people think "hey, that's a good idea - I
think I'll do that too.".

>>> I can't prevent anyone, from being an annoying, obnoxious twit. The
>>> only thing I can do is to be even a bigger annoying, obnoxious twit in
>>> return.

>> That's completely false.

> It most certainly isn't. I can assure you that I'm fully capable of
> being a very big, annoying, obnoxious twit, when the situation calls
> for it.

Nobody here doubts that. But the point is, when you behave like an
obnoxious twit, it's because you _choose_ to do so, not because it's "the
only thing [you] can do".

>> Other alternatives are putting them into your killfile or just
>> ignoring them - "don't feed the troll".

> The Mahatma Gandi approach may be appropriate in some situations, but
> not in all of them. Sometimes it is necessary to force the issue to
> come to bear.

Yes, but not very often.

>>> But only to the other obnoxious twits.

>> Again, false. Anything obnoxious you post on Usenet annoys everybody
>> who reads it.

> I do not agree.

OK, but it annoys a lot of people.

>> Most of them [Usenet users] aren't obnoxious twits.

> That remains to be seen.

I put it to you that very few Usenetters are obnoxious twits.

>> Can your client be configured to add signatures only to emails?

> Yes.

Well now, there's an idea. ;-)

>>> Your problem is that you really don't know much about the subject at
>>> hand.

>> Oh, I wouldn't say that. I'm familiar enough with the RFC you cite.
>> But a digital signature is a solution to problem. With a lot of
>> email, it's important to be certain who wrote it. But who gives a
>> damn who wrote a Usenet article?

> The same person who would give a damn who wrote an E-mail message.

> There is no difference between a Usenet message, and an E-mail message,
> except for the method of distribution, and its audience.

Many E-mails are personal, many are private. Usenet articles are
neither. There's an essential difference between a private email and a
broadcast Usenet article. Though an Email to a mailing list is very like
a Usenet article.

>> Nobody really cares much who you are (apart from your mother, maybe),
>> any more than they care who I am.

>> What is the problem that adding your signature to your Usenet posts
>> solves?

> The problem that it makes it possible to prove that only the same
> author could've posted two separate messages.

I suppose so. But who would want to do that, except on very rare
occasions?

> Furthermore, with an established, length history of
> automatically-signed posts, a plausible argument could be advanced to
> repudiate a message that does not have a valid signature.

No more plausibly than for messages, none of which are signed.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Linux Thunderbird Memory

am 01.10.2005 01:05:07 von Sam