Dear All,
 
I'm posting this to the list simply to add my voice to the objectors to
Billy Marshall Stoneking's posting of a large attachment file.  I was
surprised to read messages from people who apparently didn't mind it.
 
Like Daniel Pearlman, my computer and phone line were occupied for quarter
of an hour downloading a 69k (!) email message (not an attachment) of
garbage characters, followed by a corrupted attachment file.  My email
program reported an error message after unsuccessfully trying to interpret
the attachment file; I could not continue using the program until I had
instructed it to delete the message and attachment unread.
 
Unlike C.Brandon Rizzo, I am 'skittish' when I receive an unsolicited email
attachment that triggers an error message: anyone aware of the propagation
(unwittingly or otherwise) of viruses and other malicious code through
email attachments would be.  Unlike Alexander Schmitz, I can and will blame
Mr Stoneking for carelessly posting a unsolicited large file which cannot
be read by all computers to a public forum - the annoyance that inevitably
results despite the best intentions is the reason why such indiscriminate
posting is the biggest no-no in netiquette.  Robert Kibler is quite right
about this.  The long posting was made all the more galling when Mr
Stoneking could simply have referred us to a website containing the text.
 
I have seen a staging of Mr Stoneking's play and I am interested in reading
the text.  However, the attempted posting of the attachment, when the URL
for the text would suffice, turned a useful resource into a nuisance.
 
Regards,
Ben.Harper