Re: Brush up those FAQ's ...

Graham Stoney (greyham@research.canon.oz.au)
Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:50:48 +1000 (GMT+1000)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Previous message: pshuang@MIT.EDU: "Archive-Name -- what does it mean?"
In reply to: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Next in thread: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Next in thread: Nancy McGough: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Reply: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."

Tim Pierce writes:
> It's worth noting that, since the son-of-1036 draft
> recommends that news systems limit the size of new posts to
> 60,000 bytes, then in principle this shouldn't be a problem
> for conscientious maintainers of existing FAQs. I do know a
> few maintainers who like to flout the rules in principle,
> however. :-)

I know there was a smiley there, and I know this has come up and been thrashed
out before, but for anyone that missed it last time and may accidentally take
Tim's comment seriously, there is no such rule limiting posts to 60,000 bytes.

regards,
Graham

Next message: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Previous message: pshuang@MIT.EDU: "Archive-Name -- what does it mean?"
In reply to: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Next in thread: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Next in thread: Nancy McGough: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."
Reply: Tim Pierce: "Re: Brush up those FAQ's ..."

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]