a good maximum size for FAQ postings (was Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?)

Russell Schulz (faqmaint@locutus.ofB.ORG)
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 14:34:54 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Anthony Argyriou: "comp.answers approval?"
Previous message: Craig Cockburn: "Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?"
In reply to: Craig Cockburn: "Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?"
Reply: Anthony Argyriou: "comp.answers approval?"
Reply: Thamer Al-Herbish: "Re: a good maximum size for FAQ postings (was Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?)"
Reply: Eric Pement: "Re: a good maximum size for FAQ postings (was Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?)"

>> These days I would be tempted to break up anything over 100K into
>> parts.....
>
> Yeah, but it's been that long and I've been posting it like that for a
> few years.

you're being told `that is probably not a good idea'.

> It's a lot more convenient to maintain one file than several.

so maintain it as one file! who cares how you maintain it?

just don't POST it as a 500k article. break it up for posting.

I may have to check it out -- how many of those Questions can really
be Frequently Asked?

-- 
Russell_Schulz@locutus.ofB.ORG  Shad 86c

Next message: Anthony Argyriou: "comp.answers approval?"
Previous message: Craig Cockburn: "Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?"
In reply to: Craig Cockburn: "Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?"
Reply: Anthony Argyriou: "comp.answers approval?"
Reply: Thamer Al-Herbish: "Re: a good maximum size for FAQ postings (was Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?)"
Reply: Eric Pement: "Re: a good maximum size for FAQ postings (was Re: rftm.mit.edu OK?)"

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