[AusNOG] [SAGE-AU Discuss] [RESULTS] Straw poll: what is your email message size limit?

[Lloyd Wood]

> Got a free link, seems silly to pay for something like that..

Why would you want to pay for a copy of a standard you rely on to ensure that it was complete and not adulterated?

IEC 80000 is one part of ISO 80000, which covers a very wide range of units and measures - most of physics and chemistry. part 13 is just related to IT.


 
Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood



________________________________
 From: Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au>
To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk> 
Cc: Narelle <narellec at gmail.com>; "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:56
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [SAGE-AU Discuss] [RESULTS] Straw poll: what is your email message size limit?
 

Got a free link, seems silly to pay for something like that..


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I will, however, continue to be tolerant and indulge the use of kB
>> when people mean KB or KiB, as this is a Recommendation, and not a
>> Standard.
>
>
>It's a standard. Please read IEC 80000 section 13.
>http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31898
>
>
>
>Use of multiples of 1024 remains entrenched for memory, however it is indicated. For storage, marketing favours 1000. For comms, only 1000 is sane.
>
>
>Using an IBM/360 as your first computer doesn't count, as they survived decades (and much software is still running on zSeries). Only getting it installed new from the factory does.
>
>
>Lloyd Wood
>lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk
>http://sat-net.com/L.Wood
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Narelle <narellec at gmail.com>
>To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk> 
>Cc: Paul Gear <ausnog at libertysys.com.au>; "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
>Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:16
>
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [SAGE-AU Discuss] [RESULTS] Straw poll: what is your email message size limit?
> 
>
>Warning issued: this is now dangerously close to the "my first
>computer thread" [1], which will have to be shut down or sent off
>list.
>
>On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Bytes are 8 bits. Always were, always will be.
>>
>> Um, no. You are probably too young to remember 4-bit and 6-bit bytes and
>> other popular word sizes.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte
>
>Actually I am old enough to not only have forgotten but be so grumpy
>about the (ab)usage that I am now happily reminded (more than once) of
>this fact.
>
>Ahh. Character encoding. That takes me back.
>
>>> Even the worst pedants will accept variations on the use of K (1024
>>> also Kelvin) for k (1000) as often these are misused.
>>
>> Um, no. That's why the worst pedants developed
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1541
>
>:-)
>
>I love being outdone in the
 pedantry. It makes me look *so* moderate.
>Tolerant even.
>
>I will, however, continue to be tolerant and indulge the use of kB
>when people mean KB or KiB, as this is a Recommendation, and not a
>Standard.
>
>My real dream, however, is that people will revert to the true use of
>ports and identify their traffic with nice little numbers in their
>headers that match the actual flow... rather than 80...
>
>
>[1] IBM 360
>
>-- 
>
>
>Narelle
>narellec at gmail.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130326/30d18947/attachment.html>