Scott,
I think that should not be a problem with free hosting for short time files of any size. You can find many hosting websites in the net, as well as many scientific institutes offers file hosting also for long time, as a part of data sharing. This can be also easily used.
Only a "good intentions" of the author of the post is a main problem, as on many mailing lists or many fora.
best regards



W dniu 11-08-05 22:12, Scott Calvin pisze:
One addition to Bruce's appeal: for some subscribers to the list, large attachments are a problem. For instance, some people are still working at dial-up speeds (due to the US' rural digital divide, I was one of those recently), or even have limits on the amount of data they can download in a month. 

The question, then, is what is a "large" attachment? We've had some discussion of that on the list previously, and never arrived at a hard-and-fast rule.

Nonetheless, let me suggest that anything below 1 megabyte is fine--in fact, it should be encouraged so that we can help with the kind of questions Bruce just enumerated. Paul's files, for instance, were 214 KB, or 0.24 MB.

I suggest, therefore, that if you have a project file that is large because, for instance, it has many, many fits in its history, please re-save it in a smaller version, and attach that. You should also be careful with screenshots that they are not needlessly large--e.g. saved in a resolution far beyond what is necessary.

In the occasional case that the problem or question requires a large file to manifest, such as that described by Nirawat yesterday, some other arrangement needs to be worked out. It's possible, for instance, to use a service such as Dropbox to make the file available without actually attaching it to an email.

--Scott Calvin
Sarah Lawrence College

On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Bruce Ravel wrote:


Hi everyone,

This has been a particularly troubling week for me here on the Ifeffit
mailing list.  This week we have seen an unusually large number of
poorly asked questions.  Not bad questions, mind you, just questions
that have been asked in a manner that makes it hard to provide a
useful response.

On Tuesday, someone had a question about a fit in Artemis, but only
posted the project file which demonstrated the problem after being
prompted to do so.

On Wednesday, someone had an issue about LCF fitting in Athena that is
contrary to most people's experience with the program.  That person
did not bother to provide an example project file or any other
supporting information to clarify what happened.

On Thursday, another person had an Artemis problem which was described
in a short and cryptic email.  Only after being prompted 3 times to
post an example was someone able to be of help.

Also on Thursday, we saw the third example in one week of a problem
with Artemis, but no example project file to demonstrate the problem.

Today, we see someone with a crystallography problem, but we do not
see the actual data that would allow someone to reproduce the problem
on their own computer.



Happily, on Wednesday Paul Bingham posted a clear question and
attached Athena and Artemis project files.  He very quickly got two
useful answers.



You do see the lesson here, don't you?  If your problem cannot be
reproduced on someone else's computer, it is unlikely that you will
get a satisfying answer.

Don't wait to be prodded.  Supply the project file or crystal data
that demonstrates the problem *in your first email*.

The so-called experts on this list, including me, really do want to
help you with your problems.  But we are not mind readers.  You have
to meet us half way.

B




_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit