On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-10-01, Anthony R. Gold  wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:52:29 +0100, Graham Drabble 
>> wrote:
>>> I think you're missing the main reason behind banning binaries. It's
>>> not that readers cannot cope with them, it's that they take up large
>>> volumes of bandwidth and disk space on servers. If uk.* didn't
>>> ensure that binaries were banned then propogation would be harmed. 
>>
>> Prove it.  Explain how propagation was improved when these nanny rules were
>> first introduced after some 50+ groups were already in existence.  Will the
>> new urcm group with its nanny rules be better propagated than say uk.legal
>> or uk.radio.amateur or even this very group which all have no restrictions?
>
> Binaries are banned in all of the groups you mention, so it is
> incorrect to say they have "no restrictions".

Wow, I must have blinked while it happened.  Who banned them and when, how
and with what authority?  Please be specific.

But anyway, if binaries and html are somehow banned without placing any
specific incantations into group charters, then why did the Komite ever put
their oar into the water in the matter of requesting (or suggesting?)
particular wording be placed into the charter of urcm?

Tony