Re: limiting email sizes when sending files
Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> writes:
> Hi,
>
> lee wrote:
>> Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> writes:
>> What's the point of having good internet connections when you can't use
>> them? Making your files publicly available by uploading them somewhere
>> or by setting up your own web server may not be what you want.
>
> What, so you can abuse it? And all the servers involved, people with
> email accounts?
There isn't any abuse involved. Abuse is possible no matter what the
limits are.
> Heck, loads of rubbish gets sent via email that is of no use to the
> receiver at all.
That happens anyway.
> And many images are seen once on a computer screen, but come as
> multi-megabyte files which will never get printed.
And being printed somehow makes an image more important or more
valuable?
> Run a mail server, back it up properly and tell me if you want super
> huge files wasting space there, let alone the resource requirements to
> process the junk.
Sure, when a file is "huge", whatever that means, it must be junk.
> If a file is important, it will be downloaded and it need not be so hard.
That isn't any better than sending it by email. Run a web server or an
ftp server, back it up properly and tell me if you want super huge files
wasting space there, let alone the resource requirements to process the
junk ... What's your point?
> Downloading via email increases the payload considerably and in many
> cases for files that are not wanted or are not wanted in such a large
> file size format. Downloading from a file share resource is much more
> efficient.
It's about 1/3 larger, and we live with that since before mime was
invented. If that bothers you so much, develop a better way for
attaching files to emails.
What is more efficient when people have to spend the extra time to
figure out how to up- and download and how to solve security issues
involved with transferring the files via http or ftp? Are you going to
explain to them how to do it, and are you going to set up the software
they might need for it on their computers and show them how to use it?
Are you going to convince them when they're telling you that it's way
to complicated?
>> Which problem? Tight quota limits suck and make an email account
>> unusable.
>
> People have trouble with 40MB quota limits, I've seen one client send
> 3 emails in short succession totalling 60MB, that is utter abuse and
> most receiver's won't be able to accept that much in their "normal"
> sized quotas.
There isn't any abuse involved. When you have a quota limit of only
40MB, you'll have to interrupt your vacation every day or two to
download your emails to make sure you're not going to be unsubscribed
from mailing lists. Such a ridiculously tight limit makes the account
unusable. Then try to receive a few photos or some documents you want
to have or your friends or relatives want to you to see, and you can't
because your limit is too tight. That just sucks, and you're well
advised do to something about it when you suffer from such a limit.
For example, what do you do when you're asked by people you don't know
to send them pictures you took? You set up a web server or give them
ftp access and spend hours to explain to them how they can get their
pictures? Seriously? Probably not --- you simply ask them for their
email address and send the pictures by email. Or /you/ would tell them
that they can't get the pictures because you don't want to abuse emails
and everything else is too complicated ...
> There are many, much better ways to share large files privately, email
> is a very bad choice for this requirement.
No, email is a very good way to do it. All of the ways have their
advantages and disadvantages, of course.
I don't know why you so freak out about it, and this discussion seems
pretty pointless.
--
http://www.asciiribbon.org/
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
Reply to: