[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SAGE] choosing the proper max SMTP message size
- To: "Tim Howe" <vsync@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SAGE] choosing the proper max SMTP message size
- From: "Tom Limoncelli" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:10:11 -0500
- Cc: "a42n8k9 dejazzd.com" <a42n8k9@xxxxxxxxxxx>, sage-members <sage-members@xxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=8vZRvfFytcpfWKrozVIaKmSsoO5P71Kzilml9dl5vmI=; b=LDzux7hfvKnIAURPIITs33AAuda8DRjIQqFaMoIXRincBGy9XIutyR7bYgShV7QZSklfadWRce81yH0RflSCzXx74AI4FVzBbi4OyPIVajFqBfu6Rwbh8Iv4qxmPg8Kk2TK4nfYYNZB0xT1kP42Mq4Yu1MKXXBWtPxmlZHDcU50=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=XjaxcoXPmQjkYP3aUGtHrnVHFR8yVKk2NDcH6kpAiVX5p7L3XvXh1ol+e62twfjav0OFNskAymIlnRZ1wRVBZVDcPOMBAReol12UKX0mI18rDhU5OnCNGEIuKo+u8ZYPUs+GsEYaZLeYUDsuN/Ez3bBlgBejGxRrRUnLQb1Q0U0=
- In-reply-to: <87r6h0q98z.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <d2e3145810f2c780.477b9502@xxxxxxxxxxx> <87r6h0q98z.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-sage-members@xxxxxxxxxx
I used to be very fascist about setting size limits on attachments.
I've changed my mind when I realized:
Email is the "file system" for people that aren't geeks.
IMAP is NFS for your mom.
The problem is that increasing the size limit isn't much about
changing a setting in postfix or sendmail, but one must re-engineer
their entire system. More bandwidth, much, much, larger disks on the
server. Demand that the maker of your email client add features that
are "big attachment-aware" i.e. don't download an attachment until it
is needed, especially if you have road warriers with limited download
speed/time. (Gmail does attachment uploading in the background, which
I think is pretty cool.)
Email systems should de-dup attachments. There's no reason to store
the same 50G file multiple times. Even better would be for email
systems to store the attachment in a hidden URL and replace the
attachment with a link to that URL. (I think Frank Wojcik was the
first to propose this idea). Then all sorts of problems go away.
Tom