From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Jan 28 17:58:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18091 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:58:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA18055 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:57:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mountin.man@mixcom.com) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id TAA05747; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:59:39 -0600 Received: from dial193-15.mixcom.com(207.250.193.15) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma005734; Wed Jan 28 19:59:29 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980128195410.007178ac@198.137.186.100> X-Sender: mmttnn@198.137.186.100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:54:10 -0600 To: Scot Elliott , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Sendmail - low on space In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 06:58 PM 1/28/98 +0000, Scot Elliott wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Jeff Lynch wrote: > >> Yikes. I would set it at 20MB or 30MB and explain why it is necessary. If >> they have an occaisonal need you can always jack it up temporarily. >> It you leave it unlimited, you'll probably be sorry. >> >> You might even talk them into using ftp. > >I totally agree with this. EMail was just not designed for rediculously >large transfers like this. It's inefficient because there's no restart >facility (I dont think...) in case a connection gets broken, like there is >with FTP and HTTP. What burns me is that they don't compress large files. Don't want to teach them how to use WinZip, make it self-extracting. Nothing like having almost 300 mailboxes for one company and a dozen or more being sent a 12 MB PowerPoint attachment, when most could not download it. Then it had to be purged without killing other messages. Especially since most of the recipients were on their LAN/WAN in the above case. Still it wasn't as bad as the idiot that sent a 42 MB file to a fellow worker, who-was-in-the-same-office!!! Hello?! Did you local network crash? Need I mention the time when someone sent a large attachment, the message bounce, and the person's mail client chokes? Better to educate them. Some mailers choke at 1 MB attachments, but limits were set at 5 MB. Bigger, too bad, use ftp. >Definately talk your users into using FTP or something similar. Maybe get >them to embed a URL in their document so that the likes of Netscape mail >users can just click to open an attachment. Simple enough to setup a virtual web/ftp to handle this. In fact this could be a valuable service addition for business customers. (Must say that this thead has really taken off.) Jeff Mountin - Unix Systems TCP/IP networking mountin.man@mixcom.com