<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
<br>
<span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul+ausnog@oxygennetworks.com.au">paul+ausnog@oxygennetworks.com.au</a> wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:630d3ac1-9551-4b85-98d6-e58a9d01abad@oxygennetworks.com.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">Whilst it’s fine to say that the SMTP servers and
general bandwidth capacities of ISP’s can easily handle larger messages
you also need to take into account the large majority of businesses that
still run on ADSL2, if you allow large messages then you destroy that
bandwidth for 10 mins or whatever depending on the size, that all
impacts the productivity of all users on the site.</span></p></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You're doing this any way, because they have to send the entire email
before you decide it's too big and reject it-- assuming you're doing it
at SMTP time, I've seen people who don't and send the ENTIRE email back
as a bounce. But the congestion surely becomes a network engineering
issue then, right? Isn't this what we're paid to fix?<br>
<br>
And how exactly is this any different from dropbox? You're still needing
to get that big file out a small pipe, the medium is (largely)
irrelevant.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:630d3ac1-9551-4b85-98d6-e58a9d01abad@oxygennetworks.com.au"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
know other things like dropbox and the like won’t help with that but I
think it’s more of an education requirement about the possible issues
with larger transfers of data rather than the question of should I, or
should I not allow large emails.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> AusNOG [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Robert Hudson<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 26 November 2015
1:37 PM<br><b>To:</b> Mark Newton<br><b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [AusNOG] Current "Best Practice" WRT email size<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 26
November 2015 at 13:25, Mark Newton <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org" target="_blank">newton@atdot.dotat.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:10 PM,
Ross Wheeler <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog@rossw.net">ausnog@rossw.net</a>> wrote:<br>> I
know email is being constantly asked to take ongoing abuse and to
become the defacto file-transport-and-archive system of choice,
particularly by the technically incompetent, but how far does it go?<br><br>It
goes to where the users demand.<br><br>There’s no specific reason why
email can’t be a defacto file-transport-and-archive system of choice.
It’s carried by TCP just like every other file-transport-and-archive
system, and everyone has clients for it. If the users want to use it for
that, what’s wrong with it?<br><br>> Case in point: earlier this
week, I had a call from a customer "needing" me to increase our mail
size. (I thought we were 'reasonably generous' in current global terms,
at 16MB per message). I asked what he considered it needed to be, his
response was that "right now" he needs 50-60MB, but that he thought it
shouldn't have any limit - but if it had to, that 300-500MB per message
would "probably do for now”.<br><br>Go back to the question, “Why does
the limit exist?”<br><br>SMTP servers used to have the limit because
large files took a long time to send, bandwidth was expensive, storage
space also cost a lot of money, and if a message was too big the client
would probably crap its dacks when it tried to receive it anyway.<br><br>Even
a decade ago, 10 Mbyte limits were the norm. You’re currently happy
with 16 Mbytes, even though all the resources which were extant when the
limits were first envisaged have scaled by, what, a factor of 1000 in
the right direction?<br><br>You currently have a limit which prevents
your users from sending a RAW format image off their digital camera as a
file attachment. That seems unusually small to me.<br><br>Is there any
specific reason why you couldn’t update it to 1 Gbyte? If you had
allowed it to grow at the same rate as bandwidth and Mbytes-per-dollar
storage costs over the last ten years it’d probably be closer to 10
Gbytes by now, so setting it to 1 Gbyte is an order of magnitude less
than organic growth.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class="MsoNormal">We have an in-house (but publicly visible) file
transfer service (a corporate drop-box, if you will). Because
apparently uploading/downloading from this service uses significantly
less bandwidth than it would use to transfer the file via email, and the
disk space on the server dedicated to this service is much cheaper than
mail server storage. And maintaining two systems is easier and cheaper
than maintaining one.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class="MsoNormal">Yes, there may be sarcasm in that second sentence.
And the third one. Alas, I don't make the decision in this instance.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body></html>