[AusNOG] Current "Best Practice" WRT email size

[Robert Hudson]

On 26 November 2015 at 13:25, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It goes to where the users demand.
>
> 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?
>
> > 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”.
>
> Go back to the question, “Why does the limit exist?”
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

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.

Yes, there may be sarcasm in that second sentence.  And the third one.
Alas, I don't make the decision in this instance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151126/4c308d60/attachment.html>