[AusNOG] Current "Best Practice" WRT email size

Thu Nov 26 14:19:25 EST 2015

Aren’t there new corporate solutions that provide web browser file sharing capabilities.

Over and above drop box , gdrive …

Alex

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 1:56 PM
To: 'Shane Short' <shane at short.id.au>
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Current "Best Practice" WRT email size

And that’s why I say it’s more of an education thing to help this rather than bandwidth.

Paul

From: Shane Short [mailto:shane at short.id.au]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 1:50 PM
To: paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au<mailto:paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au>
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Current "Best Practice" WRT email size

paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au<mailto:paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au> wrote:
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.

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?

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.

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.

Paul

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hudson
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 1:37 PM
To: Mark Newton
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Current "Best Practice" WRT email size

On 26 November 2015 at 13:25, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org<mailto:newton at atdot.dotat.org>> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net<mailto: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.

_______________________________________________

AusNOG mailing list

AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>

http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151126/6aa8a135/attachment.html>