On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 12:29 +0200, Matthias Apitz wrote: > El día Wednesday, June 20, 2012 a las 05:12:07AM -0400, Adam Tauno Williams > escribió: > > NO WAY! This isn't the 1990s. There certainly is a reasonable upper > > limit for an e-mail message but it isn't 12MB. I routinely send 50 - > > 75MB collections of files via e-mail and via Evolution. Evolution never > > fails. Modern mail handlers such as Postfix and Cyrus IMAP are easily > > capable of handling these large messages. > > ... > In ESMTP you can query the size limit of the next MX with: > $ telnet smtp.1blu.de 25 > 250-SIZE 52428800 > i.e. my ISP would accept 52428800 bytes;
And with base64 encoding [which tends to bloat ~20%] that is a maximum message size of ~40MB. > what I right now listening as music..." and the other is connected by a > link and has to pay for minutes or for bytes (a) I know that nobody I communicate with regularly has a pay-as-you-go plan. Many are on the same extremely fast subnet as me. (b) At least in North America pay-as-you-go plans are almost unheard of. I understand this case and when I communicate with a friend in rural Africa messages are smallish - although one does discover that batch transfer of information via SMTP is far *more* efficient that messages containing links that then have to be downloaded [and are often viewed after the connection has gone away]. Dealing with web servers and especially 'the Web 2.0' over very high latency connections isn't a great time. So no, I think this mentality is completely obsolete except in rare and very specific cases. But this is all off-topic now: Evolution can handle very large messages quite gracefully. I'm curious why a specific attachment would make it go donkers.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list [email protected] To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
