The argument is that E-mail is not the proper method for transferring files. Why?
Because E-mail is not point-to-point. If you have a 30Mb file you'd like to send me,
it would make much more sense to make it available to a browser or FTP client and then
send me a link. If you decide to send me an E-mail, you will first bog down Outlook
while it drops the message in your outgoing MTA. And then God forbid you actually
have more than one Exchange server or site - let alone Exchange 5.5. If so, get ready
to wait about 6 hours for the X.400 connector to slug that thing across the pipe.
Uh-oh, this thing is internal - better let the IMC take care of it. What? We have a
virus and content scanning gateway? Hold on, you can scan it in about 15 minutes.
SCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCANSCAN
Ok done. Now lemme route this to mail.speakeasy.net - WHAT? THEY DON'T ACCEPT
ANYTHING OVER 4MB? I'm gonna have to send it back. Here you go IMC.............
The alternative of course is FTP or HTTP. Client: Lemme have that file. IIS: Okie
hereya go.
My argument has nothing to do with the time it takes to deliver such a large message,
although that might be a consideration for the user. My job is to try and maintain
the message routing and mailbox servers that become unavailable while choking on and
trying to deliver large files.
Eric (drama queen for a day)
> ------------ Original Message -----------
> From: Schwartz, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:25:38 -0400
>
> I'll have to disagree. If your business is graphic design or something
> similar, then you have a real need to send and receive large attachments.
> Your design should reflect your need. If I need to have bigger servers,
> mailboxes and or internet connections to meet these needs then you should
> be
> able to write a justification for the purchase. Having no limits at all in
> place would not be a great idea unless you like having users call because
> their mailbox is over the limit or your IMS is trying to deliver a 1GB
> video
> that someone made.
>
> It is a business decision with technical implications.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:18 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Mailbox sizes: Incoming/Outgoing message limits
> >
> > Where I used to work, the most common reason for me getting paged at 3
> am
> > was because someone was sending their Napster directories from work to
> > home using E-mail (this was a very large and well-known organization
> that
> > happened to be run by idiots). While the need for limits should be
> > obvious to everyone on this group, we are often not in a position to
> > impose these policies.
> >
> > The truth is that if anything it is more a technical decision than
> > business, due to the fact that the main implication is system
> performance.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > > ------------ Original Message -----------
> > > From: Steve Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:01:59 -0400
> > >
> > > The need for limits is not obvious at all.
> > >
> > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/30/01 03:48PM >>>
> > > Wouldn't this be more of a business decision than a technical one?
> > > Obviously
> > > there are limits that need to be in place. If you set prohibit send
> and
> > > receive at 50MB on the mailboxes, then you should set the IMS lower.
> > Other
> > > than that, the question is, what do your users need to send and
> receive?
> > >
> > > Us = 8MB in, 5MB out.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sethi, Ali [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:44 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Mailbox sizes: Incoming/Outgoing message limits
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > We are beginning to implement a policy of limiting all
> > incoming/outgoing
> > > > messages to 5mb. I just wanted a consensus of size limits are set
> by
> > > > other
> > > > companies. What size limit have you implemented?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
