On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Lixia Zhang <li...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2012, at 6:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> >> >> --On Thursday, March 15, 2012 00:00 -0400 Ross Callon >> <rcal...@juniper.net> wrote: >> >>> I don't like this proposal for two reasons: I frequently read >>> email while not connected; When connected, bandwidths have >>> gotten high enough that attachments on the most part are not >>> slowing things down in an uncomfortable way. >>> >>> It might be okay for really large attachments, as long as only >>> a few messages are affected. >>
>> Borrowing a bit from Randy, the solution to really large >> attachments is to ban them. > > +1 > > Lixia > Indeed, it is simple, effective and no big changes are necessary. Moreover, as someone else pointed out, large attachments are very, very unusual, so a limitation on the maximum attachment size should not be a problem most of the time. How do we fix the maximum size? I just checked that the PDF version of RFC 3261 (SIP) is 388 K. Double it and fix the bound to 800 K. Twice the size of SIP spec should be more than reasonable. Riccardo
