On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:31:58 -0500 Kurt Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feigning erudition, Andrew Mathews wrote: > % I've been searching for a reference to any specifications concerning > % maximum message sizes for email. I've googled a fair amount but not > % found anything specific other than RFC 1870 which doesn't give a > % commonly accepted maximum size, just a 64k minimum capability. I'm > % trying to provide some valid documentation to support my argument that a > % mail server is NOT an server for large attachments, that's what we have > % an ftp server for. Is there a standard for the maximum or is it simply > % set by the individual isp? (we had a 10M limit and people are howling > % since it's been reduced to 2M) > > I'm not aware of a standard size. You could poke around at > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/, though. Getting Bubba Lunchbucket not > to use email to send huge attachments is probably a lost cause, > though. No. Just keep a hard limit and the moron will have to learn. I don't know about any standard off the top, but I do know that some pop servers (older versions of cucipop, not sure about newer ones) would choke on an e-mail larger than 2Mb. Obviously, folks do not understand how SMTP works or they'd stop sending Gb attachments. My mail servers will reject anything over 2Mb because it chokes the pipes. Worst part is, these large attachments often go to long lists of people. I refuse to buy an E-3 so folks can e-mail 6Gb databases to each other. I can only afford 1024k (hopefully soon to be an E-1) with the number of clients I have. Large e-mails are as bad as Kazaa. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. Nemesis Racing Team motto
msg11558/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
