David F. Skoll wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
If I had to guess, a way to get around max message sizes which at the
time were plaguing usenet.
Well, system administrators generally have a good reason for setting
the maximum message size, and for RFC authors to attempt to subvert that
is just plain wrong.
My experience from the later 1990s was that there was a problem with
long lasting SMTP sessions. I.e there was not a problem to send 1000 KB
in ten 100 KiB pieces, but there was a problem sending it as one e-mail
as the connection usually got disconnected after a few hundreds of KiB
and was tried again after half an hour--and again, and again till it
succeeded. You can imagine a plenty of wasted capacity and CPU time. So
the original motivation seems to be OK to me (no attempt to subvert
anything IMHO). I personally remember the situation when one scientist
travelled from the U. K. to the Czech Republic and sent all his work as
an e-mail (one big tar file). Its size was 26 MiB the the sender MTA
tried twice an hour all the afternoon and evening till about 3 AM when
it succeeded. Every try with a few MiB transferred. Yes, another and
possibly better solution to this would be ESMTP CHUNKING (not yet
implemented in sendmail).
Regards,
Vladimír
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
