On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 07:58 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 8/6/2011 1:26 AM, Rob Sterenborg (Lists) wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 01:04 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Or do the smart thing: use a file transfer protocol for transferring > >> files instead of an email protocol. HTTP and FTP are readily available > >> good examples. > > > > We don't know why the OP wants this so it may not be that simple. > > > > Recently I had to allow for emails up to 100MB because a customer uses a > > scanner that sends emails containing the scan, apparently in hires. When > > I at first refused and asked for another solution (like FTP) I was told > > that sending the email was the only solution the scanner offers and the > > recipient supports. Go figure.
Ok, this is really getting OT for both the subject and the list.. But here it goes. > "Trust, but verify." > --President Ronald Reagan > > I assume you asked for and received the brand and model# of this > "scanner", then verified the "email only" claim with the manufacturer's > data sheet? Yes, I asked and please, hold your pants: no one could answer my question (which translates to 'no one wanted to'). > I'd bet that device supports all kinds of methods to transfer the image > files. I'd also bet that the people using it simply didn't have the > technical chops, nor wanted to spend time figuring the thing out. The people actually using it are regular users and no, you don't expect that from them (I don't). Regular users usually don't know the first thing about implementing any system. However, you'd expect that from the party that wants it's data delivered, since they have to implement the receiving system. Apparently, IMO, they didn't do that well enough, if they did. Or the wrong people thought about it, or someone met someone else at the golf club and you know what happens next, or [...]. It's not that actually suspect the scanner of not having another way of delivering the scans (I just don't believe that until proven), but because of the receiving party that's redundant here: I cannot tell our brand-new customer to take their administration business elsewhere. > So they took a dump on you. Either you let them do so, or your superiors > forced you to allow it. The first I don't know (although I don't believe it, it could be true), the latter for sure. > The instant the "email only" claim was made, I'd have said "our email > systems can't accept files that large." So did I. And I was talking the truth because of the configuration. :-) > They'd have countered with "Other email servers do. We don't believe > you. Prove it." I'd have countered, "Prove your claim WRT the scanner." Yes, well, if the board of directors (or whatever it's called in English, I must be close) tells you to do something, you might have to do things you don't actually want to. I tried to minimize the damage by making sure that *only* the scanner can send 100MB emails to the *specified recipient* only. Although I do agree that this puts the door half open, it's the best I could do at the time. > Only if they could have proven that claim would I have allowed what they > were requesting. But, that's me, BOFH that I am. :) To keep the system as it IMO should be, I usually am too. And because of that there are people that sometimes do not like me very much. But there are times that I'm afraid it doesn't work. :-/ -- Rob
