Karen:
One iron-clad security reason for using BCC: is that each recipient email contains only their one targeted address: the BCC: list does not pass the server. The virtue being that a trojan-infected recipient machine is denied another address list to probe/attack/enslave. Yep. It still happens. Bruce From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Tellef Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 1:33 PM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: RMail question When I get around to writing the code, I'll post it here. I asked the client if they'd "mind" if we sent them out as bcc's instead, waiting for the answer. Karen -----Original Message----- From: Jim Belisle <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: RBASE-L Mailing List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, May 16, 2014 3:21 pm Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: RMail question Karen, This is good to know. We are planning to do some mass mailings and I will need to do something similar to your situation. This will help in my planning. James Belisle Making Information Systems People Friendly Since 1990 From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?> ] On Behalf Of Karen Tellef Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:18 PM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: RMail question The speed with no attachments is perfectly fine, it's putting that almost-2MB PDF file on there that slows it down. I tested it with sending an email with 3 bcc addresses. It took the same 1 min 15 sec to form the email, then pushed it to the addresses in no additional time. So it looks like the way to go with big attachments is to send as a bunch of bcc's. Karen -----Original Message----- From: Doug Hamilton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: RBASE-L Mailing List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, May 16, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: RMail question If it helps, I sent out 315 html emails of 25.3 KB each, no attachments, in 1:33. But that includes a 5 minute pause every 40 emails per my ISP, so actual "mail time" was about an hour. Each one one was sent individually via a cursor. It would interesting to see how multiple addressees per email would affect the time. ISP upload speed is a bit north of 1 Mbps per http://www.speedtest.net/ and http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ Doug "It's hard to explain puns to a kleptomaniac because they always take things literally." On 5/16/2014 2:22 PM, Karen Tellef wrote: Using RMail on a 32-bit 9.5 system. Client is going to be interested in sending out an email with attachment to a very large group of people. When I test this with 30 people, emails without an attachment take about 2-3 seconds to send out. When I include a 1.7MB PDF file as an attachment, each email takes about 1 min 15 seconds which won't be real easy with hundreds to send out. (I ran it from the server itself, not a workstation) So first question is if this seems like a "normal" amount of time. Otherwise, should I think about instead doing a "bcc" to everyone? Is there a practical limit to the number of "add_bcc_recipient" addresses I can do in one email, or is it simply based on an email server's spam limit? I guess I would declare a cursor, set a counter loop and keep sending "add_bcc_recipient" for a bunch of them, right? Karen ________________________________ <http://www.avast.com/> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
