Thanks Tom and Hal I was trying to understand what the change was and now I
know the pix get bigger. I will keep that in mind for the future.
Regards
Paul.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Tom Van Baak (lab)
wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Your expectation works for text attachments. But binary attachments
Hi
There are *some* mail outfits that will reject anything over 64K bytes. I have
not had to deal with any for a while, but they are still out there. How they
continue to operate with those sort of limits, I have no idea.
Bob
On Jul 11, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Tom Van Baak (lab) wrote:
> Paul,
>
Paul,
Your expectation works for text attachments. But binary attachments (e.g., jpg)
expand about 33%. That's 8/6, or log2(256)/log2(64), due to base64 encoding of
8-bit bytes.
In general, large attachments on this list are ok. It's just that when they are
above 128k they are temporarily held
Thanks Hal
Yes I sent the same email to my business account and could see it was 148KB.
Gmail does not give you email size "cause they sell storage". So they make
it hard to manage your folders and the sizes. I did use thunderbird for a
bit and may need to go back to that. It did however tend to cl
paulsw...@gmail.com said:
> Trying to keep the message and attachements below the 128KB limit. I send a
> 119KB message and it gets held as a 165KB message. Can someone help me to
> understand the difference please?
My guess would be base64 encoding? For binary files, you only get 6 bits per
(
Trying to keep the message and attachements below the 128KB limit.
I send a 119KB message and it gets held as a 165KB message.
Can someone help me to understand the difference please?
Thanks
Paul
WB8TSL
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To
