Friday, October 29, 1999
Hello Steve,
Thursday, Thursday, October 28, 1999, you wrote:
Steve> Wednesday, October 27, 1999, 11:55:36 PM, Ralf wrote:
>> I've done it before. Well, a 5 megs attachment went along it's way just
>> fine. Why should some points reject a large message? Is there a general
>> rule or a RFC or something like that that restricts the maximum size of
>> a message?
Steve> The RFCs (I thought it was 822, but it is not, I am now looking for the
Steve> exact one) only guarantee up to 64kb. Furthermore large attachments were, and
Steve> still are, considered a denial of service. Many places will limit the size of
Steve> the message. The average that I have herd of is 5Mb where some are as low as
Steve> 2Mb.
correct, and anyone doing it on a regular basis gets complaints...
It seems in general to be coupled to 'free' mailbox size but as most
mailservers have limited storage capacity large emilas arent
apreciated as they can totally hang the system.
Thats why splitting files and sending them as one by one seperate
parts is better and more polite but really files should be ftp'd.
Its really not that complicated to run an ftp server on your system so
that the receiver from the other side can ftp the stuff out..
Vermillion is an obvious candidate but it isnt free...
Best regards,
tracer
Using theBAT 1.36
mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NOTE: 1 MAILRUN PER DAY ONLY
