Subject: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?

From: Scot McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:26:24 -0500

My opinion is that people should use the proper service to an end. If
someone needs to transfer a file to you, than it should be done with FTP or
other similar service..Even ICQ (which negotiates clients for direct file
transfer). E-mail should be for text and small attachments related to the
message, not a method of transferring files...

Again, only in my opinion, it is the lesser learning curve of OSs such as
windows that have lead to less educated users,  and thus more often improper
use of services. This is due to Xerox/Windows Style GUI's reducing the slope
of the beginner's learning curve, although this may seem a great advantage,
it creates a steeper learning curve for even slightly more advanced uses of
their computers and subsequently the internet. It creates reliance on the
ability of the OS providers to create software.

On the other hand, we can also give some thanks the same OSs for the
explosive growth of the Internet, which is not without some cost..

Just some my opinions..

-Scot Mc Pherson
-Training Manager
-Wave Wireless Networking
-Div. of SPEEDCOM International
-Phone: 941.358.9283 ext.327
-Fax: 941.355.0291
-E-mail: [email-masked]
-http://www.speedlan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Finlayson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 8:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Email messages: How large is too large?

As someone who has used the Internet since before it was even *called* the
Internet, I can remember when noone would have dreamed of sending email
messages that were even 50 kBytes in size.  Times have changed, of course,
and now it's commonplace for people to send email messages that are
significantly larger than this.

But how large is too large?  I recently chastized someone for sending me an
email message that was 3.7 MBytes in size.  (I currently get my email
delivered through a POP mailbox run by my ISP, and the 3.7 MByte message
came close to exceeding my quota.)  "That's ridiculous," I argued.  "Email
was not intended for messages even remotely as large as this."

However, I can't help but wonder if I'm being a bit old-fashioned.  Indeed,
times have changed, and message sizes that once seemed absurdly large are
now quite reasonable.

So I wonder, what do people think is a reasonable suggested maximum email
message size these days (for messages sent over the public Internet, not
just within a private intranet)?  Is there a RFC anywhere that lists a
recommended maximum size?  And should email programs issue a warning if a
user tries to send a message that's 'too large'?

	Ross.

---

From: "Martin Djernaes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:58:08 +0100

> Scot McPherson wrote:
> someone needs to transfer a file to you, than it should be done with
> FTP or other similar service..Even ICQ (which negotiates clients for
> direct file transfer). E-mail should be for text and small attachments
> related to the message, not a method of transferring files...

This cannot be serious! The internet/computers etc. is not only
something the advanced user should use, but a tool for everybody. 

As long as no other alternative to transferring data between two
machines exists, no other function will be used. The requirements for
such other function is, as a minimum, that it's functionality is
transparent to the user (dummy user) and that it do not require both
machines being online at the same time.

I know that the internet were not build for "general use", but it is the
life of the net today, at it should be the goal for the people
implementing it (us?). Let us get away from the idea that it should
always be used the way we implemented it and change our view to how
would the user like to use it.

If the user would like to transfer 28 MB we should make it possible
(there is always somebody who is in front of the big group, so I do not
say that just because one person wants it we have to make it possible).
If the mail service from today isn't the right solution, we should
invent a better. If all providers would allow a user to place XX MB via
FTP on a server, and all "mail clients" would send the file to the FTP
server and only have a link in the mail body which let you download the
file it would be ok for me, but ... there is places where mail is the
only internet connection they have ... we should consider very hard what
kind of consequences such function would have, and which
advantages/disadvatages it has compared with the current model.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Djernæs                    [email-masked]
Dipl.-Ing.                             
Alcatel Kommunikations-Elektronik GmbH Tel:+49 (0511) 6747 741
Postfach 3246                          Fax:+49 (0511) 6747 777
30032 Hannover, Germany                http://www.ke-online.de
--------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Martin Djernaes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:58:08 +0100

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:08:15 -0500

> message, not a method of transferring files...

OK.. I've got a file to send to you.

Let's say I toss it to you:
a) Do you have an incoming anonymous FTP drop *of your own*?
b) Are you willing to set up incoming FTP for one file?
c) What if you're one of the millions of people who use an ISP that
doesn't provide FTP drops?

OK, that doesn't seem to be viable. Let me store it and you pick it up:
d) I happen to be lucky enough to have my own workstation.  However,
you can't FTP to it because I have FTP disabled.  If I don't have an FTP
drop, you can't pick it up.
e) If I didn't have a Web page area big enough to hold the file,
how would I send it to you?  Remember that many freebie sites put a 5M or 10M
quota on the users...

Of course, the right answer is something like this:

1440 SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer. R. Troth.
     July 1993. (Format: TXT=17366 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

However, there's few enough sites running it that it's not really an
alternative.  Heck, I *know* Rick Troth, and I'm not even running one,
mostly due to a lack of anybody else for it to talk to.

Perhaps it's time to dust that RFC off and see what can be done with it...

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:08:15 -0500

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:26:01 +0000

In message <[email-masked]>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt
.edu typed:

 >>--==_Exmh_-374731876P

 >>doesn't provide FTP drops?

plenty of ISPs offer free web space (e.g. 5M is typical) - for a file
of size nMbytes , all you
need is to get n/5 internet accounts , run split on the file - hey you
could use slightly more (e..g n) and
even run a fancy layered fec dithering crypto algorithm
and have a file that noone could _remove_ without removing more than
4n sites - its called an "eternity" service and is a possible very
valuble service indeed (reliable and also hard for centralized
authorities to attack)
 >>--==_Exmh_-374731876P
 >>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 >>
 >>-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
 >>Version: 2.6.2
 >>
 >>iQCVAwUBOFVSLtQBOOoptg9JAQHU/QQAs9Co7vgq6IElSjIlizIJD9i+vA4VjhNS
 >>cObsuiF0rwXHoYdrTlyJKm0FO4Yrs+J5CpPKGRL3ky6sR7FaD32lhg0PKZBlTC4s
 >>GkVcNNp8mJoYOIcscf07bRtn0GzyJHtzRxpqaVbK9k0whb5j/Or91CTdnEPU5OAS
 >>obDidnOhNfA=
 >>=KdSF
 >>-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
 >>
 >>--==_Exmh_-374731876P--
 >>

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:26:01 +0000

cheers

   jon

---

From: "Panditha Govindraj" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:36:20 +0530

Email Need not necessarily be for text and small attachments.

What if the other end does not have an ip for Filetransfer or etc

THEN I THINK we can send large documents through e-mail . Infact file
transfer is possible if both sides we have an ftp. or ip running.

Because i have only an email connection provided by my ISP , and i d o
not have an Ftp at my end
so when i need some document which is 6mb in size iam unable to send
them through e-mail

regards
Govindaraj.P

111,Anna Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu

[email-masked]

Scot McPherson wrote:

> Again, only in my opinion, it is the lesser learning curve of OSs such
> as windows that have lead to less educated users,  and thus more often
> improper use of services. This is due to Xerox/Windows Style GUI's
> reducing the slope of the beginner's learning curve, although this may
> seem a great advantage, it creates a steeper learning curve for even
> slightly more advanced uses of their computers and subsequently the
> internet. It creates reliance on the ability of the OS providers to
> create software.
>

---

From: "Panditha Govindraj" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:36:20 +0530

regards
Govindaraj.P

111,Anna Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu

[email-masked]