Slashdot Mirror


E-Mail Size Limits?

Technoman asks: "I work for a company that for the past four years has restricted individual e-mail messages to 5 meg each. We now have users suggesting that this limit is to small and hinders them in performing their job. I would like to know how others are using size limits, and if not how they deal with large e-mails." As human communication over the net becomes more and more complex, the "acceptable size" of an email message will increase. 10 years ago, if you got an email over 10k, something was seriously amiss; but these days, that is just a flash in the pan. Many people rely on email, not FTP to transfer files, and things like a few family portraits can easily exceed several megs in size, so drawing the line for all users may not be as easy as you think, depending on your users and your network. Put simply, if you were the administrator of an e-mail server, what would you set the maximum size of an incoming email message to be, and what would be the reasoning behind said limit?

6 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Education instead of cushioning. by arcade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, I'm sure I'll sound like a elitist prick to some people, but I really don't care. What you should do, is to _educate_ people in what the Internet consists of, and what medium you should do to do what.

    Explain to people that sending large emails really isn't very nice, that you'll most likely increase the overhead due to the way the files are encoded, and so forth.

    Explain to people, the difference between ftp, smtp, http, pop3, nntp, imap and so forth. If you're daring, even explain them how to use telnet. Don't go into the very _details_ of the protocols unless they ask, of course. Just explain how things should be done.

    If people use instant messenging, explain the difference between IM, ICQ, IRC, and whatever they want to use.

    Explain things instead of just choosing the easy way out and adapting to them - except if their way really _is_ better.

    That's my opinion. Now flame me for beeing an elitist bastard.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  2. education is the only way by synq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A little education goes a long way.

    To my opinion education is the only way your users will know what to do.

    Putting a size limit on your e-mail server doesn't learn them anything exept that their e-mail administrator is a complete *ss (in their view).

    E-mail size limits only help if you explain to your uses why they shouldn't send files by e-mail if there is another way and, how they should share documents. For example by providing a common storage place by http or ftp somewhere. These sharing tools however have to be just as simple as sending e-mail for people to use them.

    --
    sig not found
  3. Re:Sounds pretty good by markwelch · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem with saying "put larger files on a web site or ftp site" is that most people can't figure out how to do that properly, or if they do it, they make the file visible to ANYONE (including search engines) so that confidential data might be lost.

    Do you offer "less-skilled" employees an easy tool to upload large files to a web site and assign an individual password for that file (perhaps even with a form to indicate the email address to send the file info to)?

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
  4. Just Say No by jhealy1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me old-fashioned, but I consider 5MB to be plenty for a single e-mail message size. While there are good exceptions to this rule, I'll list the arguments in favor of a "small" max message size:

    • Quotas. If you have a quota on mailbox/home dir size, you're just asking for trouble by allowing huge attachments.
    • Over-reliance on e-mail. Even if you allow large attachments, it doesn't mean everyone else will. My last company allowed 50MB attachments. While we could (and did) get just about everything, the sales team assumed it was OK to fire off 24MB bloated word docs to customers, whose mail servers would promptly reject them. Usually, this happened at some Very Important(tm) time, so trying to explain the finer points of e-mail attachments wasn't a good idea.
    • Over-reliance on dumb file formats. Word attachments (especially with pictures) rapidly bloat past the 8MB mark. Consider a different format for exchanging docs, like PDF. It still looks right, and it's much smaller. My 100+ page thesis, with pictures, is ~2MB in PDF. 5MB is a lot more room than people think it is.
    • If you're sending a lot of pictures, you really should put them up on a web page; that's what the web is for. If you must send them over e-mail, just split them up into chunks and fire them off that way.

    Again, some of these points means that you need to make a public webserver available for users to post things on. I would recommend a CGI that posts content and returns a key to that content (MD5 hash, perhaps). Only with the key can the user get the content. That way, your staff can upload anything of any size, and then e-mail the MD5 key to other people to let them download it. Reasonable security and relative ease. You could even have users include an expiration date so you can auto-delete stale uploads.

  5. email is the new UPS or Fedex by gruntvald · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work in construction. Email is essential to transfer in a way the users already know how to use files, drawings, and other documents. Disk is cheap. Bandwidth is a utility cost. ftp has lost the widespread adoption battle because it's got some security issues, and frankly it's a technology that just gets in the way. The function of IT is to provide a service that people need. If you want to impose limits on what users can do, expect to be replaced sometime by a sysadmin that doesn't have those urges.

  6. So many arguments, so little grasp by gruntvald · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This thread has so many arguments against attachments, but I don't understand why.
    • email wasn't designed for files So why was UUENCODE and UUDECODE, then later MIME created? It wasn't invented by Microsoft for use in Outlook!
    • It's too much disk usage, it'll bring your mail server down So size your mail server according to your projected users needs. You did do a needs analysis before submitting your budget, didn't you?
    • It hurts people on dial up Why would you treat every user the same? Remember the needs analysis you did?
    • Too much bandwidth usage! if you can't afford it, put limits
    • use ftp instead do you really think the sales managers and Project managers want to get You to set up an account for every person they deal with who needs to send them documents? No matter when they need them?
    • ftp is secure over ssh so you're going to produce documentation for each user on how to use this new software they have to download? "I need to send you a 2Mb file!" "No can do, let me contact our sysadmin on monday so he can set up an account and tell you what software to download to accomplish this". Please.
    • no compromise can be reached! plenty of folks here set 650Mb attachment limits. Know how they can do that? They know their systems, and did capacity planning, they've come up with limits they can handle that work for the users. Often they have different limits for different users
    email attachments are here to stay, they replace physical media, and get us closer to the paperless office. The inventors of MIME didn't consider it a gross abuse of the medium, why should you?