On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 12:29 +0200, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El dÃa Wednesday, June 20, 2012 a las 05:12:07AM -0400, Adam Tauno Williams escribiÃ:NO WAY! This isn't the 1990s. There certainly is a reasonable upper limit for an e-mail message but it isn't 12MB. I routinely send 50 - 75MB collections of files via e-mail and via Evolution. Evolution never fails. Modern mail handlers such as Postfix and Cyrus IMAP are easily capable of handling these large messages. ...In ESMTP you can query the size limit of the next MX with: $ telnet smtp.1blu.de 25 250-SIZE 52428800 i.e. my ISP would accept 52428800 bytes;
And with base64 encoding [which tends to bloat ~20%] that is a maximum message size of ~40MB.
what I right now listening as music..." and the other is connected by a link and has to pay for minutes or for bytes
(a) I know that nobody I communicate with regularly has a pay-as-you-go plan. Many are on the same extremely fast subnet as me. (b) At least in North America pay-as-you-go plans are almost unheard of. I understand this case and when I communicate with a friend in rural Africa messages are smallish - although one does discover that batch transfer of information via SMTP is far *more* efficient that messages containing links that then have to be downloaded [and are often viewed after the connection has gone away]. Dealing with web servers and especially 'the Web 2.0' over very high latency connections isn't a great time. So no, I think this mentality is completely obsolete except in rare and very specific cases. But this is all off-topic now: Evolution can handle very large messages quite gracefully. I'm curious why a specific attachment would make it go donkers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part