Re: [Evolution] An interesting problem

[Bart <montana_evolution_user hardinmt us>]

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 06:52 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________

Wow!  A hornet's nest I seem to have poked.

For the record, I contacted the recipient before attempting this
transfer and got his permission and encouragement.  We both have what is
considered high speed connections (10 mbs) so time was not considered a
problem.  Neither of us are charged by usage, we pay a flat fee.

I did end up using one of the file sharing services so the file was
transferred successfully although sitting here I can't determine why
sending it to a file sharing service, and having it downloaded on the
other end would result in any less electrons being abused than sending
it as an attachment.

Also, I did try renaming the file, no go.  As I stated, I could attach
files that are bigger than this one, and have sent them without
problems.

The intent of this post was to determine if there was any interest or
curiosity in this problem.  The fact that it was this file only, and
that I used another method to accomplish my goal means that it is not a
problem to me.  I thought one of the developers just might want to be
advised, and might even want a copy of the file to determine why it
failed and why Evolution did not gracefully handle the error.