EMAIL != FTP
wojtekz at idirect.com
Fri May 25 19:11:13 UTC 2001
> > From: Jim Mercer [mailto:jim at reptiles.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:03 AM
> > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 06:32:48AM -0400, Mitch Halmu wrote:
> > > So what's a regular user to do? Email it! Hence the
> > legitimate use of
> > > email for transmission of large files. Most ISPs know that
> > if they start
> > > limiting this privilege, users will migrate to someone that
> > allows it.
> > i regularly configure ISP's with a limit on the size of email
> > messages.
> > (generally 10meg, although i think 100k is probably better).
> That's why most corps use their own MTA's. Sometimes, I run into a client
> that has such bigots running their systems. A few "failures to
> usually result in executive management applying the clue-by-four. Business
> rules drive technology, not the other way around. One clueless company
> blocks attachments with more than one dot in the name. They are steadily
> losing business.
> One does not give access to passworded sites without an NDA. After the
> initial deal is set, one does NOT strike clients in the face with
> Security need to be transparent.
> > when they get a complaint, i then point them to the fact that
> > many of the
> > large email messages get stuck in the queue because the receiving side
> > is too slow or doesn't have enough disk, or the users quota is full.
> At $99 per 40GB HDD, there is no excuse for lack of space. MTAs should
> delete all messages once they are sent, or soon thereafter. My laptop is
> considered small ... at 12GB. BTW, end users DO know how to delete files
> manage space. The file cabinet metaphor works well.
Last time that I checked, adding a drive to a raid array or NETAPP was a
great deal more than $99. Lets not count the cost of upgrading a HD in a
lowly Linux box (not bashing Linux here). IDE is also not sufficient
enought in order to sustaint the write rate of that these servers demand
(let alone the IO). 5200 RPM drivers are not a solution for ISPs.
> > and of course, the sending user hears that it wasn't
> > received, and then assumes it was lost and resends it.
> ... and the system should accomodate them.
> > file transfer by email is evil.
> That's your unsupported opinion.
An this is your unsupported opinon. Have you ever dealt with many corporate
customers that complain that it takes 2 minutes to open up their mailbox
(thats what you get for a 250 MB mailbox). Its one thing to receive such
mail and another to ensure that you mailbox doesnt get overfilled. What
about resources used by a box that has dozens of POP3 sessions that are
locked due to client software timeouts?
FTP = GOOD
MAIL ATTACHMETS = BAD
> > i've been saying that for literally 10 years now:
> ... and you never wondered why no one listened?
More information about the NANOG