Email Size limit

[Evoir]

Hi,

I know that FQ has a 10 meg limit on emails. I found in the info in the knowlege base (http://service.futurequest.net/index.php?_a=knowledgebase&_j=questiondetails&_i=253&nav=+%26gt%3B+%3Ca+href%3D%27index.php%3F_a%3Dknowledgebase%26_j% 3Dsubcat%26_i%3D8%27%3EEmail%3C%2Fa%3E).

The text reads: Question:

Is there a maximum file size limit for email?

I mailed myself a large file ( ~11megs?) from the office and it has not arrived.

I tried to send an email to a co-worker and I received an error message - "exceeded max message length"

The attachment was about 11 MB.

Answer:

There is an approximate 10 - 11 MB limit on any single email (depending upon nuances of Base64 encoding).

Note what you see as the space an email takes will probably be less than the amount of space the email is actually using due to Base64 Encoding. It is possible that the file you are waiting for has increased 1.5 to 3 times over the size it started as, depending on encoding.

It is best to use FTP to move large files as this way they are pure binary.


Clients often ask me about the file size limit, and I don't really know what to say. Telling them "It is best to use FTP to move large files as this way they are pure binary" does not seem like a good idea. How does this file size limit fit into the puzzle that is FQ? Why do you impose this? Why can't we configure how big or small we want that number based on our package allottment?

Honestly, I am not challenging FQ, just looking for a good answer to share with my clients that would make sense to them. Because, you know, they don't want that limitation, but if I have a good reason, I bet they'd be fine with it.

Thanks!

[Terra]

Mail is always moving, and the time to move it depends on quantity and size... Overall, if you want your mail fast, then there are certain tradeoffs to accomplish that... Email should be for written communication with another person(s) and occasional use for small to medium sized attachments... FTP should be used for large file transfers...

It is also a safeguard to help prevent mail bomb attacks and also helps to reduce the mail queue disk space requirements down to a manageable level... Another reason is that ClamAV and SpamAssassin need to scan the email, and the larger it is, the longer it takes, not to mention the higher amount of resources to process that email attachment which can lead to serious slowdowns or even a DoS...

Not too long ago, we tested GMail.com, and found that they had also settled on a 10MB limit, most likely for the same reasons that we chose that limit...

--
Terra
sysAdmin
FutureQuest

[Randall]

From a user standpoint, you really don't want a 30MB file landing in your mailbox. I've seen one -- it was a sound file, if I remember right -- and Netscape choked on it big time (this was in the 4.x days, but still).

It's unfortunate that peer-to-peer file sharing got bogged down in copyright issues. We need an easy way to transfer large files between two people, and FTP != "easy" for non-technical users, most of whom have never heard of it. :hrmm:

Randall

[Matt]

FTP as a transfer method is actually manageable if the client is using Internet Explorer with its drag and drop capability. On Linux, many window managers allow for a similar expeience, and I am sure it's the same on the Mac. From an end-user perspective it's pretty much like having just another folder window open, though I admit that setting it up requires a great deal more technical know-how and resources than simply sending an e-mail.

Back to the subject of e-mail... if it was absolutely necessary, you could split zip files into multiple 10MB parts and send each separately. I'm pretty sure that at least some e-mail clients have the ability to do this automatically if you just set the preference.

Here's a neat idea (that I bet exists): A plug-in that works with major e-mail clients. Upon selecting an attachment that attachment would be seamlessly uploaded to a hosted FTP service. Instructions would be automatically included within the e-mail on how to retrieve the file (click this link, type this username and password, select location to save file).

-Matt

[sheila]

To answer the question "what size file" you can email...that would generally be somewhere between 4 to 7 MB. Once the file is encoded for email sending, it will become much larger. The general rule of thumb that I go by, is that one is likely to have trouble with files over 4 or 5 MB (raw size of the file on your desktop before trying to attach it to an email for sending).

[Evoir]

Thanks everyone. :)

If I were designing a plugin to email programs, it would warn you that the attachment is too big. Do any of them do that? So, the error happens on the sending side, not once you have sent it. Email error messages really paralize people who don't have much technical knowlege.

Anyway, thanks. I'll share this with my client. :)

[Binky]

I've found that sending large files via http://yousendit.com (and there are a number of similar services) is the easiest way to go - easier than FTP - and even utter email newbies have no problem dealing with it.

[Evoir]

Yup, have used dropload.com (http://dropload.com) too. Just to a novice user, even knowing the size of a file is too much, you know? Their eyes glaze over....:rasberry:

[Stecyk]

Walt Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal has a solution...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115265970702403948.html

How many times have you wanted to email a large attachment -- like a bunch of digital photos, an album of songs, or a hefty video -- but didn't do so because it exceeded your email provider's, or the recipient's, limits on attachment size, or because it might max out the recipient's mailbox?

This frustration is growing increasingly common as better digital cameras produce bigger photos and large video clips, and digital music becomes more widespread. Computer hard disks have grown nicely to accommodate these files, but limits on the size of email messages haven't. And, even if you could send such large attachments, it can take forever to send them via email, partly because broadband upload speeds lag far behind download speeds.

Instead of suffering the frustration of a bounced email, many folks have resorted to Web-based services like Shutterfly or Kodak EasyShare Gallery or YouTube.com or Google Video for sharing digital photos and videos. They upload the files to these sites, then send links to their friends and family. But this method has major drawbacks. The recipients don't get the full-size files on their own computers, and sometimes must register with the sites to view your material.

This week, we tested a new, free, application called Pando that aims to solve this problem without requiring you to use an intermediary Web site. Pando lets you email huge attachments -- up to one gigabyte each -- to anyone, without breaching email size limits, or clogging anyone's inbox. It comes in versions for both Windows and Macintosh computers, available for downloading at www.pando.com.

For those that are interested, here's a potential solution.

Regards,
Kevin

[basenji]

I just found this discussion and decided to add my 2¢ worth.

**For my business:
I occasionally need to send software product updates of up to 7mb, but usually around 4mb. If someone sends me a test file it could be larger than that. The distrubuters I sent to seem to all use Lotus Notes and have no size restriction (so I can send them any size).

For personal use:
My Nikon takes RAW photos that are 5 megs in size, and I can send those now. I also would like to send an mp3 of good size since I don't like to put mp3s on FTP site, for obvious legal reasons!

George in Seattle

[Jeff]

Walt Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal has a solution...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115265970702403948.html
Instead of suffering the frustration of a bounced email, many folks have resorted to Web-based services like Shutterfly or Kodak EasyShare Gallery or YouTube.com or Google Video for sharing digital photos and videos. They upload the files to these sites, then send links to their friends and family. But this method has major drawbacks. The recipients don't get the full-size files on their own computers, and sometimes must register with the sites to view your material.
I do find it quite annoying when someone sends me a link for a few photos and I have to create a username and login to the site to see the photos, wait for the email from that site, confirm, and then finally login, and then get email spam from the site based on my registration too! What is even worse is when they upload their photos to one of these sites that automatically downsize the photo to something like 600 pixels wide with no apparent way to download the full resolution version and then the client askes me to use these photos for print as well as the website, which obviously is a no-go :( For what they're designed for (sharing hundreds of random photos with family ;)) I'm sure they work OK.

For my uses, I would find a small mailbox unworkable and love the ability to not worry about mail bouncing because it's over some limit. I suppose it's remotely possible that at some point I'll get mailbombed with gigabyte files, but for the last couple years it's worked great to be able to tell clients to "mail the photos" and get them in under 5 minutes, just what I need, no need to setup or explain FTP accounts, etc. Probably not the most efficient use of bandwdith due to email inflating the size, but it's simple and works and is the easiest way for clients to send these files and for me to recieve them right now by far.

[Matt]

Sounds like a niche waiting to be filled. "All" we need is a new e-mail protocol that accomodates large file sizes, encryption, and authentication. I'd add the ability to retract an e-mail (before it's read) and the ability to confirm absolutely that an e-mail has been read to the wish list.

-Matt