Xtra mail limit?
Quasi
The first two times I sent the file as a single e-mail (approximately 19MB
file), and I never received it. This afternoon I sent the file as 4 separate
parts with a 5MB file attached to each, and I only received the first 3.
The message, as with the first 3 parts, was accepted for delivery by the
local SMTP server.
Does Xtra now have a limit in place for e-mail?
I know my account previously did not, but they seem to have disabled the
remote administration of e-mail accounts - can anyone tell me how this can
be accessed, assuming it can be at all? (the postmaster never replied when I
asked about setting a vacation message - something I could previously do
without any complication).
Thanks for any info anyone is able to offer.
- Q.
Roger Sheppard
Most ISP's restrict you Mail buffer, most only give 2megs, mail is meant for
mail not Binary attachments..
Roger Sheppard...
BanFiz
accept anything over 1MB in size.
Quasi <qu...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:7g40o3$9qf$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
Ralph Fox
Ask XTRA what their limit is. If there are two ISPs,
one at each end, then ask both of them.
I have tried to e-mail large binary attachments from work
and our then ISP's server would reject the email. No surprise.
AFAIK, ISPs generally have a 1MByte or 2MByte limit per
e-mail message.
In addition, your ISP will impose a limit on the total
amount of e-mail for you on their server.
Basically, e-mail is that - e-mail, not e-parcel, e-package,
or e-shippingcontainer. E-mail protocols are not designed
for large volume data. We do need some method of sending
large binary attachments. FTP will transfer large volumes
of binary data, but not client-to-client -- there must be
an FTP server to upload to and to download from.
Ralph.
--
Remove the "Remove-this-biT." from my email address.
Roger Sheppard
wrote:
>
>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.11906e016...@newsch.es.co.nz...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Behold, on Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:39:50 +1200 in
>> nz.comp:<7g40o3$9qf$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Quasi (qu...@innocent.com)
>didst
>> uttereth:
>>
>> >Three times I have sent a file to my home e-mail account with Xtra -
>> >The first two times I sent the file as a single e-mail (approximately
>19MB
>> >file), and I never received it. This afternoon I sent the file as 4
>separate
>> >parts with a 5MB file attached to each, and I only received the first 3.
>Time for a zipdrive for work and home.
>
>The sooner that XTRA turns on strip binarys and sets the mail packet to 50k
>max the better!
THe sooner you leave this country the better...
Comments like this are utterly stupid, what Nazi group do you belong to,...?
Roger Sheppard...........
Colin Francis
Here we go again ..Woger's brain is heammoraging again ..Didn't take long did
it folks ..
== Col ==
"We must teach our children to resolve their
conflicts with words, not weapons"
-
President Bill Clinton, April, 1999.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:39:50 +1200 in
nz.comp:<7g40o3$9qf$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Quasi (qu...@innocent.com) didst
uttereth:
>Three times I have sent a file to my home e-mail account with Xtra -
>The first two times I sent the file as a single e-mail (approximately 19MB
>file), and I never received it. This afternoon I sent the file as 4 separate
>parts with a 5MB file attached to each, and I only received the first 3.
You should not expect such a huge file to be sent reliably by e-mail. E-mail
is not designed for it and it appears some ISPs will not guarantee delivery
because of the amount of disk space, and IIRC some ISPs have a limit on the
amount of space allocated to your inbox.
>The message, as with the first 3 parts, was accepted for delivery by the
>local SMTP server.
>
>Does Xtra now have a limit in place for e-mail?
Check with them to see. I know Ihug has a limit which I forget, it is not
unusual and I have never heard of anyone sending 19MB by e-mail because it
would take so long to send/receive. There are other ways.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNyT+EZ/ufSMMVdBMEQKO0QCgrU5zfTpKaLY3NP6+Butxa3TUeksAn1Hf
PLu9MtkxU4obKjvrhY47eDSr
=pmxf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jason Waters
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Behold, on Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:39:50 +1200 in
> nz.comp:<7g40o3$9qf$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Quasi (qu...@innocent.com)
didst
> uttereth:
>
> >Three times I have sent a file to my home e-mail account with Xtra -
> >The first two times I sent the file as a single e-mail (approximately
19MB
> >file), and I never received it. This afternoon I sent the file as 4
separate
> >parts with a 5MB file attached to each, and I only received the first 3.
ANGRY!!!!
attachements aslong as they dont stay on the server for too long. I have
recieved powerpoint Presentations getting around the 20 meg mark and they
come through alright, but of course my e-mail gets checked every 30 minutes
so any e-mail doesn't spend long on the server.
Quasi <qu...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:7g40o3$9qf$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> Three times I have sent a file to my home e-mail account with Xtra -
> The first two times I sent the file as a single e-mail (approximately 19MB
> file), and I never received it. This afternoon I sent the file as 4
separate
> parts with a 5MB file attached to each, and I only received the first 3.
>
> The message, as with the first 3 parts, was accepted for delivery by the
> local SMTP server.
>
> Does Xtra now have a limit in place for e-mail?
>
Quasi
You seem to have all missed the point here -
Suggesting I ask Xtra is all very well, but they never reply to your e-mail
(well, the postmaster doesn't anyway, and I assume that's the right person
to ask).
Also, they used to have e-mail based administration of accounts, so I know
the accounts previously did NOT have limits, nor have any large files ever
caused problems in the past.
The question was simple enough I thought 'Does Xtra now have a limit in
place for e-mail?' - not a request for lectures on sending large e-mail.
I agree that large e-mail is not always a good thing because some servers
can't handle it and you become unable to download mail (happened once with
IHUG when someone sent us a huge attachment we didn't want). But, Xtra uses
a much better server than IHUG used to, and no matter how bit my mail folder
got, it always handled it fine.
I know you all love to give your $0.02 (as do I), but some of us don't have
the option to.
It seems the final part of the message is downloading now, so that would
tend to suggest Xtra is the one imposing the limit on mailbox size or that
it was simply a coincidence that one part was undelivered. Either way, 20MB
e-mail seems to be blocked at one end - will try and find out.
- Q.
Simon Daniel
>
>The sooner that XTRA turns on strip binarys and sets the mail packet to
>50k max the better!
50k would be extreme! I get a daily email digest from a mailing list that
can be up to 300k (text only).
Simon Daniel
>
>300k/2k = 150, 150 x 240 = 36 thousand words!
>
>What are you subscribing to?
Wire (the U2 mailing list). The largest digest I can remember had about 175
messages in it.
Talden
>>>50k max the better!
>> 50k would be extreme! I get a daily email digest from a mailing list that
>> can be up to 300k (text only).
> No why!, a 2k email message will contain ~1200 characters or ~240 words
> 300k/2k = 150, 150 x 240 = 36 thousand words!
> What are you subscribing to?
I'm afraid that there are a number of Technical lists whose digest formats
are
text only and easily top 150k once daily. The Macromedia Director list
springs
to mind. I'd be surprised if a newsletter text-only (non HTML/RTF) ever
crossed
300k though (scary thought).
I might note that there are not other well established services for most
people
to transfer files asysncronously. Not everyone has secure FTP or HTTP
storage locations to send and receive from. If the issue were purely
synchronous
then the best tool would be ftp and a freeware ftp daemon.
However I would remind people that EMail is encoded for sending purposes
which inflates the binary size of the item being sent. typically 60%-100%
for
mime encoding.
--
Talden
Ralph Fox
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:38:59 +1200,
in nz.comp article <7g57ca$f3r$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
Quasi wrote:
> Quasi <qu...@innocent.com> wrote in message 7g40o3
>
> You seem to have all missed the point here -
> Suggesting I ask Xtra is all very well, but they never reply to your e-mail
> (well, the postmaster doesn't anyway, and I assume that's the right person
> to ask).
Some e-mail addresses to write to:
comments [at] xtra.co.nz (to comment on Xtra's service)
helpdesk [at] xtra.co.nz
xtrahelp [at] xtra.co.nz
If you don't hear anything, you could try e-mailing
Xtra's marketing manager:
Ian.Scherger [at] xtra.co.nz
If you don't get a resolution of your question, go
up not down in the hierarchy!
You may want to try phoning Xtra's help desk at 0800-225598,
but if they can't give you an answer ;-) then don't hesitate
to e-mail Xtra.
> Also, they used to have e-mail based administration of accounts, so I know
> the accounts previously did NOT have limits, nor have any large files ever
> caused problems in the past.
>
> The question was simple enough I thought 'Does Xtra now have a limit in
> place for e-mail?' - not a request for lectures on sending large e-mail.
>
> I agree that large e-mail is not always a good thing because some servers
> can't handle it and you become unable to download mail (happened once with
> IHUG when someone sent us a huge attachment we didn't want). But, Xtra uses
> a much better server than IHUG used to, and no matter how bit my mail folder
> got, it always handled it fine.
>
> I know you all love to give your $0.02 (as do I), but some of us don't have
> the option to.
>
> It seems the final part of the message is downloading now, so that would
> tend to suggest Xtra is the one imposing the limit on mailbox size or that
> it was simply a coincidence that one part was undelivered. Either way, 20MB
> e-mail seems to be blocked at one end - will try and find out.
>
> - Q.
Jason Waters
Roger Sheppard <rog...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message .
> >
> >The sooner that XTRA turns on strip binarys and sets the mail packet to
50k
> >max the better!
>
>
>
> Comments like this are utterly stupid, what Nazi group do you belong
to,...?
>
>
YOU call me a Nazi then you want me to leave the country!, You don't have a
mate called Malsovich or Hitler do you Dictator Sheppard?, both who forced
those they disagreed with to leave
their countries as you seem to favor.
Email is for mail, not sending 650 meg ISO images of cd's to people!
Jason Waters
Simon Daniel <ut...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:92528473...@kyle.inet.net.nz...
> Jason Waters wrote:
> >
> >The sooner that XTRA turns on strip binarys and sets the mail packet to
> >50k max the better!
>
Matt
If you really wanna send large files around like that, why don't you get
yourself free web space somewhere (like xoom, for instance), FTP the stuff
to your site and then drag it down again when you're where you want it.
Matt.
Quasi
and configure an FTP client on each computer I use, when I need it.
Technically I am not meant to install any software on their computers
anyway.
- Q.
Matt <nospam...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
7g6vtd$1e1ic$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
Quasi
Quasi <qu...@innocent.com> wrote in message
Additionally - Access to labs is limited, so I don't usually have the option
of sitting around waiting for the files to upload to a remote server. It's
much easier to send them to the local SMTP server to deal with, so I can get
out of the lab.
- Q.
Craig Shore
Fox) wrote:
>Basically, e-mail is that - e-mail, not e-parcel, e-package,
>or e-shippingcontainer. E-mail protocols are not designed
>for large volume data. We do need some method of sending
>large binary attachments.
Agreed. Email makes the volume of the data huge when it has
to be uuencoded etc.
We need some sort of file transfer system that works in a similar fashion
to email, or an updated email system that supports attached files without
encryption.
>FTP will transfer large volumes
>of binary data, but not client-to-client -- there must be
>an FTP server to upload to and to download from.
You can use direct client-client transfers of files with ICQ, or if you can
be bothered connecting to an IRC server to establish contact with another
user most IRC clients support DCC transfers (which are client to client).
Craig.
--
* Looking for a Computer Retailer in Christchurch? *
* Canterbury Online http://www.canterbury-online.net.nz *
KaTnDaHaT
>You can use direct client-client transfers of files with ICQ, or if you can
>be bothered connecting to an IRC server to establish contact with another
>user most IRC clients support DCC transfers (which are client to client).
>
>Craig.
The problem here is taking the hassle out of the transaction.
If your dealing in timezone issues then another solution needs
to be set up...I have an idea but i'll have to see whether
it's feasible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Tim Wood +
+ Director IHUG +
+ Ph: 358-5067 ext 753 +
+ Mobile: 021-275-7805 +
+ "The Universe is an Organic Clock" +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quasi
7g909e$1f2og$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
>I personally have sent an email from work to home.....Ihug to xtra.....on
>just over 45 megs in size. I had to try twice as the first time the send
>timed out. This may have been what happened to you???
No error message was returned, and with later attempts I had debug
information on and it was accepted for delivery.
- Q.
Matt
and if you chuck on WS_FTP or something like that and uninstall when you've
finished - nobody would be any the wiser.
Matt.
Quasi wrote in message <7g7mm6$cor$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
Ralph Fox
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:39:45 GMT, in nz.comp article
<3727a964...@news.paradise.net.nz>, Craig Shore wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:14:55 GMT, ral...@xtra.co.Remove-this-biT.nz (Ralph
> Fox) wrote:
> >Basically, e-mail is that - e-mail, not e-parcel, e-package,
> >or e-shippingcontainer. E-mail protocols are not designed
> >for large volume data. We do need some method of sending
> >large binary attachments.
>
> Agreed. Email makes the volume of the data huge when it has
> to be uuencoded etc.
> We need some sort of file transfer system that works in a similar fashion
> to email, or an updated email system that supports attached files without
> encryption.
>
> >FTP will transfer large volumes
> >of binary data, but not client-to-client -- there must be
> >an FTP server to upload to and to download from.
>
> You can use direct client-client transfers of files with ICQ, or if you can
> be bothered connecting to an IRC server to establish contact with another
> user most IRC clients support DCC transfers (which are client to client).
If I understand these correctly, both clients need to be
online at the same time.
This is not always convenient. For myself, I would like to
see something that can be sent at any time, like e-mail can.
Preferably using the same user interface.
One end-user difference I would like to see, compared to most
recipients' e-mail clients. The recipient may elect to receive
a notification/link _fully_ identifying the data so that he/she
can download large volume data when convenient.
kiwirick
just over 45 megs in size. I had to try twice as the first time the send
timed out. This may have been what happened to you???
Rick
--
Im lost. . .Ive gone to look for myself. If I should
return before I get back, please ask me to wait.
Quasi <qu...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:7g57ca$f3r$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> Quasi <qu...@innocent.com> wrote in message 7g40o3
>
> You seem to have all missed the point here -
> Suggesting I ask Xtra is all very well, but they never reply to your
e-mail
> (well, the postmaster doesn't anyway, and I assume that's the right person
> to ask).
>
Craig Shore
Fox) wrote:
>If I understand these correctly, both clients need to be
>online at the same time.
Yup.
>This is not always convenient. For myself, I would like to
>see something that can be sent at any time, like e-mail can.
>Preferably using the same user interface.
Sure, all we need is email with file handling abilities. This
of course means upgrading every mail server everywhere, or
adding in a complemtry server to do the new protocol.
The reason email is not ideal for it now is it's a text based
system (7bits/byte), and to transfer files (8bits/byte) using
it they must be encoded (MIME or UUencode etc) which bloats the
file size (quite often double) so when you send your 30meg file,
60megs is going through.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
>One end-user difference I would like to see, compared to most
>recipients' e-mail clients. The recipient may elect to receive
>a notification/link _fully_ identifying the data so that he/she
>can download large volume data when convenient.
Time to update your email client then. Pegasus Mail has a
selective POP3 mail download button. Click on it, it checks the
server and brings up a list of mail waiting for you showing the
senders name, subject, date & time, and size of the message. You
can then select messages and mark them for downloading or
deleting, or leave them for later.
I think quite a few mail clients let you do this.
Craig.
--
* Looking for an Internet Cafe in Christchurch? *
Quasi
>One end-user difference I would like to see, compared to most
>recipients' e-mail clients. The recipient may elect to receive
>a notification/link _fully_ identifying the data so that he/she
>can download large volume data when convenient.
Won't solve any of the size problems or eliminate the SMTP protocol, but you
can do most of this with IMAP4 - pressure your ISP to supply it as a mail
delivery option rather than POP3.
- Q.
David Zanetti
> The reason email is not ideal for it now is it's a text based
> system (7bits/byte), and to transfer files (8bits/byte) using
> it they must be encoded (MIME or UUencode etc) which bloats the
> file size (quite often double) so when you send your 30meg file,
> 60megs is going through.
The bloat is not quite that bad with MIME. It's more like 30% (so 30MB
bloats to ~40MB).
There are a couple of 8-bit MIME extensions to SMTP.. but I don't know how
widely they are implemented.. or if any MTA's even bother with it..
--
.------.-----------------------------------------------------.
| (__) | David Zanetti <da...@earthling.net> |
| ( oo | Unix Systems Administrator, Wellington City Council |
| /\_| | Moderator, nz.politics.announce |
`------'-----------------------------------------------------'
Craig Shore
>Craig Shore <ab...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> The reason email is not ideal for it now is it's a text based
>> system (7bits/byte), and to transfer files (8bits/byte) using
>> it they must be encoded (MIME or UUencode etc) which bloats the
>> file size (quite often double) so when you send your 30meg file,
>> 60megs is going through.
>
>The bloat is not quite that bad with MIME. It's more like 30% (so 30MB
>bloats to ~40MB).
>
>There are a couple of 8-bit MIME extensions to SMTP.. but I don't know how
>widely they are implemented.. or if any MTA's even bother with it..
Actually I was reading the Pegasus Mail help file the other night looking
for something unrelated the other night after writing that, and came
across this.
============
Allow 8-bit MIME encodings: If you check this control, Pegasus Mail will
generate MIME messages using the MIME "8BIT" transfer encoding whenever you
include 8-bit data in your mail. 8-bit data is illegal in Internet mail, but
is used in some countries. This is both a very technical, and potentially
very dangerous option and should only be used if you know what you are
doing. We recommend you do not check this control except on the advice of a
properly qualified person.
============
How many mail servers are set up to handle this? And other mail clients?
Craig.
--
* ISP & BBS Lists for the Canterbury area... *
Ralph Fox
On 30 Apr 1999 09:06:19 GMT, in nz.comp article
<7gbrqb$k0d$1...@thresher.netlink.co.nz>, David Zanetti wrote:
> Craig Shore <ab...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > The reason email is not ideal for it now is it's a text based
> > system (7bits/byte), and to transfer files (8bits/byte) using
> > it they must be encoded (MIME or UUencode etc) which bloats the
> > file size (quite often double) so when you send your 30meg file,
> > 60megs is going through.
>
> The bloat is not quite that bad with MIME. It's more like 30% (so 30MB
> bloats to ~40MB).
For binary data, the bloat is 40%. Each 3 bytes of binary data
is converted to 4 bytes of text (33.3% bloat); plus, the text is
then broken into lines and there is additional overhead per line.
> There are a couple of 8-bit MIME extensions to SMTP.. but I don't know how
> widely they are implemented.. or if any MTA's even bother with it..
On Sat, 01 May 1999 18:39:25 GMT, in nz.comp article
<372b49c...@news.paradise.net.nz>, Craig Shore wrote:
> Actually I was reading the Pegasus Mail help file the other night looking
> for something unrelated the other night after writing that, and came
> across this.
>
> ============
> Allow 8-bit MIME encodings: If you check this control, Pegasus Mail will
> generate MIME messages using the MIME "8BIT" transfer encoding whenever you
> include 8-bit data in your mail. 8-bit data is illegal in Internet mail, but
> is used in some countries. This is both a very technical, and potentially
> very dangerous option and should only be used if you know what you are
> doing. We recommend you do not check this control except on the advice of a
> properly qualified person.
> ============
I understand that this is for sending e-mail _TEXT_ containing
extended ASCII characters (eg ہءآأؤإئابةتثجحخدذرزسشصضطظعغـفقك).
Some mail servers (eg Xtra) will convert this stuff to 7-bit
mime encoded when the e-mail passes through their server.
Binary data will still need some form of encoding, as a medium
designed for text messages can also mangle "control code" bytes.
For example, NUL bytes can be dropped, and end-of-line markers
can be converted between different systems' text file formats in
transmission/reception.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:24:46 +1200 in
nz.comp:<7g98jo$prb$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Quasi (qu...@innocent.com) didst
uttereth:
>kiwirick <kiwi...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>7g909e$1f2og$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
>>I personally have sent an email from work to home.....Ihug to xtra.....on
>>just over 45 megs in size. I had to try twice as the first time the send
>>timed out. This may have been what happened to you???
Slyhug advised in march that their server will refuse any attempt to transfer
more than 10MB as attachments.
http://www.ihug.co.nz/cgi-bin/motd.pl?amuckart.mailbox.size.reminder
We remind all email users that, in accordance with our Terms and
Conditions of usage, mailboxes on our servers must be cleared regularly
and kept below 1 megabyte in size.
Filters are in place on our mailservers that prevent the sending or
recieving of any single message over 10 megabytes in size. This is in
place to assure an acceptable level of service for all customers who use
our mail servers.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNy94SZ/ufSMMVdBMEQLO9gCg5lSnfs3rDAe710qECRTCZ+ITCH8An2eg
FGAqs1atTwdjvXhh7nb9WBei
=bXKD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----