[37876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EMAIL != FTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Fri May 25 08:21:41 2001
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:16:03 -0400
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010525081603.F16908@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010525070234.B9538@reptiles.org>; from jim@reptiles.org on Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:02:35AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:02:35AM -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
>=20
> i regularly configure ISP's with a limit on the size of email messages.
> (generally 10meg, although i think 100k is probably better).
Generally 10MB. Now why is that, I wonder? Do you think people will
be typing 10MB of text?
Or even 100K of text?
Why is it that the limit has to be that large, Jim?
I can tell you from personal experience that accidentally setting it for
1MB instead of 10 will get you paged out of bed to "fix" it.
Why is that, if only Roeland and I send large files in email?
> > Yes, BITFTP is currently restricted to users sending requests from
> > sites on BITNET/EARN/NetNorth. And, yes, this is the direct result
> > of your complaints.
Ah, so you're the one that fucked it up for everybody else, and obsoleted
the instructions in so many O'Reilly books. :-)
--FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjsOTQMACgkQEcl9bQ0RMt2GwgCbBliWkk/XVqJPhvQEPAenS0Hr
uf4AoOOMVgLis08P1UYrc2bXxJKRAolh
=RCh0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs--
