«

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:39:32 +1300, Richard wrote:

> On 5/10/2010 6:41 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:07:46 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:
>>
>>> In article<i8dm8f$j27$>,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to stop and delete this large file with no luck. It seems
>>>> to be just 'sitting there' with nothing happening.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestion on how to stop and delete this file would be greatly
>>>> appreciated - thanks
>>>
>>> On the Outlook File menu (you don't mention which version), click
>>> "Work Offline").
>>>
>>> Close and restart Outlook. Now you can delete the item in the Outbox.
>>>
>>> Don't forget to use the File, Work Online option to get Outlook back
>>> online again
>>
>> Why does MS Outlook permit sending emails larger than 5 or 8megs by
>> default?
>
> Why would they limit it to such a small amount by default?

Why would they use email to send large binaries? Other protocols are more
appropriate for transferring binaries over the Internet.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On 6/10/2010 12:21 a.m., Sweetpea wrote:
>
> Why would they use email to send large binaries? Other protocols are more
> appropriate for transferring binaries over the Internet.

Because it is quick and easy to send a file that small via email in most
cases except with stoneage sysadmins still stuck in the 1990s with
mailbox and message size limits.

On 06/10/10 00:21, Sweetpea wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:39:32 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2010 6:41 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:07:46 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<i8dm8f$j27$>,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried to stop and delete this large file with no luck.
>>>>> It seems to be just 'sitting there' with nothing happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestion on how to stop and delete this file would be
>>>>> greatly appreciated - thanks
>>>>
>>>> On the Outlook File menu (you don't mention which version),
>>>> click "Work Offline").
>>>>
>>>> Close and restart Outlook. Now you can delete the item in the
>>>> Outbox.
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget to use the File, Work Online option to get Outlook
>>>> back online again
>>>
>>> Why does MS Outlook permit sending emails larger than 5 or 8megs
>>> by default?
>>
>> Why would they limit it to such a small amount by default?
>
> Why would they use email to send large binaries? Other protocols are
> more appropriate for transferring binaries over the Internet.
>
Some people don't know of any other way and refuse to learn one.

Say you wanted to send some pictures to Granny. Granny has email but
wouldn't have a clue about FTP. Each picture of her beloved grandkids
might weigh in at 2 - 3 MB. Even if they were reduced in size 20 such
pictures could bust the limit.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles

In article <4caae5a3$>, Enkidu <> wrote:
>On 05/10/10 21:16, Sweetpea wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:11:11 +1300, EMB wrote:
>>
>>>> Why does MS Outlook permit sending emails larger than 5 or 8megs by
>>>> default?
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it?
>>
>> Why should it!
>>
>> Email is a plain text protocol.
>>
>*Was* a plain text protocol.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1341

Oh that is depressing.

Still should be text only I reckon ... and that would take care of 97 % of
spam as well ?

In article <4cab8870$>, Enkidu <> wrote:
(snip)
>> Why would they use email to send large binaries? Other protocols are
>> more appropriate for transferring binaries over the Internet.
>>
>Some people don't know of any other way and refuse to learn one.
>
>Say you wanted to send some pictures to Granny. Granny has email but
>wouldn't have a clue about FTP. Each picture of her beloved grandkids
>might weigh in at 2 - 3 MB. Even if they were reduced in size 20 such
>pictures could bust the limit.

... and it *should*. When I used kmail, one of its most useful features was
a size filter (something like 'reject everything over 50 kB' worked really
well. I reckon all email systems should have those filters.

In article <>, Allistar <> wrote:
(snip)
>8Mb is not "large". Not these days. And it's not a binary being emailed -
>the email app converts the binary to 7 or 8bit quoted ASCII.

Wrong. Particularly for those of us that still have dial up (why would you
pay for broadband that isn't ?).

And even if it's not large, it's still wrong. Who has been sent a picture of
words when all you wanted was the words themselves ? <puts up hand>
People being stupid is not a reason to change good standards IMO.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:20:00 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> Say you wanted to send some pictures to Granny. Granny has email but
> wouldn't have a clue about FTP. Each picture of her beloved grandkids
> might weigh in at 2 - 3 MB. Even if they were reduced in size 20 such
> pictures could bust the limit.

Granny wouldn't know what to do with a 3mb image. She'd find it way
bigger than her 800*600 monitor.

Much better to send images more suited for viewing on a monitor - and
they can be 100-150mb in size and still have plenty of detail.

That makes 3mb - assuming you're sending large web-viewable versions and
assuming that you're sending such a large number of photos.

Most people doing that would be using gmail or hotmail and I'm not
convinced that those websites will permit attaching that many individual
binaries.

If they really want to send 60mb of photos to Granny then they can burn a
CD and post it.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:51:06 +1300, Allistar wrote:

>> Why would they use email to send large binaries? Other protocols are
>> more appropriate for transferring binaries over the Internet.
>
> 8Mb is not "large". Not these days. And it's not a binary being emailed
> - the email app converts the binary to 7 or 8bit quoted ASCII.

It *IS* a binary being emailed. But you're correct about it having to be
converted into a format that can be sent as plain text.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:22:58 +1300, Allistar wrote:

> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Allistar
>> <> wrote: (snip)
>>>8Mb is not "large". Not these days. And it's not a binary being emailed
>>>- the email app converts the binary to 7 or 8bit quoted ASCII.
>>
>> Wrong. Particularly for those of us that still have dial up (why would
>> you pay for broadband that isn't ?).
>>
>> And even if it's not large, it's still wrong. Who has been sent a
>> picture of words when all you wanted was the words themselves ? <puts
>> up hand>
>
> Worse is people sending a snapshot of a notepad document and embedded
> that snapshot into a MS Word document. Argghhh!
>
>> People being stupid is not a reason to change good standards IMO.
>
> Not all cases of sending >8Mb emails is down to stupidity.

I think it is - the stupidity of the admin who poorly configured their
server to accept such hideously large emails.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:45:36 +1300, Allistar wrote:

>> I think it is - the stupidity of the admin who poorly configured their
>> server to accept such hideously large emails.
>
> It's a matter of opinion whether 8Mb is hideously large.

Answer this then: Given that email is a plain text communications
protocol How many plain text characters make up an email containing an
8mb attachment!


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"