[Esd-l] Something new

[Christian Parigger]

All,

Thought 1:
mailers, eg. "sendmail" allows to limit the size of
messages.

Thought 2:
Attachment sizes are not only a MS problem,
yet if you want to address MS originated e-mail,
the secure default settings for Mimedefang are
an option, see
http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/

Thought 3:
"We make the comparison with the Internet. Before
the Internet, people collaborated in very clumsy ways.
They faxed each other or went to visit or used the
telephone. Now, they have e-mail and 'http' servers."
(full article at
http://www.eprairie.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterID=2995&page=1 )

Conclusion: I think an increased move to 'http' servers
may be indicated for large messages to a lot of people.
And I think your proposal can be done with the tools
we have because (a) attachments can be extracted
(procmail, mimedefang, ...) (b) we can notify the sender
and recipient and add http-references, and we may be
even do this with some security features for access.
But it is best to hard-limit the size of attachments ---
the product of attachment-size times the number of recipients,
or the true size of the attachment may be determined only
locally.

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Floyd Pierce" <floydp at boxusa.com>
To: <esd-l at spconnect.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: [Esd-l] Something new


> John, my users are about to drive me insane. We have a huge
> problem with people using FSCKing M$ products with which they
> manage to generate files only slightly less massive than a
> black hole and then send an e-mail to 50 users on our system
> with the big honking file as an attachment.
>
> We have 24 locations with either 64K or 128K frame connections.
> The result of the above is a "packet storm" on our network when
> the e-mail clients automatically start picking up these huge
> e-mails.
>
> My proposal, which is only slightly related to the purpose of
> the sanitizer: Could there be an option that would strip
> attachments and place them in a user configurable place while
> inserting a link into the message. So, when the 48 of the 50
> don't care about the attachment, it doesn't get downloaded. Or
> even if they all want it, the load gets spread out.
>
> Of course this is a lot of complexity, but I'd bet that many
> of us would use such a beast...
>
> We also have a current problem with the sanitizer, in that it
> scans the attachments 50 times under the above scenario.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> --
> Floyd Pierce              | Director of Information Technology
> Phone  847-790-2830 (IL)  | Box USA
> Phone  817-783-2355 (TX)  | floydp at boxusa.com
> Fax    847-790-2880       | floyd at floydbob.com
> _______________________________________________
> Esd-l mailing list
> Esd-l at spconnect.com
> http://www.spconnect.com/mailman/listinfo/esd-l