On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:26:36 +0100 Feargal Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:21:22 +0200 > Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That was a completely unilateral decision on my part. I > > figured that we're storing emails, not just some arbitrary > > data. I don't think we have to take care of messages larger > > than, say, 128MB. Most ISP don't accept messages larger than > > 4MB, IIRC. We should put a configurable (using dbmail.conf) > > limit on the message size, and load it with a sensible > > default. > > That's the right approach. > We used to limit the message size to 2MB as users on dial-up > connections typically couldn't retrieve anything larger than > that. With greater broadband penetration some customers have > wanted to sent much larger files, so we're running a second > uncapped service, and we've pushed the cap on the other to 8M > and increased the POP timeout. While I don't think I've seen > anything larger than about 80M(damn printers), give it time. > > While you're all discussing the code structure, it struck me > that it may be useful to move all the hardcoded text to a > single header file. This would allow easy localisation and > customisation of error messages and the like. > For the record, just noticed two 169M emails passing through our server. The contents? A cargo manifest. -fr. -- Feargal Reilly, Codeshifter, Chrysalink Systems. ICQ: 109837009 | YIM: ectoraige PGP Key ID: 0xE721BBE6 (expires 06-Aug-2004) Visit http://ie.bsd.net/ - BSDs presence in Ireland
pgpppDBfAfcoH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
