Don't know if you care, but FYI: I setup custom servers for special web projects, so I have a few developers that use dbmail, they're sending 75-100+ megabyte mails all the time. I used to limit at 1 Gb, but I noticed that dbmail would choke on anything more than about 300mb, so that's my limit now.
I took a look at the logs, and a 277 mb email went through fine on Tuesday. The issue I've noticed is not message acceptance, but final delivery. POP3 does pretty good, but IMAP uses a lot of resources for mail more than 75mb or so.. The Mailserver is linux/mysql/postfix with a 60 gig drive, and a gig of memory.. Athlon 2400 processor. Works great.. Only about 100 domains and about 700 users though. Not huge. That may play a part. This is currently running dbmail 1.2.7b.. I think I was running 1.2.5 when I was dealing with the large email problem. -Micah On Friday 04 June 2004 06:25 am, Feargal Reilly wrote: > 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.
