On 03-Jan-02 Michael R. Dilworth wrote:
>
> Read up on uuencode... Binary attachments are encoded.
as I recall (it has been awhile) uuencoding (as well as base64 encoding,
common with mime'd attachments) will add ~ 34% overhead.
which is to say that a 40mb attachment will result a mailfile size of ~55mb.
Other differences between sending as mail and ftping (other than the ones
already mentioned) include:
sending as mail will force all transfers thru /var/spool/mqueue, which
might not be setup to take on such a daunting filesize. Next the file
is copied to the users inbox, so there must be an allocation of space
in that directory/partition as well.
There will be need of space to save the decoded attachment to (plus
the fact that some decoders make use of a temporary file). That is to
say that even if you use the mail reader to decode the attachment
"invisibly" for you, please realize that the mail reader physically
decoded the file, and saved it on disk in some temporary file, thus
(at the minimum) doubling your disk space requirements.
most e-mail users will save mail (really dumb for attachments that
are files located on the system elsewhere), so you need the storage
space there as well.
When users use ftp, they control the final destination, and there is
no intermediate directory (like /var/spool/mqueue) requirement, and
there is no double (or worse) copying.
ftp, and mail are NOT the same. sending large files by e-mail requires
considerably more resources.
-Greg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hidong Kim
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: really big e-mails
>
>
> Dave Reed wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've seen it cripple a Solaris mail server when someone (on the IT
>> staff no less, but not the person in charge of the Unix machines)
>
> I can sympathize with this situation. I'm actually the VP of Ops at our
> company. I've also defaulted to doing the Linux sysadmin (pretty scary
> for us!). Our real IT crew is so totally Windows that it's not even
> funny. And the biggest perp on the huge e-mail attachments is our
> President (who uses Outlook). But back to the technical problem, how
> does sending e-mails to multiple people eat up more bandwidth than
> placing the e-mail in a directory for download? Assuming that all of
> the recipients of the e-mail are interested in reading the attachment,
> it seems to me that both scenarios would consume the same bandwidth.
> No? Thanks,
>
>
>
> Hidong
>
>
>
>
>
>
> sent
>> a 50MB or so message to a couple hundred internal email
>> addresses. Between people downloading the message and it trying to
>> send the message, the machine was crippled for a couple hours.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Redhat-list mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
----------------------------------
E-Mail: Gregory Hosler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04-Jan-02
Time: 10:09:05
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them,
then each of us still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them,
then each of us now has two ideas.
----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
