On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 01:29:21PM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote:
> > What user creates a 50 MB document anyway?
>
> A PowerPoint presentation with more than 50 slides and lots of
> pictures. PowerPoint, the modern crutch on which hangs the gangly
> corpse of a substanceless presentation.
Witness,
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
>
> Hi Hidong,
>
> What user creates a 50 MB document anyway?
A PowerPoint presentation with more than 50 slides and lots of
pictures. PowerPoint, the modern crutch on which hangs the gangly
corpse of a substanceless presentation.
Hi Hidong,
> Excuse this off-topic post. At our company of about 30 people, there
> are some who insist on sending e-mails with huge attachments, like 20-50
> MB. Yes, megabytes. They'll send these e-mails to everyone in the
> company and also to clients. I've suggested that w
y, 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 machin
Thanks, all!
Dave Ihnat wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:00:03AM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote:
> > 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 reci
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:00:03AM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote:
> 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
At 11:00 AM 1/3/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>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
, 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 mac
Read up on uuencode... Binary attachments are encoded.
-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
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 (prett
> From: Hidong Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi,
>
> Excuse this off-topic post. At our company of about 30 people, there
> are some who insist on sending e-mails with huge attachments, like 20-50
> MB. Yes, megabytes. They'll send these e-mails to everyone in the
> company and also to clients.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:39:18AM -0800, Hidong Kim wrote:
> Excuse this off-topic post. At our company ..., there
> are some who insist on sending e-mails with huge attachments, like 20-50
> MB. ... They'll send these e-mails to everyone in the
> company and also to clients. ... My question
12 matches
Mail list logo
