[wplug] Reasonable message size limit?

[Janos Dohanics]

On Friday 25 April 2008 12:25:00 pm Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:42 -0400, Janos Dohanics wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 April 2008 03:43:23 pm Patrick Wagstrom wrote:
> > > Bill Moran wrote:
> > > > In response to Janos Dohanics <web at 3dresearch.com>:
> > > >> Just wondering what is considered "reasonable" these days for
> > > >> message size limit? I saw a recommendation for 100-300 MB, and I
> > > >> thought that was very high.
> > > >
> > > > I agree.  I would figure 10 - 20M unless the client is paying special
> > > > for large attachment support.
> > >
> > > In most cases, you'll have to go with the default for most online mail
> > > services.
> > >
> > > Gmail - 20MB
> > > Yahoo - 10MB
> > > Hotmail - 10MB
> > >
> > > That being said, there still are many places with silly email policies
> > > that wonder why no one uses their service.  My undergrad, for example,
> > > still has a quota of 11MB for everything in your mailbox -- all your
> > > messages! That's the same quota they've had since 1992.
> > >
> > > --Patrick
> >
> > 10 MB may be small for the total mailbox size. Only I think that it's
> > becoming a trend that people store many of their work related and large
> > files in IMAP mailboxes, and it doesn't seem to me a good way to
> > "organize" ones work...
>
> If you POP it and don't keep it in the online mailbox anyway, how are
> you supposed to access it from one of your other computers or when
> you're on the road, though?  I'd have to go a week without email every
> other week in the summer because my mom's lack of wifi means my laptop
> wouldn't be able to POP anything.  IMAP makes sense.

IMAP makes sense, and it's very convenient. But storing many years worth of 
attachments, especially large ones in your e-mail box is untidy, I think. 
Just my preference...

-- 
Janos Dohanics