[Mimedefang] MIMEDefang 2.58-BETA-1 is available

[Vladimír Solnický]

David F. Skoll wrote:
> Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>   
>> If I had to guess, a way to get around max message sizes which at the
>> time were plaguing usenet.
>>     
>
> Well, system administrators generally have a good reason for setting
> the maximum message size, and for RFC authors to attempt to subvert that
> is just plain wrong.
>   
My experience from the later 1990s was that there was a problem with 
long lasting SMTP sessions. I.e there was not a problem to send 1000 KB 
in ten 100 KiB pieces, but there was a problem sending it as one e-mail 
as the connection usually got disconnected after a few hundreds of KiB 
and was tried again after half an hour--and again, and again till it 
succeeded. You can imagine a plenty of wasted capacity and CPU time. So 
the original motivation seems to be OK to me (no attempt to subvert 
anything IMHO). I personally remember the situation when one scientist 
travelled from the U. K. to the Czech Republic and sent all his work as 
an e-mail (one big tar file). Its size was 26 MiB the the sender MTA 
tried twice an hour all the afternoon and evening till about 3 AM when 
it succeeded. Every try with a few MiB transferred. Yes, another and 
possibly better solution to this would be ESMTP CHUNKING (not yet 
implemented in sendmail).

Regards,

Vladimír



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________