* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 9:51 ` Matthieu Moy
@ 2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Pittman @ 2002-02-20 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> krause@sdbk.de (Sebastian D.B. Krause) writes:
>
>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>>> message exceeds message-send-mail-partially-limit. Send in parts ?
>>>
>>> And I answered yes.
>>
>> If you say Gnus that it should send the mail in parts it does so. So
>> just say 'no' here.
>
> But why should it send it in parts ?
Because there are /still/ a lot of email gateways that bounce large
messages or, worse, drop them silently or return a permanent fatal error
when one is sent through them.
> When is asked the question, I thought about multipart ?
Maybe you could suggest a better way of phrasing a question that means:
Should Gnus split this message up into smaller parts
for transmission to avoid problems with mail gateways?
> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable format?"
Depends on your point of view. Many people who read the alt.binaries.*
hierarchy can read 'message/partial'[1] mail.[2]
> None of Gnus,
Sure it can, at least with a recent Gnus. Hitting 'b' when viewing the
first part of, say, a 'message/partial' tiff works fine for me. :)
> Yahoo mail,
That doesn't surprise me, because they suffer the same disease as
every Windows MUA that I have met: they assume that messages are
structured in one very simple way, so don't bother with a real MIME
parser or display system.
> and mutt seem to be able to read these multipart messages, so ...
metamail should be able to put them together. I am actually surprised
that Mutt can't, though. Are you /sure/ that it can't reassemble the
attachment?
Daniel
Footnotes:
[1] Er, is it 'message', 'application' or what? I can't remember. *sigh*
[2] At least, I presume they can. There are certainly enough of them
going through the thing. :)
--
Maybe I am not very human - What I wanted to do was
to paint sunlight on the side of a house.
-- Edward Hopper
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 9:51 ` Matthieu Moy
2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
@ 2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:18 ` Karl Kleinpaste
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Pittman @ 2002-02-20 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> krause@sdbk.de (Sebastian D.B. Krause) writes:
>
>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>>> message exceeds message-send-mail-partially-limit. Send in parts ?
>>>
>>> And I answered yes.
>>
>> If you say Gnus that it should send the mail in parts it does so. So
>> just say 'no' here.
>
> But why should it send it in parts ?
Because there are /still/ a lot of email gateways that bounce large
messages or, worse, drop them silently or return a permanent fatal error
when one is sent through them.
> When is asked the question, I thought about multipart ?
Maybe you could suggest a better way of phrasing a question that means:
Should Gnus split this message up into smaller parts
for transmission to avoid problems with mail gateways?
> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable format?"
Depends on your point of view. Many people who read the alt.binaries.*
hierarchy can read 'message/partial'[1] mail.[2]
> None of Gnus,
Sure it can, at least with a recent Gnus. Hitting 'b' when viewing the
first part of, say, a 'message/partial' tiff works fine for me. :)
> Yahoo mail,
That doesn't surprise me, because they suffer the same disease as
every Windows MUA that I have met: they assume that messages are
structured in one very simple way, so don't bother with a real MIME
parser or display system.
> and mutt seem to be able to read these multipart messages, so ...
metamail should be able to put them together. I am actually surprised
that Mutt can't, though. Are you /sure/ that it can't reassemble the
attachment?
Daniel
Footnotes:
[1] Er, is it 'message', 'application' or what? I can't remember. *sigh*
[2] At least, I presume they can. There are certainly enough of them
going through the thing. :)
--
Maybe I am not very human - What I wanted to do was
to paint sunlight on the side of a house.
-- Edward Hopper
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
@ 2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Sean Neakums @ 2002-02-20 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
commence Daniel Pittman quotation:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> But why should it send it in parts ?
> Because there are /still/ a lot of email gateways that bounce large
> messages or, worse, drop them silently or return a permanent fatal
> error when one is sent through them.
>
>> When is asked the question, I thought about multipart ?
> Maybe you could suggest a better way of phrasing a question that means:
>
> Should Gnus split this message up into smaller parts
> for transmission to avoid problems with mail gateways?
How about simply "Send as multiple multiple messages?"? "No" might be
a sensible default, given the prevalance of broken MUAs.
--
///////////////// | | The spark of a pin
<sneakums@zork.net> | (require 'gnu) | dropping, falling feather-like.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | | There is too much noise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
@ 2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
` (3 more replies)
1 sibling, 4 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Sean Neakums @ 2002-02-20 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
commence Daniel Pittman quotation:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> But why should it send it in parts ?
> Because there are /still/ a lot of email gateways that bounce large
> messages or, worse, drop them silently or return a permanent fatal
> error when one is sent through them.
>
>> When is asked the question, I thought about multipart ?
> Maybe you could suggest a better way of phrasing a question that means:
>
> Should Gnus split this message up into smaller parts
> for transmission to avoid problems with mail gateways?
How about simply "Send as multiple multiple messages?"? "No" might be
a sensible default, given the prevalance of broken MUAs.
--
///////////////// | | The spark of a pin
<sneakums@zork.net> | (require 'gnu) | dropping, falling feather-like.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | | There is too much noise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
@ 2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Sean Neakums @ 2002-02-20 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
commence Sean Neakums quotation:
> How about simply "Send as multiple multiple messages?"? "No" might
> be a sensible default, given the prevalance of broken MUAs.
The multiple "multiple"s were not intentional.
--
///////////////// | | The spark of a pin
<sneakums@zork.net> | (require 'gnu) | dropping, falling feather-like.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | | There is too much noise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
@ 2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:24 ` Matthieu Moy
2002-02-20 12:24 ` Matthieu Moy
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Sean Neakums @ 2002-02-20 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
commence Sean Neakums quotation:
> How about simply "Send as multiple multiple messages?"? "No" might
> be a sensible default, given the prevalance of broken MUAs.
The multiple "multiple"s were not intentional.
--
///////////////// | | The spark of a pin
<sneakums@zork.net> | (require 'gnu) | dropping, falling feather-like.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | | There is too much noise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
2002-02-20 12:13 ` Sean Neakums
@ 2002-02-20 12:24 ` Matthieu Moy
2002-02-20 12:24 ` Matthieu Moy
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu Moy @ 2002-02-20 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
Sean Neakums <sneakums@zork.net> writes:
> "No" might be
> a sensible default, given the prevalance of broken MUAs.
I think so.
--
Matthieu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 12:09 ` Sean Neakums
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-02-20 12:24 ` Matthieu Moy
@ 2002-02-20 12:24 ` Matthieu Moy
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu Moy @ 2002-02-20 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
Sean Neakums <sneakums@zork.net> writes:
> "No" might be
> a sensible default, given the prevalance of broken MUAs.
I think so.
--
Matthieu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 9:51 ` Matthieu Moy
2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
2002-02-20 12:04 ` Daniel Pittman
@ 2002-02-20 12:18 ` Karl Kleinpaste
2002-02-20 12:18 ` Karl Kleinpaste
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Karl Kleinpaste @ 2002-02-20 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
> But why should it send it in parts ?
To avoid problems with excessive message size.
> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable format?"
No. The real question is, "Will the destination mailer transport, or
any intermediate mail transport, refuse to ship this message in a
single block due to excessive size?"
> None of Gnus, Yahoo mail, and mutt seem to be able to read these
> multipart messages, so ...
Gnus should certainly be able to. As you said, you get a button:
[1. message/partial]...
If you hit `b', Gnus should shovel the partial content to somewhere
under /tmp/your-login-name, and give you a message about "1 of N parts
processed." When you do this with the 2nd through Nth parts, Gnus
will notice that the partials are now complete, and offer to do
something sensible with it based on the content type.
As for Yahoo mail, well, that's a disastrous excuse for a web-based
mail interface. And mutt, it's cute and useful but in some ways it's
really not up to par.
The deeper question you need to be asking is, "Is there any mail
transport these days that is so backward as to be unable to handle a
megabyte or two in attachment content?" and the answer is probably
"No." So ultimately, what you *really* want is
(setq message-send-mail-partially-limit nil)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 9:51 ` Matthieu Moy
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-02-20 12:18 ` Karl Kleinpaste
@ 2002-02-20 12:18 ` Karl Kleinpaste
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
5 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Karl Kleinpaste @ 2002-02-20 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
> But why should it send it in parts ?
To avoid problems with excessive message size.
> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable format?"
No. The real question is, "Will the destination mailer transport, or
any intermediate mail transport, refuse to ship this message in a
single block due to excessive size?"
> None of Gnus, Yahoo mail, and mutt seem to be able to read these
> multipart messages, so ...
Gnus should certainly be able to. As you said, you get a button:
[1. message/partial]...
If you hit `b', Gnus should shovel the partial content to somewhere
under /tmp/your-login-name, and give you a message about "1 of N parts
processed." When you do this with the 2nd through Nth parts, Gnus
will notice that the partials are now complete, and offer to do
something sensible with it based on the content type.
As for Yahoo mail, well, that's a disastrous excuse for a web-based
mail interface. And mutt, it's cute and useful but in some ways it's
really not up to par.
The deeper question you need to be asking is, "Is there any mail
transport these days that is so backward as to be unable to handle a
megabyte or two in attachment content?" and the answer is probably
"No." So ultimately, what you *really* want is
(setq message-send-mail-partially-limit nil)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 9:51 ` Matthieu Moy
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2002-02-20 12:18 ` Karl Kleinpaste
@ 2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
` (3 more replies)
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
5 siblings, 4 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Frank Tegtmeyer @ 2002-02-20 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable format?"
No, as others already pointed out it is a safeguard against exceeding
limits of some MTAs or gateways. There are still systems that have
size limits for messages but not for the number of messages.
I mentioned munpack yesterday - it was specifically developed for that
situation. Feed every message into munpack - if it got all parts of
the file, the file magically appears :)
In todays environments I think it's better to use a single large
message - not many receivers will be able to puzzle the file
together. You were an excellent example :)
Regards, Frank
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
@ 2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Harder @ 2002-02-20 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
fte@lightwerk.com (Frank Tegtmeyer) writes:
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>
>> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable
>> format?"
>
> No, as others already pointed out it is a safeguard against exceeding
> limits of some MTAs or gateways. There are still systems that have
> size limits for messages but not for the number of messages.
I don't think size limits are that uncommon. Several of the SMTP
servers I use announce the maximum size with the SMTP extension `SIZE'
(RFC 1653) when you connect, e.g.
220 fepB.post.tele.dk ESMTP server (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418)
EHLO defun.localdomain
250-fepB.post.tele.dk
250-HELP
250-XREMOTEQUEUE
250-ETRN
250-PIPELINING
250-DSN
250-8BITMIME
250 SIZE 10240000
So it will reject mails larger than 10240000 bytes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
@ 2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
2002-02-20 20:37 ` Kai Großjohann
2002-02-20 20:37 ` Kai Großjohann
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Harder @ 2002-02-20 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
fte@lightwerk.com (Frank Tegtmeyer) writes:
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>
>> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable
>> format?"
>
> No, as others already pointed out it is a safeguard against exceeding
> limits of some MTAs or gateways. There are still systems that have
> size limits for messages but not for the number of messages.
I don't think size limits are that uncommon. Several of the SMTP
servers I use announce the maximum size with the SMTP extension `SIZE'
(RFC 1653) when you connect, e.g.
220 fepB.post.tele.dk ESMTP server (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418)
EHLO defun.localdomain
250-fepB.post.tele.dk
250-HELP
250-XREMOTEQUEUE
250-ETRN
250-PIPELINING
250-DSN
250-8BITMIME
250 SIZE 10240000
So it will reject mails larger than 10240000 bytes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
2002-02-20 15:25 ` Jesper Harder
@ 2002-02-20 20:37 ` Kai Großjohann
2002-02-20 20:37 ` Kai Großjohann
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Kai Großjohann @ 2002-02-20 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Frank Tegtmeyer <fte@lightwerk.com> writes:
> In todays environments I think it's better to use a single large
> message - not many receivers will be able to puzzle the file
> together. You were an excellent example :)
I tried that, too, but it also failed. So it seems that you shouldn't
send large messages. Instead, compress the attachment with bzip2 or
something.
kai
--
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn (Frank Nobis)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-02-20 20:37 ` Kai Großjohann
@ 2002-02-20 20:37 ` Kai Großjohann
3 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Kai Großjohann @ 2002-02-20 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Frank Tegtmeyer <fte@lightwerk.com> writes:
> In todays environments I think it's better to use a single large
> message - not many receivers will be able to puzzle the file
> together. You were an excellent example :)
I tried that, too, but it also failed. So it seems that you shouldn't
send large messages. Instead, compress the attachment with bzip2 or
something.
kai
--
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn (Frank Nobis)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Prolem with attachments.
2002-02-20 9:51 ` Matthieu Moy
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
@ 2002-02-20 14:14 ` Frank Tegtmeyer
5 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Frank Tegtmeyer @ 2002-02-20 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
> Is the real question "Should I send the message in a readable format?"
No, as others already pointed out it is a safeguard against exceeding
limits of some MTAs or gateways. There are still systems that have
size limits for messages but not for the number of messages.
I mentioned munpack yesterday - it was specifically developed for that
situation. Feed every message into munpack - if it got all parts of
the file, the file magically appears :)
In todays environments I think it's better to use a single large
message - not many receivers will be able to puzzle the file
together. You were an excellent example :)
Regards, Frank
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread