Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Does anybody know if this is a limitation of the webmail client only or if it's also a limitation of the mail servers themselves? Seems like a very small limit given the ever increasing availability of bandwidth and faster speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 cork1958 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Heck, 25MB is generous, compared to some web mails! I'm sure the limits are set by Google in the web mail client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 DirtyLarry Veteran Posted January 31, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 31, 2012 Heck, 25MB is generous, compared to some web mails! I'm sure the limits are set by Google in the web mail client. Exactly what I as thinking. It is actually the largest size I have heard of by far when talking about systems that due put a limit on attachment size. I know my work has a limit of 10MB for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Roger H. Veteran Posted January 31, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 31, 2012 Exactly what I as thinking. It is actually the largest size I have heard of by far when talking about systems that due put a limit on attachment size. I know my work has a limit of 10MB for example. I set a receive limit of 100MB on the server but sending limit is 20MB which i think is more than enough :D. 25MB is definitely good enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Heck, 25MB is generous, compared to some web mails! I'm sure the limits are set by Google in the web mail client. Maybe.. but in a world where we're consuming more data than ever it doesn't seem enough. All I wanted to do was zip up and send 30 jpegs (91MB, using an 8MP camera - not lossless images).. I never ran into such issues before as I don't often send large attachments, but I wouldn't have thought this would be a problem in 2012. And Google+ had no problems with my uploading all 30 images, so I'm not sure why one service complains and the other doesn't :p Maybe I'm being too demanding :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Roger H. Veteran Posted January 31, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 31, 2012 emailing a 91MB file is crazy :D Put that on a dropbox with an link in an email and you'll be good. Most email servers wont even take files that big if you could send it anyways. Files that big are why file sharing companies were invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 emailing a 91MB file is crazy :D Put that on a dropbox with an link in an email and you'll be good. Most email servers wont even take files that big if you could send it anyways. Files that big are why file sharing companies were invented. So dropbox accepts 91MB worth of files, Google+ accepts 91MB worth of files, Facebook accepts 91MB worth of files, why not Gmail?! Arbitrary limitation if you ask me :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 +LogicalApex MVC Posted January 31, 2012 MVC Share Posted January 31, 2012 emailing a 91MB file is crazy :D Put that on a dropbox with an link in an email and you'll be good. Why is it crazy in 2012? Seems pretty small by today's standards to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 xendrome Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So dropbox accepts 91MB worth of files, Google+ accepts 91MB worth of files, Facebook accepts 91MB worth of files, why not Gmail?! Arbitrary limitation if you ask me :p Because Gmail isn't a file sharing service... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why is it crazy in 2012? Seems pretty small by today's standards to me. I can upload a 91MB file in 72 seconds and download it in 7.5 seconds with optimal speeds.. so yeah it seems pretty small to me too! Because Gmail isn't a file sharing service... It has an attachment feature, thus making it a filesharing service. If it wasn't, it wouldn't allow attachments. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 boogerjones Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Part of the problem is that, as others have pointed out, there are better methods for sharing 91 MiB of data with someone (Dropbox, SkyDrive, etc). So it doesn't make any sense for you to be sharing them this way. Why you wouldn't use a public Dropbox folder for this is beyond me. A second part of the problem is that all email is sent as encoded text, which means that your 91 MiB of attachments have to be base-64 encoded, which increases the size of your actual email to about 120 MiB. In other words, it's a very bandwidth-inefficient way of sharing those files. Services like Dropbox do binary uploads/downloads, and only upload the parts of files that have changed. Finally, it's quite rude to be sending someone a 91 MiB email (120 MiB actual size, remember), so I imagine Google decided to create some reasonable limit. As others have noted, Gmail's 25 MiB limit is actually higher than most (if not all) other email services. If someone wants to send me 91 GiB of ****, they should put it on DropBox and email me the link. That way I can download it when I want, not automatically when I open my email client or whatever. And it saves both of us the 33% encoding overhead. So the problem isn't Gmail, it's you. :) the ever increasing availability of bandwidth and faster speeds. Not sure where you're getting that info. Last I check, all US ISP's are starting to introduce monthly bandwidth caps. 5 years ago, I could upload/download as much as I want. Now I get a written slap on the wrist, and a threat of service interruption, for exceeding a monthly bandwidth cap. For Comcast it's 250 GB. For AT&T, it's 150 GB. So available "bandwidth" is actually decreasing. Oh, and tiered-bandwidth pricing is coming to the US soon, too. That's only going to make things worse (and more expensive). PurpleHaze420 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Part of the problem is that, as others have pointed out, there are better methods for sharing 91 MiB of data with someone (Dropbox, SkyDrive, etc). So it doesn't make any sense for you to be sharing them this way. Why you wouldn't use a public Dropbox folder for this is beyond me. A second part of the problem is that all email is sent as encoded text, which means that your 91 MiB of attachments have to be base-64 encoded, which increases the size of your actual email to about 120 MiB. In other words, it's a very bandwidth-inefficient way of sharing those files. Services like Dropbox do binary uploads/downloads, and only upload the parts of files that have changed. Finally, it's quite rude to be sending someone a 91 MiB email (120 MiB actual size, remember), so I imagine Google decided to create some reasonable limit. As others have noted, Gmail's 25 MiB limit is actually higher than most (if not all) other email services. So the problem isn't Gmail, it's you. :) 1) I have a Dropbox account but I forgot the login details. As stated, I very rarely send large attachments. Who wants to sign up for multiple services that perform similar tasks? It seemed to make sense to just email the photos.. 2) I could just separate them into four less than 25MB files and send separate emails, so this limit is kinda pointless. 3) The person requested the files from me, therefore it's not rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Roger H. Veteran Posted January 31, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 31, 2012 Oods are as I said is even if Google accepts 100MB attachments, your recipient server would never accept it as it's far too large. Email servers try to do communication as quickly as possible and if 1 email is tying up server resources for 30 seconds then that's far too long! Emails from EHLO to END is usually 8 seconds max otherwise it start throwing up errors in the logs for admins to review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 boogerjones Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It has an attachment feature, thus making it a filesharing service. If it wasn't, it wouldn't allow attachments. :/ That makes no sense. That's like saying UPS is a file-sharing service because I could place files on a USB stick and send them to you via truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 xendrome Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It has an attachment feature, thus making it a filesharing service. If it wasn't, it wouldn't allow attachments. :/ So by that thought process, Picasa is a photo editing suite, since it allows me to reduce red eye and change contrasts/brightness on photos? The point is the primary goal of an e-mail service is message transport. Also SHoTTa35 makes another point that I deal with daily with my users "Why can't we increase the attachment size" well the other side has to allow it also - see - https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1055194-gmail-attachment-size-25mb-limit/page__view__findpost__p__594621918 That makes no sense. That's like saying UPS is a file-sharing service because I could place files on a USB stick and send them to you via truck. Good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr. Gibs Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 1) I have a Dropbox account but I forgot the login details. As stated, I very rarely send large attachments. Who wants to sign up for multiple services that perform similar tasks? It seemed to make sense to just email the photos.. 2) I could just separate them into four less than 25MB files and send separate emails, so this limit is kinda pointless. 3) The person requested the files from me, therefore it's not rude. That's why I like hotmail. There is a 20mb limit, however if you try to add an attachment thats larger it will just automatically upload it to skydrive and give you the link. Saves you the hassle of having to deal with multiple services and its easier on the mail servers. I'm surprised Google hasn't gotten into the file sharing business (like skydrive, dropbox etc), guess they don't want to have to deal with the legal issues that could follow from it :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Oods are as I said is even if Google accepts 100MB attachments, your recipient server would never accept it as it's far too large. Email servers try to do communication as quickly as possible and if 1 email is tying up server resources for 30 seconds then that's far too long! Emails from EHLO to END is usually 8 seconds max otherwise it start throwing up errors in the logs for admins to review. It was gmail to gmail :p Yeah I get your point, but a 25MB file would take way longer than 30 seconds with most internet connections anyway, and like I said, I could just send four ~25MB files instead. That makes no sense. That's like saying UPS is a file-sharing service because I could place files on a USB stick and send them to you via truck. What I meant was that it's a service which can be used to share files, not that it's primarily a file sharing service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 So by that thought process, Picasa is a photo editing suite, since it allows me to reduce red eye and change contrasts/brightness on photos? The point is the primary goal of an e-mail service is message transport. Also SHoTTa35 makes another point that I deal with daily with my users "Why can't we increase the attachment size" well the other side has to allow it also - see - http://www.neowin.ne...t__p__594621918 I meant that it's a service which can be used to share files, not that it was designed with that in mind primarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Gerowen Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Our policy at work here is that if you need to send a document that big, then put it on the shared drive. Our transfer limit per message is 10 MB. If you need to send somebody something that huge, host it somewhere (shared drive, file hosting site, skydrive, etc.) and then send a link to the people who need to see it. It's kind of ridiculous to send files like that via e-mail, because next thing you know that person is going to forward it to somebody else, and now you have 4 copies of the file you sent taking up way too much hard drive space on the servers. One copy in your sent items, one copy in the recipient's inbox, one copy in their sent items, and one copy in the inbox of the person they forwarded it to. If you sent a 100 MB file, then that's 400 MB taken up by multiple copies of the same file, or slightly modified versions of that file, when you could just put it on SharePoint or something and let them all get to it from there, make modifications to it there, and still only take up the space of one copy (plus however many copies you have set up for versioning). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Rippleman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 anyone remember when Hotmail was only a 2 meg limit for your ENTIRE inbox? times sure have changed lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hedon Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Not sure where you're getting that info. Last I check, all US ISP's are starting to introduce monthly bandwidth caps. 5 years ago, I could upload/download as much as I want. Now I get a written slap on the wrist, and a threat of service interruption, for exceeding a monthly bandwidth cap. For Comcast it's 250 GB. For AT&T, it's 150 GB. So available "bandwidth" is actually decreasing. Oh, and tiered-bandwidth pricing is coming to the US soon, too. That's only going to make things worse (and more expensive). That is odd. Carriers here where I live have been DROPPING caps due to competition and have been increasing speeds. Charter, Verizon and Centurylink in my area had caps for awhile, and now they are cap free and have speeds up to 100mb service. I keep seeing caps dropping. BTW, would the user be able to use Google Docs? It's the same thing as SkyDrive or Dropbox essentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 paulbeattie87 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 All I'm going to say is that the OP is stupid :-) Email isn't file storage nor is it a way to transmit files. Let's go back to a world without MIME. Heck MIME is inefficient as it is, 25MB is more like 17MB of actual data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Hardcore Til I Die Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 All I'm going to say is that the OP is stupid :-) ...and in the same post... Email isn't file storage nor is it a way to transmit files. Pot, meet kettle. Ever hear of attachments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Hardcore Til I Die
Does anybody know if this is a limitation of the webmail client only or if it's also a limitation of the mail servers themselves?
Seems like a very small limit given the ever increasing availability of bandwidth and faster speeds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
22 answers to this question
Recommended Posts