North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: EMAIL != FTP
<snip> At $99 per 40GB HDD, there is no excuse for lack of space. <snip> And the source for this price point for a SPARC server would be? 40GB also doesn't scale well to 5,000,000 users. So let's say we double our user's boxes from 10MB to 20MB. 10MB X 5,000,000 = 50TB (assuming only one mail box per customer, more like two plus in the real world so you might consider trebling the following figures in the real world) 50TB/40GB = 1,250 HDD X $99 = $123,750 (at your PC price) plus the not inconsiderable cost of the servers/raids to hold them and staff to administer/maintain them. My WAG (wild ass guess) would place the true multiple E-mail box/user cost at about $1/customer/month; close to, if not more than, most ISP's profit margin. (Profit, what profit?) Now if we can just get the marketing folk to do a study to see if our customers would be willing to pay that additional $1/month to fund this in a market where more and more providers are offer additional "free" mail boxes... ___________________________________ Alan Rowland "Get Linked" -----Original Message----- From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:05 AM To: 'Jim Mercer'; Mitch Halmu Cc: John Fraizer; Roeland Meyer; 'Steve Sobol'; Shawn McMahon; email@example.com Subject: RE: EMAIL != FTP > From: Jim Mercer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:03 AM > > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 06:32:48AM -0400, Mitch Halmu wrote: > > So what's a regular user to do? Email it! Hence the > legitimate use of > > email for transmission of large files. Most ISPs know that > if they start > > limiting this privilege, users will migrate to someone that > allows it. > > i regularly configure ISP's with a limit on the size of email > messages. > (generally 10meg, although i think 100k is probably better). That's why most corps use their own MTA's. Sometimes, I run into a client that has such bigots running their systems. A few "failures to communicate" usually result in executive management applying the clue-by-four. Business rules drive technology, not the other way around. One clueless company even blocks attachments with more than one dot in the name. They are steadily losing business. One does not give access to passworded sites without an NDA. After the initial deal is set, one does NOT strike clients in the face with security. Security need to be transparent. > when they get a complaint, i then point them to the fact that > many of the > large email messages get stuck in the queue because the receiving side > is too slow or doesn't have enough disk, or the users quota is full. At $99 per 40GB HDD, there is no excuse for lack of space. MTAs should delete all messages once they are sent, or soon thereafter. My laptop is considered small ... at 12GB. BTW, end users DO know how to delete files and manage space. The file cabinet metaphor works well. > and of course, the sending user hears that it wasn't > received, and then assumes it was lost and resends it. ... and the system should accomodate them. > file transfer by email is evil. That's your unsupported opinion. > i've been saying that for literally 10 years now: ... and you never wondered why no one listened?