> [karl - Thu Mar 03 19:05:00 2011]: > > > I don't think we want to encourage posting of large attachments. > > I agree with not "encouraging". I don't agree (modulo bandwidth being > lacking, granted that that trumps the policy question) with > "forbidding". Some packages have a reasonable expectation of large-ish > attachments -- and a couple hundred K is not large by today's standards > on any site I use besides lists.gnu.org :). > > So IMHO, list owners should in principle be able to accept such msgs if > they wish. The default mailman max_message_size (the absurdly low 40) > will already cause any large msgs to be held, so I don't see a big > difference in practice if the MTA limit is raised.
Sure. When we move lists (next week), we'll upgrade the limit to a few megabytes (say 4, for now). The only reason we will have a limit after the move is to avoid situations where someone sends a very large attachment to a very large list (some of our lists have thousands of subscribers). > What I could undertake to do before raising the MTA limit is change all > the mailman lists that currently have max_message_size=0 to whatever the > MTA limit is now. (What is it? 200K?) It is 200K, give or take. > On another front, as has been said before, it would be helpful for the > reject message to explicitly state "your message was rejected because it > was too big" (or, even better, "... because it was bigger than nnnK"). > Regardless of what the limit is ... Yes, this is now done. Thanks, Ward. -- Ward Vandewege <w...@fsf.org> Free Software Foundation - Senior System Administrator
