Hello GP-UK,

On Thursday, April 15, 2010, at 5:00:09 PM, Chris wrote:

> Hello Mary and GP-UK,

> On Thursday, April 15, 2010, at 6:37:05 AM, Mary wrote:

>> Good idea - I'm new to dropbox - but it just had not occurred to me that
>> 5 .Jpg files from my new camera would exceed anyone's limits - or that
>> ***** to skye email went anywhere near google or hotmail!

Sorry about the "******" once again! I will go and remove that bit of
obfuscation as soon as I have sent this email. It seemed a sensible
option at the time (many years ago) but given that I only use
sneakemail as one part of an anti-spam suite of measures it's probably
more of a hindrance than a benefit. Anyway, please substitute the
"*****" in the following text by "D*e*m*o*n" minus the asterisks of
course.

> Google provide both the technology and servers for the Sky (note
> spelling!) email service; therefore the interface and facilities are
> the same or very similar to Gmail. The email change at Sky took place
> in 2007 so I presume that is still the case.

> Not sure where hotmail (Microsoft) comes into it. Back in the long
> distant past (I'm talking 13+ years ago) Microsoft and ***** had some
> sort of business relationship but I very much doubt that is the case
> now.

> Assuming you use *****'s smart mail service, your email having reached
> one of *****'s mail servers, ***** will look-up the MX record for
> sky.com. I have just done that and get back 5 MX records, each
> destination server ending in either googlemail.com or google.com.
> Individual packets may well 'hop' through a number of routers owned
> neither by *****, Google or Sky but not through anybody elses mail
> servers unless the recipient has configured some form of mail
> forwarding.

> In your original email you quoted 25MB as the size of the email in
> question. That *is* a bit on the large side. As a rule binary files
> will increase in size by one third when encoded to pass through mail
> systems so a number of what may seem small files, when encoded and
> combined in one email can be quite large. Even if the recipient has a
> broadband connection, their ISP's mail servers will probably be
> delivering mail at significantly slower speeds than the recipients
> maximum capability of their broadband connection. Email is *not* an
> efficient method for transporting large binary files. In dial-up era
> it would have been normal to have email applications split such large
> emails into say 100K segments (emails) which would then be recombined
> by the recipients email application. However, as previous respondents
> have posted, there are plenty of services which offer the capability
> of uploading files (using a protocol other than email) to a server for
> subsequent collection by the intended recipient.

> Chris




--
 Chris Salter  mailto:[log in to unmask]
 Lincolnshire Post-Polio Network http://www.lincolnshirepostpolio.org.uk/
 Polio and Post-Polio News       http://mt.lincolnshirepostpolio.org.uk/pandppnews/