 |
 |
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/