Jump to content

Webmail treatment of msg with large attachment


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I use SC webmail via Firefox. Today I received a message at SC that has an attachment of 5,675 KB according to the webmail interface. There are two icons shown in the "Part(s)" line: one with a big arrow pointing down towards a disk ("download"), and one showing the c-clamp on a folder ("download in .zip format"). On this message, when I click on the plain old download link, Firefox's progress indicator spins for about 2 sec, and then stops; the window does not change, and no download window opens. (Note that this feature works fine on small attachments; I use it all the time, including this morning on an attachment about 340 KB). I think I have read here before that the zip-format download is known to be broken with no fix in sight; the behavior here is identical to the plain download. The "download all attachments in zip file" similarly causes the progress indicator to move for a second or two, then nothing further. The link "view message source" opens a new window with a well-formed but empty HTML dobument. In short, I cannot get the contents of this message via SC webmail.

Is there a limit on attachment size that is checked when I request a download of that attachment? Is the same limit being applied to viewing the msg source?

If webmail would indicate some kind of error in this situation instead of silently doing nothing it would be a major step forward.

Please advise, thank you.

Sign me frustrated.

chris...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not heard of any limits like this. On the other hand, I've not heard of anyone trying to beat up on the servers like this either. There are still ISPs that have file size limits in place for traffic via e-mail so it's possible the attachmant could be mangled. Because of this file's size, are you allowing enough time for anything/everything to happen? What happens if you try to use an actual e-mail client and look at your incoming, thinking that IMAP would give you a different shot at obtaining this attached file. And the obvious question, is this something that can be resent ... or obtained via a better choice of tools, FTP for instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The file is an mpg attachment from a friend who is a video guy. It's not p0rn or anything but to be honest I don't know what it is. I could resend it to someone if that helps.

I think I'm waiting long enough -- like I said, firefox shows progress just for a couple of seconds and then stops. My download speed from DSL is pretty good, so 6Mb isn't a big deal to push over.

Yeah, it's big. As for ISPs along the way, well, I could see truncated maybe, but mangled? I'm skeptical but who knows.

This is a situation where a sysadmin who can peek into my mailbox would be an enormous help. I want to start by knowing whether the file is ok on the disc or not.

I don't have my computer configured to do IMAP or pop mail -- always been too worried about viruses, so I've never been willing to teach it how to talk to the world.

Can I ftp the email from the server somehow?

chris...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to the "interest" of folks like the RIAA, you should note that there are systems out there that are "looking" for copyright violations. There are also other systems that have made settings that disallow various file extensions to freely flow ... for instance, guidance used to be to archive executable files into an archive like a ZIP file ... which worked fine until the virus/trojan crap started showing up in ZIP files ...

Your download speed isn't as much of an issue, its more the cranking time allotted to "your service request" at the particular e-mail server you're hitting. I'll agree that a quick look by the only Admin would be nice, but I can rell you, JT isn't at my beck and call <g>

Concern over viri and such did cause a bit of a smile here. Not sure why you'd think that downloading a file via a web-browser would make things any safer. I have folks sending me virii all the time, usually followed by a phone call, asking them about that last e-mail with attachment they had just received and just why they had opened up that attachment, usually followed with "how'd you know?" .....

The suggestion of FTP is more of a plan where your friend would make the file available at a place you could then FTP it from. Or simply place it on a web page for download that way. E-mail was never intended to handle large files like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read here before that the zip-format download is known to be broken with no fix in sight

I'm pretty sure that problem was fixed a while ago...I'm the person who reported it as being broken.

As for downloading large attachments via webmail...I've not tried it, but I'll run an experiment and let you know what happens.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: I ran an experiment with a file that was over two megs....Cox wouldn't let me send out anything larger (the limit is actually 5242880 bytes, but it kicks in much below that limit).

I was able to use the "Download all attachments in zip file" method of grabbing the attachment off the server, so the function isn't broken. You'll need to contact "support <at> spamcop.net" for further investigation.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never wanted to give Outlook or any other M$FT software my username and password on any mail server -- I wanted to prevent them from making my computer an outbound agent.

Of course I should just ftp the file, not get it in email.

So if 2Mb works and 5.5Mb doesn't, then it sounds like I've crossed a boundary into a zone where the webmail server has been instructed not to go. I would still like to know that via some kind of message.

I was wrong about the download-as-zip feature; yes it does indeed work, I confimed on a msg with a 250Kb attachment.

Never thought about copyright stuff. I rather doubt that is the case here. My friend is an independent professional who makes videos for big companies; he's not sending me re-encoded movies.

Thanks for all the followups.

chris...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: I ran an experiment with a file that was over two megs....Cox wouldn't let me send out anything larger (the limit is actually 5242880 bytes, but it kicks in much below that limit).

Part of that is also invoked by the encoding process, that part of converting the original file into the (generic statement here) the 7-bit printable character set .. so that a 1Meg file can bloom to a 2.3Meg file (yes, a bit of exageration there, just putting a point on the concept)

But noting that the (approximate) 2Meg limit is a pretty universal figure. Not sure if it's due to a binary equivalent or just a bit of a ramp up to cover sending the contents of a 1.44Meg floppy (with the overhead of encoding mentioned above)

Yeah, it's big. As for ISPs along the way, well, I could see truncated maybe, but mangled? I'm skeptical but who knows.

Reaching way back to my Apple II days, the magic phrase there was a "sparse file" ... actually only holding a few bits of data but according to the OS/file manager, it would be reported as being and occupying Megs of disk space. Today's complaints include things like files that can't be deleted under Windows-XP. When bits get mangled, the results can be astounding is where I was headed with that suggested possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done a fair amount of testing on attachments over the last few days and have found that Webmail handles them quite well but does not allow for much of any viewing of them.

If you send an excel attachment and try to view it you will get the following error message The program used to view this data type (/usr/local/bin/xlhtml) was not found on the system.

There does not appear to be any limit on the file size that can be sent to your Spamcop account (note: it is possible there is a limit set which is higher than the files sizes I was able to test.

I had problems sending large files with IE (Edit; IE was being used as the browser to access the company based web mail form similar to SpamCop webmail interface), I would get the error message file to large during the composing stage.

I was able to do some testing from work using Netscape® Communicator 4.76 (you can tell we are a "bit" out of date at work).

The messages were sent using standard SMTP methods

I tested two separate excel file sizes one 9meg spread sheet and one 6meg

The listed email sizes were 12,298kb and 8,620kb

Both files were sent to my Spamcop account and then POPed back to my home computer using OE, Both spreadsheets opened up with no problems.

I also tried sending a 12meg spreadsheet, but the mail server at work rejected it as being too big.

If I tried to view large attachments in webmail I got the following error message "The page cannot be displayed"

So in summary, you can send large attachments though Spamcop email accounts, but you will probably be unable to view them in Webmail.

You can down load them locally via POP3 or IMAP (I also tested IMAP using OE as well)

I was also able to upload large files using IMAP to SpamCop and then download them else where with no problem.

Just keep in mind that most ISP have strict limits on the size of files that can be sent, Earthlink, for example, has a 4meg limit of outbound files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done a fair amount of testing on attachments over the last few days  (snip) I had problems sending large files with IE,

(surely you meant "sending large files with Outlook Express?" IE doesn't do email)

Both files were sent to my Spamcop account and then POPed back to my home computer using OE,  Both spreadsheets opened up with no problems.

But that's not the right test. The OP was talking specifically about the "download" and "download in .zip format" functions in the webmail interface. He wasn't talking about any problems with retrieving them via POP or IMAP. If you can, please run the test again, sendind yourself a large file, but then, before you POP your mail, login to the webmail interface and try the "download in .zip format" on the large message...that's the test that needs to be run.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(surely you meant "sending large files with Outlook Express?" IE doesn't do email)

But that's not the right test. The OP was talking specifically about the "download" and "download in .zip format" functions in the webmail interface. He wasn't talking about any problems with retrieving them via POP or IMAP. If you can, please run the test again, sendind yourself a large file, but then, before you POP your mail, login to the webmail interface and try the "download in .zip format" on the large message...that's the test that needs to be run.

DT

18871[/snapback]

Actually I did mean IE but did fail to clarify that it was the interface to a separate webmail form (company based) somewhat similar to Spamcop Webmail interface which is also accessed via a browser.

As far as "download in .zip format" I still have more testing to do there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...