

Why Google should lower Gmail's attachment limit. - mvip
http://blog.yippiemove.com/2010/08/07/why-google-should-lower-gmails-attachment-limit/

======
MJR
This is ridiculous. I can think of a dozen different reason why I would want
large file size attachments. And the easiest way to do that is with email. You
cannot expect the average user to go find another technology just to transfer
files, when a ubiquitous technology they already have access to and know how
to use accommodates that.

As a developer or designer working with clients, email is the easies way to
have someone send you a file, or vice versa. Everyone has email. There's no
extra client to install and setup, no new technology or jargon to learn. I
understand educating people is important, but at the end of the day there are
a lot of technologies that people don't need to know about. And in situations
where time is critical its impossibly difficult and time consuming to tell a
client to go download an ftp client, install it, configure it, then walk them
through the process of transferring a file - all when they have no concept of
what FTP is in the first place! Which is easier? That process with all its
complexity and opportunities for screw-ups, or simply attaching a file to an
email.

On the topic of file content, large files are more prevalent today. We need to
accept that and use the technologies that offer the path of least resistance
and widest user acceptance. Large files can be a number of different things -
an original design file needed for a printer, a copy of the client database,
an original high-res photo, typical office documents, audio, video, even PDFs
can easily reach large sizes.

The fact that this argument is about Gmail is even more nonsensical. Gmail is
one of dozens of web-based email platforms. There's no impact to the user if
you get a large file attachment when using a webmail. It's just a link in the
email. In fact Gmail will even zip up all the attachments in an email so you
can have a smaller download. Where's the negative in Gmail's implementation of
attachments - just the file size they allow to be sent? My mail server doesn't
even have a limit. Gmail's implementation actually counters against several of
the points the article makes. It's easy to attach a file, it's easy to remove
the file, it's easy to choose to download the file or not, and it's even a
seamless process to upload the large file in the first place. The argument
could have well been, get users to create webmail accounts so that it's EASIER
to send and receive large files!

 _Updated_ : After reading the YippieMove.com site more it's clear that the
reason for this post is self-serving. Yippie Move is a service that allows you
to transfer email seamlessly between providers. It's clearly better for their
business model if people don't have large email accounts filled with big
attachments.

------
Groxx
> _So what is wrong with emailing large files? Reason [1..2..3]_

What's wrong with other means of transferring "large" files (25mb or less)?
_Nobody knows how_ , and other means of transfer do not have persistent
storage. And what's this 1gb limit on Gmail? Last I checked they were over
_seven_. My account has 27 gigs for $5 per year, making it the cheapest file
storage out there by a _long_ shot.

Reason 3 (you can't easily _not_ download the file) makes sense, but I highly
doubt that's a concern of _anyone_ who knows of an alternate method of
distributing a file.

------
neutronicus
I can't think of a co-worker who _wouldn't_ be annoyed if I told them "just
get the excel sheet from my home directory."

------
tptacek
Nonsensical.

------
lazyjeff
I'm surprised by the amount of disagreement with the author. This will
probably be voted down, but here are a few reasons I dislike large
attachments:

1) I don't trust online email services to store/backup my email and like to
back up my own email. These giant attachments make up 99.9% of the storage
space and don't compress well. My email backup has increased 20-fold in size
since gmail upped their attachment limit.

2) Desktop email clients often start to chug slower when the inbox gets large.
Before I've had over 100,000 emails in my Outlook Express inbox since 2003.
Sorting by subject, searching, etc. were instantaneous. With these
attachments, I have to periodically sort by size and run my attachment cleaner
script to scrub them out or Outlook Express will get slower.

Maybe I'm using antiquated technologies but if others want better control of
their own email, they might agree too.

~~~
mallipeddi
Sounds like you're dictating how others should behave in order to accommodate
your crappy Outlook Express.

------
kree10
"It is our responsibility as the tech-savvy users to educate these users." It
wasn't long ago when the tech-savvy were trying to educate against "top
posting" e-mail replies. It was a decisive loss, so good luck.

If you want people to use Dropbox instead, make mail clients smarter. How
about when "attaching" a file, it made a copy in ~/Dropbox/Public/ and
embedded the public URL in the message instead?

~~~
mvip
That's an interesting point. Actually, Yahoo Mail does this with an API
integration with drop.io.

------
dsf74
Emails are not really suited to send large files. Try Binfer which specializes
in large file transfers. It is as easy as email, but without the size
limitation. You can send hundreds of file without reducing their size. And,
you don't have to upload them anywhere, they transfer directly from computer
to computer. The site is <http://www.binfer.com>

------
jsz0
In the era of cheap storage it would be a waste of time to lecture people on
attachments. My total mailbox size for the last 3 years is a little over 5GB
with the bulk of it being attachments. Not hurting anyone or anything. I could
delete them if I wanted to but that would also be a waste of time. Even if it
were 10x bigger I don't think I'd bother. A 1TB HD is $60 these days.

------
malbiniak
Just because the originating server allows massive attachments doesn't ensure
the receiving server will accept it. Within the past week, I got an email from
a client saying they couldn't receive anything larger than 5mb and we'd have
to _gasp_ FTP it.

...or use <http://www.wetransfer.com> (unless it's sensitive).

------
eekfuh
Stop whining.

------
ElliotH
The argument about keeping an email around is a bit silly. Most large file
attachments the theoretical affected users are going to send are going to be
some kind of document. You can just resave those. Besides I've yet to find an
email client without a right click 'save attachment' option somewhere along
the lines.

------
isleyaardvark
There's a common theme in the author's reasons: "Yes, I know some clients can
download the messages without downloading the attachments, but not all." and
"In most email clients, you cannot just discard the attachments."

Apparently we should be held back by antiquated technology.

------
kingkawn
Gmail should up their bandwidth for attaching files

------
RK
FYI: Thunderbird can detach and delete attachments.

------
WiseWeasel
Translation: damn kids, get off my lawn!

------
CamperBob
I'd be happy if they would just stop censoring .zip files that contain .exes.
Makes it a pain to support customers.

~~~
joelhaasnoot
Just rename the zip anything but zip. zig, zit, zif, zid, whatever. Gmail then
will ignore it. Little more hassle for your customers (they have to rename it
on their end, but most can handle that).

~~~
wwortiz
Considering windows hides extensions by defaults it is going to be a pain in
the ass to get a customer to rename it.

