> From: MX%"PMDAtropos@aol.com" 9-OCT-1995 20:43:38.26
> Subj: Re: Full mailboxes
David,
> In a message dated 95-10-08 03:03:06 EDT, henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov (Henry W.
> Miller) writes:
>
> >I know that postmaster of AOL monitors this list; I'm not
> >sure about CIS, though. I run several lists, and frequently get
> >messages bounced back from AOL and CIS stating that the user's
> >mailbox is full and to try again later. Why? It occurs to me
> >that both providers have gigabytes, maybe terabytes of disk storage.
> >To bounce mail back to the sender is really uncalled for. Surely there
> >has to be a better way to deal with this.
>
> Each AOL member is permitted 550 pieces of mail on our mail host at any given
> time. At five screen names per account, 3.5 million accounts, that's as many
> as 9,625,000,000 pieces of mail live on the service at any given time. Each
> piece of mail can be up to 32k, making storate as much as 308,000,000,000k -
> not counting file attachments, which I've personally sent as large as 24MB.
>
Thank you for the information here.
> Obviously, this is an extreme case -- reality is probably more like about
> four million mailboxes with an average of 300 pieces of mail, each around 5k
> in size. That's still 12,000,000,000 of space for e-mail alone, plus the
> file system to keep it on, plus the software to manage it.
>
Extreme, yes. But it's safer in the long run to allow for expansion.
> All in all, I'd think that up to 550MB of mail (inbound mail can be up to 1MB
> in size), at 550 pieces, is pretty reasonable. AOL members can easily
> download their entire mailbox contents using FlashSessions, freeing up space
> on the AOL host system. Likewise, with 5 screen names per account, they can
> easily divvy their mail load up into multiple screen names. IMO, if a
> member's mailbox fills up it's their responsibility (and it demonstrates to
> me as a list owner an unwillingness to commit to my lists. They get removed).
>
Both points taken.
> If we had a significantly smaller member base, I could see increasing the
> mailbox size -- and we may yet in the future, though I don't know for sure.
> For the time being, though, I don't think the current limit is all that
> unreasonable.
>
> --
> __ David B. O'Donnell (atropos@aol.net, PMDAtropos@aol.com)
> \/ AOL Internet Feedback/Response/Information Team Manager
> Tel. +1 703/448-8700 x3725 - FAX +1 703/883-1514
> Belief-L, GLB-News -Press -Discuss, SoftRevu List Owner/Editor
> http://www.cais.com/atropos/ ---- "The spam stops here."
Again, thanks for the explanation of AOL's rationale.
-HWM
|
|
