[geeks] Gmail's attraction
Charles Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com
Mon Sep 6 22:33:44 CDT 2004
Mon, 06 Sep 2004 @ 19:24 +0200, Joost van de Griek said:
> On 2004-09-06 18:13, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > My main thing against email attachments is when it is used wholesale,
> > and for large files. This is especially bad when it happens inside a
> > company, since there is no reason for it at all then.
> It is especially bad when $person sends an email with a multi-megabyte Word
> monstrosity (say, "latest version of project specs") to everyone in a
> project team. Assuming that most people do not throw away their (groupware)
> email anytime soon, that means you may end up with multiple copies of said
> humongous document on your *mail* server.
> Multiply this by the number of revisions of the document, and by the number
> of projects going on, and it becomes clear that sending an email saying,
> "Hi, team! I've put a new revision of the specs in the projects share!"
> would be quite a bit more efficient.
I worked for awhile at "Bank of America" (aka Bank of India) and with
40K desktop users or more, this kind of thing could cause a lot of
I remember getting a bunch of bullcrap and other noise from Hugh McCall
once, which was probably sent to just about everyone in the company.
It was a Word file with graphics and a few other objects in it, and I
believe it was at least 500K bytes.
Multiply that by 40K recipients...
I mean, why the hell didn't they put it up on an internal web server?
Even if a top manager only emailed Norfolk, we are talking about over
% echo "(3500*500)/1024/1024" | bc -l
If I did that right, we are talking about 1.7 gigabytes of storage
to send that email to just the workers in *ONE BUILDING* at Bank of
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["The object of war is not to die for your
country but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S.
More information about the geeks