I've received some 'complaints' from QGIS-list users who added a QGIS screendump to a mailing list answer and did get rejected/hold because the size of the message was more then 40/60/80/100K (depending on the list ).
Question to other list admins, I think it is good if people are able to add a normal screenie to an email. I tested, a screenshot png is about 1.2Mb, saved as jpg it is 350K (using shutter screenshot tool)...
So Question:
- is there a security/disk use problem if I would bring the size to.. say 500K ? Still people have to be carefull...
Or do admins think that costs too much disk/space, or is there a security thread?
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:57:11AM +0100, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
- is there a security/disk use problem if I would bring the size to.. say
500K ? Still people have to be carefull...
Personally I think images/attachments do not belong to mailing lists
but should be rather uploaded somewhere accessible via an URL, or sent
to individuals agreeing about receiving them as attachments.
I don't see a security issue with that though, just annoyance for list
subscribers and disk availability (I know it's short on some machines,
not sure about the mailing lists one).
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Sandro Santilli <strk@kbt.io> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:57:11AM +0100, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
- is there a security/disk use problem if I would bring the size to.. say
500K ? Still people have to be carefull...
In the GRASS GIS lists I have put less than 500k, just to avoid that
users post even uncompressed BMP screenshots around or uncompressed
log files.
In an excess case, the mail is kept in the moderator's queue and the
sender usually gets a "reject" with the explanation to compress stuff
or better host elsewhere.
Personally I think images/attachments do not belong to mailing lists
but should be rather uploaded somewhere accessible via an URL, or sent
to individuals agreeing about receiving them as attachments.
I don't see a security issue with that though, just annoyance for list
subscribers and disk availability (I know it's short on some machines,
not sure about the mailing lists one).
... archive on osgeo6:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/ogdata-mailman 50G 36G 15G 72% /var/lib/mailman
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Sandro Santilli <strk@kbt.io> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 10:57:11AM +0100, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
- is there a security/disk use problem if I would bring the size to.. say
500K ? Still people have to be carefull...
In the GRASS GIS lists I have put less than 500k, just to avoid that
users post even uncompressed BMP screenshots around or uncompressed
log files.
In an excess case, the mail is kept in the moderator's queue and the
sender usually gets a "reject" with the explanation to compress stuff
or better host elsewhere.
Personally I think images/attachments do not belong to mailing lists
but should be rather uploaded somewhere accessible via an URL, or sent
to individuals agreeing about receiving them as attachments.
While it is nice to keep mailing list archives small and mostly text,
they are reliably archived. I've gone back through threads and all
the externally hosted images and other attachments are long gone
greatly reducing the use of the mailing list archive.
Best regards, Eli
I don't see a security issue with that though, just annoyance for list
subscribers and disk availability (I know it's short on some machines,
not sure about the mailing lists one).
... archive on osgeo6:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/ogdata-mailman 50G 36G 15G 72% /var/lib/mailman
).