Google Increases Gmail Attachment Limit To 50MB For Recipients (betanews.com) 51
Mark Wilson, writing for BetaNews: With Gmail you can now receive attachments up to 50MB in size. It's important to note that the new attachment limit only applies to incoming email. Google would much rather you make use of Google Drive if you want to send large files to people. When it comes to sending files, you are limited to attaching up to 25MB of data in the form of one or many files. If you try to attach files that go over this limit, you'll be prompted to go down the Google Drive route instead. Not much useful, then.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But her broken English is almost as bad as a slashdot story submitter, and she has the personality of a overflowing garbage can on a hot summer day. Wait that's also totally like a slashdot user isn't it?
Not much useful, then. (Score:4, Informative)
Not much editor good.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a weird claim to make too.
They make it really easy to send where the link gets the file (which in theory is as secure as an e-mail), the real issue is someone sending me something and getting a bounce.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Such doge! Such wow.
Email is the wrong tool (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're trying to use email to transfer files that large, you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't normally do this, but... oblig xkcd [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not if it works. Pretty simple.
Obviously, it doesn't work with Gmail, so you're kind of right, too.
Re:Email is the wrong tool (Score:4, Funny)
True enough, a 640K limit should be plenty for everybody. If nobody should ever need more than 640K...
Re: (Score:3)
If you're trying to use email to transfer files that large, you're doing it wrong.
Why?
Re: (Score:1)
Multiple reasons:
1) Most people won't accept "large*" email (admittedly the definition of large has shifted as capacity has shifted) /sending/ email server may well let you upload ALL of a 500Mb file, dump it to /dev/null THEN tell you it's not taking files over 50Mb
2) Binary files have to be encoded as 7bit text for transmission which means your 50Mb email file can take a file that is ~37.5Mb
2a) Your
2b) When you split the file into 50Mb chunks it will then let you upload those too, and then tell you it's n
Re: (Score:2)
and you stopped reading.
No, I read the all.
Question about 2d though. My understanding might be stale, but I thought that one of the ways that Google was able to save on costs, was by making all of their services use the same storage backend. So uploading to Google Drive, should take the same amount of time as uploading to GMail.
Re: (Score:2)
2d) supposes you're one of the people who can't learn a new method of transferring files and are still using Outlook or some other "thick" email client.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
When transferring pictures from my Android tablet to my PC, I've found e-mail to be the easiest route. Sure it may be the wrong way, but it's still the easiest way.
USB? Requires plugging in the cable, and figuring out the adb command line to transfer the files - or researching which other tool can do the transfer. On other devices I've always used USB mass storage, which is not supported on Android (for good reasons). The e-mail will be done transferring before I even find the cable, so why bother researchi
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was doing tech support for an ISP, people would complain about the 5MB mailbox limit. My answer was you don't use the postal service when you move houses.
Maybe I'm oooooolllllld... (Score:5, Interesting)
I might be an old fuddy-duddy, but is it odd that I'm still irked when people email more than 1-2mb? Especially given how many file-share options exist? Until a few years ago I'd be fine with uploading a larger file to my own FTP site and sending a link to a URL, and it's so much easier now with GoogleDocs, Dropbox, etc...maybe I'm just old.
Re:Maybe I'm oooooolllllld... (Score:4, Funny)
you're old.
but so am I, and I agree with you.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, I just sent probably around 30 megs of attachments in an email. I was sending pictures and it's a hell of a lot easier to just drag and drop rather than upload to file share site, grab link and paste into email.
Re: (Score:2)
What irked me more were people who used the old RapidShare etc. to do this, back when those file services gave you barely any speed and made it take hours to download a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer they add a different feature (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Google: When a Gmail user attaches a 20+ MB file to an email and types the name of a mailing list into the "To:" field, is it too much to ask that a painful jolt of electricity be sent through the keyboard and into their body?
I know a lot of sysadmins who would upvote that RFE, if given the chance.
Re: (Score:1)
In the old days I remember discussing missing assembler commands. One of them was LVK or something similar. The purpose was to provide "line voltage to keyboard" as direct user feedback...
Re: (Score:2)
But the highest voltage in my laptop is around 30 volts for the LCD backlight
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember, in the late 70s, a teacher talking about the "HCF" assembly command - Halt and Catch Fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much useful, then (Score:2)
Not much useful, then
You do know there are other email services, right? Services that might not have a cap on send file sizes. In other words, just because Gmail limits sending files over 25 MB, doesn't mean a 50 MB cap couldn't be useful to receive files from other senders.
Re: (Score:1)
That means they can only send it to another Office 365 user running Outlook...
https://technet.microsoft.com/... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could use the 1TB of onedrive and send a sharing link to the user...
Dear Google... (Score:2)
You don't get to choose the limits for sending to recipients. The receiving server is the one that decides what they'll accept.
Why don't know invent a way to teach Joe Six Pack about appropriate resolution and quality of photos. I'm sick of dealing with people who want to know why they can't send 20 photos, each much larger than they will ever really need thanks to the megapixel race, through email.
They don't seem to get why someone would not want to down a huge batch of files they will likely look at only
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this was 2008 maybe. I can download gigabytes worth of data a day on my phone let alone my cable internet so why the hell do we have bizarrely tiny limits on email size? Who in this day an age is going "hmmm 30 megs is way too big for me and my internet connection"?
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the way email works.
Servers have to store and forward messages they're delivering.
Messages usually go through multiple servers, each of them has to store the entire message, sometimes for days while it attempts delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
Just another tragedy of the commons. It works fine for me; who cares if it tears up the infrastructure?
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the way email works.
And you don't think Google knows how email works? If a system can't handle a message size, it'll reject the message. As far as the fact that multiple servers will need to hold onto their copy of the message for days, big friggin' deal. It's the database that holds the message at rest which is the one that's more at risk of being overwhelmed with years of large messages. Not the en-route servers which only hold onto it for a short period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, let's say I send an email with a 100MB attachment.
I put 100 email addresses, all at different domains in the To field.
The server now has to send out 10GB of data.
Meanwhile, it has to send everyone else's email too, in a reasonable time.
Not much useful, then? (Score:2)
Mail bomb (Score:2)