Bill,
Jim can receive 10MB attachments as well, but unfortunately Earthlink allots
a paltry 100MB total for his entire inbox. Seems to me to be a bit of a
holdover from dial-up days, as 100MB nowadays is not much. I think I've been
using GMail since early '07, and between personal emails and the Piet list I
am using over 1.5GB(!) of space on their server. Thankfully I have 7.4GB of
total space alloted, and can send and receive up to 25MB attachments.
Jim,
I sympathize with your situation; a friend I used to provide computer
assistance to was on dial-up because they were out in the country and could
get nothing else. I think they only had something like 50MB on their ISP's
server for email. Every time we'd visit I would have to login to the webmail
and clear out messages because their inbox was full and it would stop
sending messages through to their email program. A few forwards with pics of
cute animals or airplanes and it would stop up their mailbox.
However, I have to agree with the others...keep sending big beautiful pics
(within reason, for Matronics sake)! There are alternatives to using your
Earthlink email....Gmail is a pretty good system and you would have
absolutely no storage issues. Their "conversation" method of handling emails
is a little different, but I think it makes it easier to keep track of your
emails. Yahoo, Windows Live, there are a number of alternatives to "get up
to speed" in the email dept. Good luck!
Ryan
do not archive
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not on dial-up; it's DSL. What I am on is a web-mail server with
> limited buffer space for each user. I'm a visual guy, and a picture is worth
> a thousand words to me also. But I suspect you could cut the photo
> resolution in half, still get the point across, and only a photographer
> could tell the difference. Glamour shots like Douwe's plane need really good
> resolution because I'll blow them up to full-screen size (I'd do life-size
> if I had the monitor for it), but you don't need that for close-up's of
> welds, glue joints and other such construction tips.
>
> I'm not trying to cause any dissention amongst the ranks. If I'm the only
> one who cares, I'll sit down ahd shut up.
>
> Blue skies.
>
> Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Bill Church <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
> >Sent: Mar 19, 2010 8:00 AM
> >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Photo sizes
> >
> billspiet@sympatico.ca>
> >
> >Here's a differing viewpoint regarding photo sizes:
> >
> >I LIKE the big photos.
> >Personally, I'm always disappointed when the photo attachments are so
> small that I can't make out details. I know that a few years ago, there were
> still a few guys with dial-up internet connections who were constantly
> complaining about how long it would take to download the messages that had
> decent sized photos attached - but I don't think there are too many people
> still on dial-up. My home email is pretty basic (through my phone line) and
> I can send and receive attachments up to 10 Megs. I think that the size
> limit prescribed by Matronics is reasonable (2 Meg maximum), in today's
> world.
> >So I say, keep the big photos coming - especially like those great shots
> of Douwe's new plane, and the close-up details of Mike's pitot lines. Each
> of those shots were worth at least 1000 proverbial words.
> >
> >Bill C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Read this topic online here:
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290892#290892
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
