30 Sep 2005, 04:55 AM | #46 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Marlow Bucks
Posts: 417
|
Although I am a devoted Fastmail and Promptpost fan this good news. I store everything at Runbox and will privacy policy that has been posted in another thread I will continue to do so. Everyone also knows Runbox is my back up address.
Absolutely brilliant. Helen |
30 Sep 2005, 07:20 AM | #47 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Belgrade, RS
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
|
|
30 Sep 2005, 07:43 AM | #48 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
|
|
30 Sep 2005, 08:45 AM | #49 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Belgrade, RS
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
Second, IMAP doesn't (yet) provide attachment deletion as a protocol feature which makes people think it is not possible. Third and most important, almost all email clients today still treat messages from IMAP stores in the old POP way (TB was one of them until recently). When you open a message for viewing they download the whole message with all attachments. So, imagine wanting to delete a 10MB attachment, your client would have to download the whole lot, do some MIME reordering and processing (the POP way - on the whole message) and upload a stripped message. Not very effective. IMAP works differently, it provides nice ways for clients to download only message parts that they really need. The hard thing about this is that MIME parsing can't be done on the whole message, it has to be done by processing body structure replies from IMAP servers which is not trivial. And in order for a client to perform this operation it has to have a solid IMAP framework which TB now does. |
|
1 Oct 2005, 01:08 AM | #50 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
|
|
1 Oct 2005, 05:04 AM | #51 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 429
|
I subscribed exactly two months ago. I know Runbox for years and it was time to join the club. I like the clean interface, the 1GB mail space, the 100mb file storage, the aliases, etc. And the support is very good. 29.95 dollars a year isn't very cheap, but I think it's worth it.
Now I have to pay 49,95 dollars, because Runbox has decided that we needed more space. I can't believe many customers asked for such an increase of storage. 1GB is very generous, 10GB is laughable IMHO. What user is ever going to come close to maxing out that storage limit? I hope Runbox will think about introducing a Lite version. Two different plans; that will not be the end of Runbox... |
1 Oct 2005, 06:53 AM | #52 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
|
|
1 Oct 2005, 10:29 AM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 127
|
Quote:
* On (at the time) a new 20gb hard drive - why would anyone ever need 20gb of hard drive space in their home computer? * On RAM - 640K of memory should be enough for anyone (allegedly a quote by Bill Gates!) 10gb is way beyond necessary today and that's not going to change in the next 12 months or so. But beyond that who knows? I'm sure that people will eventually be using this sort of space. Not sure why RB would want to move storage up so much so fast right now, but I guess they want to be seen as moving first ahead of the pack. I think it's a good way for them to get noticed, and let's be honest, hardly anyone will actually be using up all that server space anytime too soon. MarkD |
|
1 Oct 2005, 12:28 PM | #54 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
And yes, let as also consider the possibility of Runbox people making erroneous business decisions. Or even of hiding their real future plans... |
|
1 Oct 2005, 01:20 PM | #55 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: India
Posts: 214
|
They need to increase the attachment size beyond 30 Mb.
Also this is not correct on the Runbox forum itself but someone ought to come out with a Runbox version of viksoe.dk so we can utilize this storage for files Just increasing storage won't be enough for higher end user , you need to have features like nested folders or search facility to manage that space. |
1 Oct 2005, 01:28 PM | #56 | |
Master of the @
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,347
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
Quote:
Trip |
|
1 Oct 2005, 02:18 PM | #57 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA Northwest
Posts: 3,849
|
The main thought I have is that mailing things that large is absurd. With the 30% overhead added it makes me wonder why not just use a file store. I've never mailed anything over 15MB except for a test and I did that on my DSL at 256 up. Now that I'm on cable at 128 up it means even more to economize on upload size.
|
1 Oct 2005, 04:22 PM | #58 |
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
|
Why not have two file attachment sizes?
Mail from a Runbox user to another Runbox user could have a massive limit (e.g. 100MB). Mail from a Runbox user to the outside could still be subject the current limit, since there's very little chance a 100MB attachment will make it across an unknown-length chain of servers spread across the globe and most destination mail systems won't accept it anyway. That way, Runbox doesn't need to transmit the massive attachment across the Web once it's uploaded (since they just need to move it between servers or even within the same server), and there's a 100% chance of it arriving in the destination user's mailbox. Great for multiple company mailboxes... For example, give a company's 25 employees their own Runbox-powered addresses under @companydomain.com and they know they can send huge files back and forth to each other. The limits only come in when going "outside". |
1 Oct 2005, 04:47 PM | #59 |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 555
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
Great idea Edwin.
|