Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Apr 2012 08:59 UTC
Internet & Networking I would honestly serve at the altar of the person that did this. Keep the debugging information, but for the love of god, make your email client do something pretty and useful with it.
Thread beginning with comment 513794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Furthermore, let's not add to the bandwidth strain by putting fancy graphics into automated responses.


This isn't part of the email - the email client parses the error bounce email and turns it into this.

Reply Parent Score: 4

daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

Indeed, it can't be all that hard to do a search of a bounced-back email like that for keywords which trigger a response template like the one shown. Especially Apple, as the kings of polish and facade, I would have thought would sort that out.

I know different mail servers will respond differently, but they'll generally follow the same patterns. It's able to do it with networking protocols like Samba (which also differs in its response from server to server) so why not with mail?

Reply Parent Score: 1

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

This isn't part of the email - the email client parses the error bounce email and turns it into this.

Well that's certainly better for the Internet.

However, it would be more advantageous if people would merely know better than to send such a huge email -- we still have the bandwidth wasted with the original outgoing email, plus the size of the bounce back.

And the world would be much improved in general if people would must use their brains more -- it won't hurt to much to try to read and understand the horrible "machine" response.

Instead of "Think Different," a wiser slogan is "Just... Think."

Edited 2012-04-12 10:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

True, although usually these bouncebacks don't include the original attachments, so the reply should've only been a few KB at most. What I do find interesting is that the limit is something like 34MB - a limit which may have convinced the poster in the past that it *was* ok to be sending uncompressed Photoshop documents as attachments.

I've had to spend considerable time and effort over the phone to various people to explain to them about filesizes, how to find them out for files, and why they are important. In these times of 100Mbit broadband, multithreaded email clients and terabytes of hard drive space, the average user has no need to worry about file sizes in everyday life... Which is fair enough in most cases, but shouldn't mean they end up completely ignorant to it either.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And the world would be much improved in general if people would must use their brains more -- it won't hurt to much to try to read and understand the horrible "machine" response.


If everyone thought like this, we would be still using DOS.

I cannot fathom why anyone would think that displaying a friendly error is a bad idea.

You are also assuming that someone using the client has a conceptual understanding of how email works, beyond "I create a message and send it".

Whether it is feasible is an entirely differently subject.

Edited 2012-04-12 10:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"message size X exceeds size limit Y" is one of the more easier bounce message to understand, really.
Unfortunately there's no standard way to deliver useful bounce information to the end-client since the format of the bounce message is not standardized anywhere. This means that you end up getting free-form text bounce messages of various degree of usability. Some servers, notably qmail, even cuts the bounce short. It's pretty darn hard to parse this reliably on the client so no, machines can't easily read this.

Reply Parent Score: 6