Brother Scanning: MFC2700 / MFC 8480
-
I'm with Matt, I cap my attachements at 25 megs. I realize this is old school thinking, but then again Email is not for attachment management anyway.
In the end it solves more problems than it creates by helping users keep their mailboxes smaller.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@g.jacobse good points, they all have their weaknesses
You should be able to scan ~100 pages to email with a 10mb limit - that's small these days but (like us) running an internal exchange can limit you to that. I'd still do it over scan to folder unless you've got a much more in depth setup with ID cards etc to auto set folders per user that it dumps to. Otherwise it becomes a security headache etc.
100 pages for 10 MB? wow you must be scanning a super low res!
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm with Matt, I cap my attachements at 25 megs. I realize this is old school thinking, but then again Email is not for attachment management anyway.
Actually, there is a lot of changing thought on that. A lot of work has been done to make email really good for attachment management, especially in Exchange. It's a bit of the cart driving the horse, but responding to how people think about and use files it's a reasonable thing since email servers ARE storage devices. So in many ways, that's exactly what email is now.
-
I've never done attachment limits much. I just cap mailbox quotas. If you fill it up, It's your responsibility to delete stuff.
-
@Dashrender said:
In the end it solves more problems than it creates by helping users keep their mailboxes smaller.
Does it? Why not just make them bigger? I've rarely found a circumstance where forcing mailboxes to be small made things better post 2004. These days I would almost always say "raise the limits" wherever possible. Storage is cheap and email servers are efficient with it now. What upside is there to making users do something else?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I've never done attachment limits much. I just cap mailbox quotas. If you fill it up, It's your responsibility to delete stuff.
Yup, that's the bottom line. Limiting attachments punishes people doing simple, logical things like scanning a document for other people who never delete things. Punishing the wrong parties and making simple things, like this example, hard for no reason.
Use mailbox limits alone if mailbox limits are the problem. And when possible, raise the limits. There is a reason that even hosted systems are all 50GB, because it makes sense.
-
@scottalanmiller we're a lot off topic lol
Ingredients to create this particular headache:
- Dell PE2900 server
- Create mailboxes over many years @ 2gb+
- Over provision by adding users to the company
- Have users emailing themselves files against every policy we have
- Wait 6? years while PE2900 gets to a ripe old age
- Drink a lot
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller we're a lot off topic lol
Ingredients to create this particular headache:
- Dell PE2900 server
- Create mailboxes over many years @ 2gb+
- Over provision by adding users to the company
- Have users emailing themselves files against every policy we have
- Wait 6? years while PE2900 gets to a ripe old age
- Drink a lot
Obvious answer is.... Rackspace, Google Apps or Office 365.
But short of that, how much does more space cost?
-
Can't you add storage using a low cost NAS device? You should be able to add several TB for next to nothing. How many users do you have?
-
The question really becomes - how much risk, loss of productivity, cost in other areas and cost of management are created to avoid just adding some additional storage and/or moving to a hosted system?
-
As I often point out, if your users find it product to have 50GB or even 500GB of email storage and the company feels that they are not worth spending the money on to have that amount of storage.... why are you paying to employ those people if they are so worthless?
-
Mailbox discussion http://www.mangolassi.it/topic/5029/mailbox-and-attachment-limits
