On Feb 4, 2008 11:34 AM, Richard Heyes <richardh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you have attachments, you could use one or more cheap remote servers
> and Bcc: the recipients. Or use the local mail gateway. Bcc:ing will cut
> down on the amount of the amount of actual data transferred to the mail
> server; you can send to say 100 recipients at once but only transfer the
> attachment data once.
I'm not 100% sure on this, so I'd defer to someone with greater
knowledge on the subject than I, but isn't BCC-delivered email
automatically scored higher on the Bayesian scale?
I've always personally hated receiving email with large
attachments, preferring instead to get links to the content on the
web. Plus, that cuts down on the bandwidth the server (as well as
mailservers, gateways, et cetera) are responsible for handling,
because the PDFs or other attachments would only be downloaded by
those who really wanted to have them. However, I know nothing about
the business model with which Robert is working, so it may be neither
applicable or optional in his case.
--
</Dan>
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
<? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?>
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
