More space for private messages?

[John Hawkinson]

(I hope this isn't a forum etiquette violation)

Can I request more space for private messages?  Thanks!

[Claudio González]

Of course you can. More likely than not, though, nothing will be done about it...

[Jacob Bugge]

I second that.

What do you say, John?

[Claudio González]

Jacob Bugge wrote:

I second that.

What do you say, John?

My impression is that John and his team are so busy trying to keep things working as it is, that they cannot afford to spend time trying to find if any improvement can be made using this ancient software...

[pwillener]

It is certainly possible; see http://forums.adobe.com/message/1877489#1877489

However, this has been requested before, but there hasn't even be a comment on it then.

I personally think it would be very useful to have unlimited personal messages; many useful information are passed via PM.  It's a pity we have to lose these info by having to clean out PMs every few weeks.

[Jacob Bugge]

As far as I remember, John changed it less than a year ago, when someone asked for more space (if it was I, it was more than a year ago).

[Phillip M Jones]

First, That would mean that there would be unlimited for spammers to spam.

Second, it far more important for system administration to kill all the bugs in the current system.

As far as That is concerned, if you need extra PM space ask admin. to remove my PM space and assign it to you. After the have cleansed the space.

[Noel Carboni]

Phillip, you're getting spam by PM?  That's something I haven't seen.

John, I hate to point out the obvious, but if you are getting so many PMs that you've filled your quota, and you feel you need to keep the information for future reference, why not just save the text in a file or files on your PC?  It's not like the forum provides stellar indexing or search capabilities.

-Noel

[John Hawkinson]

Well, it's clear to me that while perhaps asking was not an etiquette violation, posting publicly sure was unwise! (Especially on the weekend)

The true intent of the question was whether it was considered reasonable for individuals to request higher quotas, not for an across-the-board increase, but I should probably have just PM'd John about that.

Noel, surely you're not asking why I don't build a personal system of archiving private messages when the forum has one for me that works just fine? The answer is that it would take time and effort and be annoying, and if that can be avoided by John C. flipping a switch that takes no appreciable effort, then that's easier for everyone. And of course it benefits Adobe and the forums for frequent posters to be happy and to have convenient use of the forums, so it's not like it's just asking for a gift.

[Noel Carboni]

John Hawkinson wrote:

Noel, surely you're not asking why I don't build a personal system of archiving private messages when the forum has one for me that works just fine? The answer is that it would take time and effort and be annoying, and if that can be avoided by John C. flipping a switch that takes no appreciable effort, then that's easier for everyone. And of course it benefits Adobe and the forums for frequent posters to be happy and to have convenient use of the forums, so it's not like it's just asking for a gift.

I made the assumption (which has been stated explicitly by others) that individual or group quotas are likely not to be changed, and so suggested a possible workaround. While I guess you simply can't imagine not having thought of that, we all sometimes miss an obvious alternative.

I'm sorry you find using your computer to store your data annoying.  I was just trying to be helpful.

-Noel

[John Hawkinson]

Ah, sorry if I offended you. I guess I misinterpetted you when you said "why not just?" and gave you the literal answer.

Thanks for the tip!

I wouldn't want to assume the world is quite as bleak as some have suggested, but we'll see how that optimism turns out when we hear from John C.

As for storing data, well, it's just a means to an end.

[Phillip M Jones]

I haven't used PM in so long beause ever

ytime I did I received spam afterwards. So I quit using it.  If any one wants my PM space have adminstrator give it to someone elese and clense it before reassigning.

[John Hawkinson]

Sorry, Phillip, I thought you were kidding the first time you said that.

PM space isn't that scarce, there's no point in taking yours away if someone else gets an increase. Also, it's not a fixed resource such that anyone could receive your messages or they would need cleansing. The server just keeps a count of how many PMs each person has in their inbox and enforces a limit.

[Jacob Bugge]

And Sent box, John.

[adobe-admin · Accepted solution]

What is a good number?

[John Hawkinson]

I don't know... if you're taking individual requests, presumably that automatically filters out abusers so the size is irrelevent so you can choose something that is effectively infinity, like 10x, i.e. 1500.

If we're talking about the default, well, one has to worry about both giving spammers too much rope [not sure if this is a real issue] and perhaps whether there is some limited global resource [I don]t really know?], in which case a good rule of thumb when we don't know something is to double it (2x) or double-double it (4x). Since we're now at 150, perhaps 150x4 => 600?

Thanks!

[Jacob Bugge]

What is a good number?

Something like 1000 or, even better, 1500 would be nice, John.

By the way, I remember no PM spam.

[pwillener]

adobe-admin wrote:

What is a good number?

4096.

[Jochem van Dieten]

adobe-admin wrote on 11/05/23 17:57:

What is a good number?

As long as people don't have the option to turn off PMs I think the

current number is too high already.

[Claudio González]

Jochem van Dieten wrote:

adobe-admin wrote on 11/05/23 17:57:

What is a good number?

As long as people don't have the option to turn off PMs I think the

current number is too high already.

Why? I would think that anyone who receives an unwanted PM would delete it, not keep it.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Claudio González wrote on 11/05/24 14:08:

Jochem van Dieten wrote :

>> As long as people don't have the option to turn off PMs I think the

>> current number is too high already.

Why?

In order to make it clear that PMs will never be read some people fill

their entire quota. The bigger the quota, the more work that is.

[adobe-admin]

Some people don't want to receive any PMs at all. To accomplish that they fill up their mailbox themselves. The higher the allowed count, the more difficult it is to fill the box.

[Claudio González]

adobe-admin wrote:

Some people don't want to receive any PMs at all. To accomplish that they fill up their mailbox themselves. The higher the allowed count, the more difficult it is to fill the box.

Hadn't thought of that.

A little trick that may make the task a little easier and quicker, if anyone is interested:

Send a PM to yourself, asking for a copy to be kept in the Sent box. This will increase your used quota by 2. Answer the received PM as needed.

[Phillip M Jones]

Jochem van Dieten wrote:

adobe-admin wrote on 11/05/23 17:57:

What is a good number?

As long as people don't have the option to turn off PMs I think the

current number is too high already.

On this I agree with JVD.  (Someone catch JVD while he is fainting).

I have no interest in PM and the only ones I have ever received ended up being Spam or Phishing.

[the_wine_snob]

Phillip, you're getting spam by PM?  That's something I haven't seen.

Noel,

This has happened from time to time, but seems rather isolated. I've gotten maybe a half-dozen, and reported most here, if someone else had not done it.

Not sure how the spammers harvest the Adobe PM info, but it seems to be product forum related, where a few dozen frequent subscribers to forum ____ will be hit, and nothing aimed at others. PrElements forum was hit twice over the last two years, and for the other instances, I never figured out any particular forum link as most others did not report it.

Have not seen any of this for ~ 6 mos., or so.

Hunt