«

I e-mailed this Windows-XP-using friend a copy of some pictures I took
of the Great Race on the Waikato River a few weekends ago--four JPEG
files totalling somewhere just under 500K bytes. He in turn tried to
forward them on to the friend whose place we were at, but he wasn't able
to.

Last night I went round to his place to see what was going on. The send
progress bar quickly goes to 100%, but then nothing further happens for
another minute or so, after which a message comes up saying the SMTP
server is taking longer than 60 seconds to respond, and do I want to try
again (in other words it timed out). Trying again produces the same
result.

I finally guessed that Trend Micro Antivirus (which he's got installed)
was taking a long time to scan the outgoing mail. So I decided to turn
off outgoing virus scans, figuring that the ISPs at both ends would be
doing it anyway. (Note I would never turn off _incoming_ virus scans.
Yes, he's got SP2--I put it on personally.)

After making this change and trying again to send the message, this time
the progress bar gradually inched its way up (instead of shooting up
quickly), and after it reached 100%, the message was marked as
successfully sent.

Was there an issue with the size of the attachments? If he'd forwarded
each photo individually, perhaps it wouldn't have timed out?

Thoughts welcomed.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Was there an issue with the size of the attachments? If he'd forwarded
> each photo individually, perhaps it wouldn't have timed out?
>
> Thoughts welcomed.

Normal behavior, NAV will send an ok to the mail program immediatly and keep
sending, but last time I saw it working it wouldnt retry if it failed to
deliver, instead it popped up a warning telling you to open it from your sent
items and try it again.

The issue was his halfassed internet connection took too long to send so the
mail program gave up

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> I finally guessed that Trend Micro Antivirus (which he's got installed)
> was taking a long time to scan the outgoing mail. So I decided to turn
> off outgoing virus scans, figuring that the ISPs at both ends would be
> doing it anyway. (Note I would never turn off _incoming_ virus scans.
> Yes, he's got SP2--I put it on personally.)
>
> After making this change and trying again to send the message, this time
> the progress bar gradually inched its way up (instead of shooting up
> quickly), and after it reached 100%, the message was marked as
> successfully sent.

> Was there an issue with the size of the attachments? If he'd forwarded
> each photo individually, perhaps it wouldn't have timed out?

The problem appears to be with the AV software, ask the vendor.

Personally if I ever set it to scan outgoing messages, I set the timeout
to 5 mins or so... that way it should give the AV software plenty of
time to send out almost any attachment.

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Last night I went round to his place to see what was going on. The send
> progress bar quickly goes to 100%, but then nothing further happens for
> another minute or so, after which a message comes up saying the SMTP
> server is taking longer than 60 seconds to respond, and do I want to try
> again (in other words it timed out). Trying again produces the same
> result.
>
> I finally guessed that Trend Micro Antivirus (which he's got installed)
> was taking a long time to scan the outgoing mail.

No, it's not scanning the mail (That happens pretty instantly). It's
sending it to the real mail server. Adjust your timeout or use a better
designed product which keeps the mail client happy.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> I e-mailed this Windows-XP-using friend a copy of some
> pictures I took of the Great Race on the Waikato River
> a few weekends ago--four JPEG files totalling
> somewhere just under 500K bytes. He in turn tried to
> forward them on to the friend whose place we were at,
> but he wasn't able to.
>
I try not to send pictures by email. I put them on a server
somewhere and make them available to the person that wants
them. Email was not designed for sending files.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

"Enkidu" <> wrote in message
news:434244dc$...
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >
>> I e-mailed this Windows-XP-using friend a copy of some
> > pictures I took of the Great Race on the Waikato River
> > a few weekends ago--four JPEG files totalling
> > somewhere just under 500K bytes. He in turn tried to
>> forward them on to the friend whose place we were at,
> > but he wasn't able to.
>>
> I try not to send pictures by email. I put them on a server somewhere and
> make them available to the person that wants them. Email was not designed
> for sending files.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff

Bullshit.
I've got say that my recent Doctor Who stationery to the Microsoft group is
great - one of the few I've done that couldn't be made better than it
already is. We deal with sight and sound in there. Even those which don't
know a thing about Dr Who in their parts of the world enjoyed the haunting
music etc.
It's past the 1990s - you need to move with the times, Cliff.

On the other hand that doesn't mean that more than 1 MB at the very most
needs to be sent.

E. Scrooge

In article <434244dc$>,
Enkidu <> wrote:

>I try not to send pictures by email. I put them on a server
>somewhere and make them available to the person that wants
>them. Email was not designed for sending files.

Ever heard of "MIME"?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In article <434244dc$>,
> Enkidu <> wrote:
>
>>I try not to send pictures by email. I put them on a server
>>somewhere and make them available to the person that wants
>>them. Email was not designed for sending files.
>
> Ever heard of "MIME"?
>
Yes. Multimedia/Multipurpose Internet Mail *Extensions*.

Email was designed to transfer *text*. Anything else has to
be changed to text in order to be transmitted by email.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

E. Scrooge wrote:
> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:434244dc$...
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>>I e-mailed this Windows-XP-using friend a copy of some
>>>pictures I took of the Great Race on the Waikato River
>>>a few weekends ago--four JPEG files totalling
>>>somewhere just under 500K bytes. He in turn tried to
>>>forward them on to the friend whose place we were at,
>>>but he wasn't able to.
>>>
>>
>> I try not to send pictures by email. I put them on a server
>> somewhere and make them available to the person that
>> wants them. Email was not designed for sending files.
>
> Bullshit.
> I've got say that my recent Doctor Who stationery to the
> Microsoft group is great - one of the few I've done that
> couldn't be made better than it already is. We deal with
> sight and sound in there. Even those which don't know a
> thing about Dr Who in their parts of the world enjoyed
> the haunting music etc.
>
> It's past the 1990s - you need to move with the times,
> Cliff.
>
> On the other hand that doesn't mean that more than 1 MB
> at the very most needs to be sent.
>
Email was not designed for sending files. We can only send
files by email by first converting it into text. In fact,
the underlying protocols will *only* send text.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

In article <434396c3$>,
Enkidu <> wrote:

>Email was not designed for sending files.

Funnily enough, in the days before widespread Internet connectivity,
many people ran e-mail file servers. There was a bot that would respond
to e-mails sent to a specific address, which could recognize various
commands, such as "send me a list of available files", and "send me this
file".

Like FTP in slow motion, for people who couldn't do direct FTP, but who
had e-mail connectivity through UUCP or whatever.

So there is a very long tradition of using e-mail for passing files
around, even predating the existence of MIME.