«

Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP issue
with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner.
I had a 12 page document to send via email.

In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In My
Scans is a 14mb file.

1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the email.
I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.

I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook attachment. I
click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says part 1
of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb file
in the third email.
In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
I clicked - nothing happened.
I open 2 and 3 and they are not attachments but just postscript gibberish.

What is happening ? Is it me ? am I not doing something right ? Should I
save 3 files in a new directory and THEN click that hyperlink ?
NO I didn't investigate the link properties, I deleted the 3 emails. No info
at HP.

Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb in Outbox
??
I assume the 10mb breakup is Comcast limit but to break apart and send in
pieces ???
I've been messing with this for a few hours trying to 'learn' - you may have
heard me yelling .. yup that was me. I finally faxed the pages to him.

Anyone been here already and have a pointer to WHAT'S going on ?

"- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:k0oti8$tsh$...
> Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP
> issue with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner.
> I had a 12 page document to send via email.
>
> In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In My
> Scans is a 14mb file.
>
> 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the
> email. I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
> Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
> actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.
>
> I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook
> attachment. I click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send
> it. It says part 1 of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
> I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
> 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb
> file in the third email.
> In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
> Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
> I clicked - nothing happened.
> I open 2 and 3 and they are not attachments but just postscript
> gibberish.
>
> What is happening ? Is it me ? am I not doing something right ? Should
> I save 3 files in a new directory and THEN click that hyperlink ?
> NO I didn't investigate the link properties, I deleted the 3 emails. No
> info at HP.
>
> Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb in
> Outbox ??
> I assume the 10mb breakup is Comcast limit but to break apart and send
> in pieces ???
> I've been messing with this for a few hours trying to 'learn' - you may
> have heard me yelling .. yup that was me. I finally faxed the pages to
> him.
>
> Anyone been here already and have a pointer to WHAT'S going on ?
>



Comcast has a 20MB limit for sending.
http://businesshelp.comcast.com/help...storage-limits

Also, attachments increase in size by about a third due to encoding.
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP Oct. 1, 2004 ~ Sept. 30, 2010
Imperial Beach, CA

- Bobb - wrote:
> Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP issue
> with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner.
> I had a 12 page document to send via email.
>
> In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In My
> Scans is a 14mb file.
>
> 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the email.
> I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
> Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
> actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.
>
> I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook attachment. I
> click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says part 1
> of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
> I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
> 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb file
> in the third email.
> In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
> Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
> I clicked - nothing happened.
> I open 2 and 3 and they are not attachments but just postscript gibberish.
>
> What is happening ? Is it me ? am I not doing something right ? Should I
> save 3 files in a new directory and THEN click that hyperlink ?
> NO I didn't investigate the link properties, I deleted the 3 emails. No info
> at HP.
>
> Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb in Outbox
> ??
> I assume the 10mb breakup is Comcast limit but to break apart and send in
> pieces ???
> I've been messing with this for a few hours trying to 'learn' - you may have
> heard me yelling .. yup that was me. I finally faxed the pages to him.
>
> Anyone been here already and have a pointer to WHAT'S going on ?

It almost sounds like it's attaching the file twice, in MIME format.
Or, the MIME encoding expands the byte count by that much.

BASE64 is one of the encoding options. The nice article here,
describes how "MAN" is converted to "TWFu" before mailing.
Encoding methods are used, to jam binary (8 bit) attachments,
through archaic 7-bit-transparent email transports.
This method has an expansion factor of 1.33 times.
That doesn't account for all of your bloat. Check the
email tool, to see what other encoding options it might
have. When I used to send attachments from my Macintosh,
to my PC friends, I used this encoding and it seemed to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64

You can try compressing the file with 7Zip before sending. Install 7ZIP.
Right click on the PDF file in the folder. Select "Add to archive"
and pick a file name for the result. In the options, select "Ultra"
compression. It'll take a bit of time to do the compression,
but the file could be smaller, and you can email the compressed file.
The compressed file is binary, just like the PDF is binary, so
both will end up using an expanding encoder method before
transmission.

http://www.7-zip.org/

If you select "Create SFX archive", that converts the archive into
an executable, so the recipient doesn't need to install 7ZIP to get
the PDF back. On the downside, by mailing an .EXE, the alarm bells
on all the antivirus software goes off, and the attachment can
then be flagged and dropped, anywhere along the way. By not using
SFX (self-extracting) option, the file extension stays ".7z" and
the recipient needs to install 7ZIP to unzip the file and get
back the PDF.

Only use the compressed version, if the compression results
in a significant file size saving. Maybe that will get it
through the ISP email limit.

Paul

On 18 Aug 2012, "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb
> in Outbox ??

I don't quite understand your description of your problem, but about
this point, you should be aware that when you send a binary file as an
email attachment, the attachment is encoded by your email program as
ASCII text for transmission. The receiver's email program will decode
it back to a binary file. The encoded file is 1/3 - 1/2 again as large
as the original file (the decoded file on the other end will be the
same size as the original, of course.) So, it's normal for your email
message with an attachment to be quite a bit larger than the attachment
itself.

If you have a very large file, you'd be better off to put it on a web
site for the recipient to download, or use a file storage/transfer
service (Dropbox?) rather than emailing it. Most ISPs have message size
limits - I seem to recall Comcast's was about 15 MB.

Note: Bobb shotgunned his message across the following multiple
UNRELATED newsgroups:

alt.computer
alt.online-service.comcast
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Normally I would trim this list to the related newsgroups but none
of them are related to his issue except maybe Comcast (but that's
not the source of his problem). He should've posted to a
newsgroup that discusses his e-mail client but then it appears he
is asking about Outlook while he is really using Outlook Express,
a completely different and separate e-mailing product.

If Bobb meant to ask about Outlook issues, he should post to:

microsoft.public.outlook.general

If he is asking about Outlook *EXPRESS* then he should post to:

microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general

"Bobb" wrote:

> Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP
> issue with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner. I had a 12 page document to
> send via email.
>
> In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In
> My Scans is a 14mb file.

Many e-mail providers still limit the size of incoming e-mail to 10MB.
Some freebie accounts have a 5MB limit on incoming e-mails.

> 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the
> email. I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!

Not sure why the difference in size between the item shown in the
unspecified folder in Outlook at 24MB and showing at 47MB in the Outbox
folder. You only see items in the Outbox folder while they are being
sent so normally you won't see anything there; however, your e-mail is
so large that the message transfer takes awhile so you can check on the
Size column in the Outbox folder.

All, and I mean *ALL*, e-mail gets sent as plain text. That means all
binary attachments, like .pdf files, have to get converted into a long
text string placed within a MIME part within the body of the e-mail.
Conversion from binary to a text string results in bloating the size of
the attachment (typically by a third, and sometimes much more, in
increase of size from the original). Your e-mail client takes the
binary input source, converts it to text and places that text within a
MIME part in the body of your e-mail. That's also the bloated size of
the e-mail item stored on your hard disk will consume. That's also what
your SMTP (sending) server has to accept to consume for [temporary]
space on their disks. That's also what bandwidth has to get used to
send your message to your sending mail server. That's also the
bandwidth consumed by your sending server to connect to the target
server to transfer your message. That's also the [temporary] disk space
consumed on the receiving e-mail server. That's also the bandwidth
consumed by the recipient to download your huge e-mail to their local
e-mail client. That's also the disk space consumed on the recipient's
computer to retrieve your huge message to retain a local copy of it.
Obviously there are resource consumption along with maximum quotas
involved when sending such large e-mails.

> Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
> actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.

Comcast nor does any other e-mail provider slice up any e-mails. If the
message is under their quota restrictions for the sender's account then
they accept the ENTIRE message and they send the ENTIRE message.
Whether the recipient's account can accept a message that big or their
receiving SMTP server accepts it depends on quota limitations over
there.

If the e-mail is getting sliced up, it is YOUR e-mail client that does
that. As I recall, there is no option in Outlook to slice up large
messages and send them as multiple smaller messages (which the recipient
would then have to merge back together in the correct order provided all
parts got received and provided they used an e-mail client capable or
combining together a sliced-apart message). While Outlook Express has
an option to slice up large messages, there is no such option in
Outlook.

Outlook and Outlook Express are different products. This forum
discusses Outlook, not Outlook Express. If by "Outlook" you actually
meant Outlook Express then ask about OE over in its newsgroup at:

microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general

A problem you might run into if your e-mail client should slice a large
message into smaller pieces to send those all to the same recipient is
hitting the anti-spam filters at the recipient's receiving mail server.
Often multiple messages (aka multipart e-mails) sent by the same sender
that targets the same recipient might be detected as spam or, at least,
as bulk mail and coming at a fast rate (all at once). They may decide
it is spam and filter it out so it never shows up in the recipient's
mailbox. Then there are anti-virus programs that will tag or reject
multipart e-mails as that's an old trick to slice up malware across
multiple records (e-mail items) to avoid signature detection by AV
programs.

> I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook
> attachment.

That's the size of the source (original) file, NOT after it got
converted into a bloated long text string to insert into a MIME part
inside the body of your message.

> I click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says
> part 1 of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.

It sure sounds like you're asking about Outlook Express which supports
multipart e-mails. Outlook doesn't have that feature as it is a poor
and unreliable method to transfer large files. E-mail protocols were
never designed to be file transfer methods. There is no resume feature
to re-download a missing part. There is no error handling if a part
gets corrupted during transmission. Despite your experience with
e-mail, it is NOT a guaranteed delivery protocol. That means the
recipient may not receive all parts of your multipart e-mail and that
means all those other parts wasting their bandwidth and disk space are
unusable to the recipient.

> I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
> 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb file
> in the third email.
> In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
> Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?

Yep, *if* you were using Outlook *EXPRESS*. You use the Combine
function in OE to merge these multipart files. Not available in
Outlook.

> I clicked - nothing happened. I open 2 and 3 and they are not
> attachments but just postscript gibberish.

Looks like their content got corrupted by your anti-virus program on
your outbound test e-mail, during transmission to your sending server,
during transmission from the receiving server (the same one, in your
case), or by the AV program on the inbound e-mail.

I skipped the rest of your inquiry since it very much appears that you
are NOT using Outlook but are instead using Outlook EXPRESS. Ask in
that newsgroup on how to use OE and the various problems when sending
multipart messages.

Below is my canned reply regarding users who are improperly using e-mail
as a file transfer protocol.

--------------------

E-mail is NOT a reliable file transfer mechanism. It wasn't intended or
designed for that. It was designed to send lots of small messages.
There is no CRC check on the file to ensure integrity. There is no
resume to re-retrieve the file if the e-mail download fails. There is
no guarantee the e-mail will arrive uncorrupted. Large e-mails can
generate timeouts and retries due to the delay when anti-virus programs
interrogate their content.

Do not use e-mail to send large files. It is rude to the recipient.
Not every recipient might want your large file. Not every recipient has
high-speed broadband Internet access. Many users still use slow dial-up
access, especially if all they do is e-mail. You waste your e-mail
provider's disk space and their bandwidth to send a huge e-mail. You
waste the e-mail provider's disk space and bandwidth at the recipient's
end. You eat up the disk quota for the recipient's mailbox (which could
render it unusable so further e-mails get rejected due to a full
mailbox). You irritate users still on dial-up that have to wait eons
waiting to download your huge e-mail. Some users have usage quotas
(i.e., so many bytes/month) and you waste it with a file that they may
not want. Don't be insensitive to recipients of your e-mails. Take the
large file out of the e-mail.

Save the file in online storage and send the recipient a URL link to the
file. Your e-mail remains small. It is more likely to arrive. It is
more likely to be seen. The recipient can decide whether or not and
when to download your large file. Be polite by sending small e-mails.

Your ISP probably allows many gigabytes of online storage for personal
web pages. Upload your file there and provide a URL link to it. Other
methods (of using online storage), all free, are:

http://www.adrive.com/ (50GB max quota, 2GB max file size)
http://www.driveway.com/ (500MB max file size)
http://www.filefactory.com/ (2GB max file size)
http://www.megashares.com/ (10GB max file size)
http://www.sendspace.com/ (300MB max file size)
http://www.transferbigfiles.com/ (1GB max file size)
http://skydrive.live.com/ (part of Live/Hotmail services)

This is just a small sample of available and free online file storage
services. For sharing files, probably better is to using [free] file
sharing or synchronization services, like:

http://www.dropbox.com/
http://www.spideroak.com/

If the files have sensitive content and when storing them online in a
public storage area or to guard it against whomever operates the online
storage service, remember to encrypt it.

"VanguardLH" wrote:

> This forum discusses Outlook, not Outlook Express. If by "Outlook"
> you actually meant Outlook Express then ask about OE over in its
> newsgroup at:
>
> microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general

Oops, I was thinking of where the OP *should* have posted his problem
(and that it should be for OE and *not* for Outlook).

"Robert Baer" wrote:

> OT subject:
> How in the (#$$%!@ heck can we STOP these 2 idiots from overloading
> this NG?

I'm seeing this thread while visiting the alt.computer newsgroup.

nym = Bobb
e-mail = bobb@noemail.123
Bobb doesn't use a particularly unique e-mail address on which to search
for his profile via Google Groups. For a search on his profile at GG
(which is on the e-mail address), there's good chance that not all those
posts are from this Bobb. But even if you include all posts made by
someone using that e-mail address ...

When searching GG on Bobb's [e-mail] profile, he has posted 710 times in
"this" group (alt.computer group). You never mentioned in WHICH group
you happen to see this thread. That's over a span of 6 years. 710
posts over 6 years is a mean of 118 posts/year or just under 10 posts
per month. You think that's overloading "this" newgroup?

If you meant me (VanguardLH), my mean has been, so far, in "this"
alt.computer newsgroup around 1.6 posts per month. Yours has been 5
posts/month, so you're here more than I am.

I see about 1 minute later that you decided to repost (as a new thread)
an exact duplicate of your complaint post submitted under this thread.
Similarly, you never bothered to identify the "2 idiots" to which you
were referring. If you're talking about the jumbled mess nym that is
flooding the alt.computer newsgroup (and probably elsewhere), why aren't
you filtering out all posts that originate from the kpn.nl spam source?
I filter out ALL posts that originate from there. I have filters that
look for kpn.nl as the injection node (plus they don't use a proper
injection node reference) and any with kpn.nl in the domain (right
token) part of the MID header. Testing on the injection node in the
PATH header requires a newsreader that can test on non-overview headers.
Testing on the MID header is available in most newsreaders. Filtering
on kpn.nl removes the flood of 200+ puked out by this asshole just
today. Poof, gone.

You could complain to KPN about their customer's flooding
(http://www.kpn.com/corporate/aboutkp...le/contact.htm).
Good luck with that. Since they haven't bothered yet, it's not likely
they care, just like complaining to Google about GG spam and abuse falls
on not just deaf but missing ears.

It is likely that legit, non-malicious, and non-troll users of their ISP
over in Netherlands are local users of that Internet provider so Dutch
is probably their native language and likely used in their posts. Since
I don't speak Dutch, filtering out all posts from KPN means I don't miss
anything from legit posters through KPN. In fact, it's a pity that
there isn't a filter (built into my newsreader or available as a proxy)
that I can use to filter out posts using languages that I don't know
(and I'm not interesting in using translation sites for Usenet posts).

I know and filter out that one KPN-using idiot. I don't what might be
the 2nd idiot to which you refer.

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:k0pd4i$5jf$...
> Note: Bobb shotgunned his message across the following multiple
> UNRELATED newsgroups:
>
> alt.computer
> alt.online-service.comcast
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

I did so becauae I did not know which part of the process I was having an
issue with.
So next time I'll send to each group individually instead of 3 at once ??
Anyhow, I read thru your reply and I now understand what's going on. Thank
you.


>
> Normally I would trim this list to the related newsgroups but none
> of them are related to his issue except maybe Comcast (but that's
> not the source of his problem). He should've posted to a
> newsgroup that discusses his e-mail client but then it appears he
> is asking about Outlook while he is really using Outlook Express,
> a completely different and separate e-mailing product.
>
> If Bobb meant to ask about Outlook issues, he should post to:
>
> microsoft.public.outlook.general
>
> If he is asking about Outlook *EXPRESS* then he should post to:
>
> microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
>
> "Bobb" wrote:
>
>> Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP
>> issue with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner. I had a 12 page document to
>> send via email.
>>
>> In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In
>> My Scans is a 14mb file.
>
> Many e-mail providers still limit the size of incoming e-mail to 10MB.
> Some freebie accounts have a 5MB limit on incoming e-mails.
>
>> 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the
>> email. I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
>
> Not sure why the difference in size between the item shown in the
> unspecified folder in Outlook at 24MB and showing at 47MB in the Outbox
> folder. You only see items in the Outbox folder while they are being
> sent so normally you won't see anything there; however, your e-mail is
> so large that the message transfer takes awhile so you can check on the
> Size column in the Outbox folder.
>
> All, and I mean *ALL*, e-mail gets sent as plain text. That means all
> binary attachments, like .pdf files, have to get converted into a long
> text string placed within a MIME part within the body of the e-mail.
> Conversion from binary to a text string results in bloating the size of
> the attachment (typically by a third, and sometimes much more, in
> increase of size from the original). Your e-mail client takes the
> binary input source, converts it to text and places that text within a
> MIME part in the body of your e-mail. That's also the bloated size of
> the e-mail item stored on your hard disk will consume. That's also what
> your SMTP (sending) server has to accept to consume for [temporary]
> space on their disks. That's also what bandwidth has to get used to
> send your message to your sending mail server. That's also the
> bandwidth consumed by your sending server to connect to the target
> server to transfer your message. That's also the [temporary] disk space
> consumed on the receiving e-mail server. That's also the bandwidth
> consumed by the recipient to download your huge e-mail to their local
> e-mail client. That's also the disk space consumed on the recipient's
> computer to retrieve your huge message to retain a local copy of it.
> Obviously there are resource consumption along with maximum quotas
> involved when sending such large e-mails.
>
>> Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
>> actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.
>
> Comcast nor does any other e-mail provider slice up any e-mails. If the
> message is under their quota restrictions for the sender's account then
> they accept the ENTIRE message and they send the ENTIRE message.
> Whether the recipient's account can accept a message that big or their
> receiving SMTP server accepts it depends on quota limitations over
> there.
>
> If the e-mail is getting sliced up, it is YOUR e-mail client that does
> that. As I recall, there is no option in Outlook to slice up large
> messages and send them as multiple smaller messages (which the recipient
> would then have to merge back together in the correct order provided all
> parts got received and provided they used an e-mail client capable or
> combining together a sliced-apart message). While Outlook Express has
> an option to slice up large messages, there is no such option in
> Outlook.
>
> Outlook and Outlook Express are different products. This forum
> discusses Outlook, not Outlook Express. If by "Outlook" you actually
> meant Outlook Express then ask about OE over in its newsgroup at:
>
> microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
>
> A problem you might run into if your e-mail client should slice a large
> message into smaller pieces to send those all to the same recipient is
> hitting the anti-spam filters at the recipient's receiving mail server.
> Often multiple messages (aka multipart e-mails) sent by the same sender
> that targets the same recipient might be detected as spam or, at least,
> as bulk mail and coming at a fast rate (all at once). They may decide
> it is spam and filter it out so it never shows up in the recipient's
> mailbox. Then there are anti-virus programs that will tag or reject
> multipart e-mails as that's an old trick to slice up malware across
> multiple records (e-mail items) to avoid signature detection by AV
> programs.
>
>> I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook
>> attachment.
>
> That's the size of the source (original) file, NOT after it got
> converted into a bloated long text string to insert into a MIME part
> inside the body of your message.
>
>> I click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says
>> part 1 of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
>
> It sure sounds like you're asking about Outlook Express which supports
> multipart e-mails. Outlook doesn't have that feature as it is a poor
> and unreliable method to transfer large files. E-mail protocols were
> never designed to be file transfer methods. There is no resume feature
> to re-download a missing part. There is no error handling if a part
> gets corrupted during transmission. Despite your experience with
> e-mail, it is NOT a guaranteed delivery protocol. That means the
> recipient may not receive all parts of your multipart e-mail and that
> means all those other parts wasting their bandwidth and disk space are
> unusable to the recipient.
>
>> I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
>> 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb
>> file
>> in the third email.
>> In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
>> Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
>
> Yep, *if* you were using Outlook *EXPRESS*. You use the Combine
> function in OE to merge these multipart files. Not available in
> Outlook.
>
>> I clicked - nothing happened. I open 2 and 3 and they are not
>> attachments but just postscript gibberish.
>
> Looks like their content got corrupted by your anti-virus program on
> your outbound test e-mail, during transmission to your sending server,
> during transmission from the receiving server (the same one, in your
> case), or by the AV program on the inbound e-mail.
>
> I skipped the rest of your inquiry since it very much appears that you
> are NOT using Outlook but are instead using Outlook EXPRESS. Ask in
> that newsgroup on how to use OE and the various problems when sending
> multipart messages.
>
> Below is my canned reply regarding users who are improperly using e-mail
> as a file transfer protocol.
>
> --------------------
>
> E-mail is NOT a reliable file transfer mechanism. It wasn't intended or
> designed for that. It was designed to send lots of small messages.
> There is no CRC check on the file to ensure integrity. There is no
> resume to re-retrieve the file if the e-mail download fails. There is
> no guarantee the e-mail will arrive uncorrupted. Large e-mails can
> generate timeouts and retries due to the delay when anti-virus programs
> interrogate their content.
>
> Do not use e-mail to send large files. It is rude to the recipient.
> Not every recipient might want your large file. Not every recipient has
> high-speed broadband Internet access. Many users still use slow dial-up
> access, especially if all they do is e-mail. You waste your e-mail
> provider's disk space and their bandwidth to send a huge e-mail. You
> waste the e-mail provider's disk space and bandwidth at the recipient's
> end. You eat up the disk quota for the recipient's mailbox (which could
> render it unusable so further e-mails get rejected due to a full
> mailbox). You irritate users still on dial-up that have to wait eons
> waiting to download your huge e-mail. Some users have usage quotas
> (i.e., so many bytes/month) and you waste it with a file that they may
> not want. Don't be insensitive to recipients of your e-mails. Take the
> large file out of the e-mail.
>
> Save the file in online storage and send the recipient a URL link to the
> file. Your e-mail remains small. It is more likely to arrive. It is
> more likely to be seen. The recipient can decide whether or not and
> when to download your large file. Be polite by sending small e-mails.
>
> Your ISP probably allows many gigabytes of online storage for personal
> web pages. Upload your file there and provide a URL link to it. Other
> methods (of using online storage), all free, are:
>
> http://www.adrive.com/ (50GB max quota, 2GB max file size)
> http://www.driveway.com/ (500MB max file size)
> http://www.filefactory.com/ (2GB max file size)
> http://www.megashares.com/ (10GB max file size)
> http://www.sendspace.com/ (300MB max file size)
> http://www.transferbigfiles.com/ (1GB max file size)
> http://skydrive.live.com/ (part of Live/Hotmail services)
>
> This is just a small sample of available and free online file storage
> services. For sharing files, probably better is to using [free] file
> sharing or synchronization services, like:
>
> http://www.dropbox.com/
> http://www.spideroak.com/
>
> If the files have sensitive content and when storing them online in a
> public storage area or to guard it against whomever operates the online
> storage service, remember to encrypt it.

Robert Baer wrote:

> More info; THREE junk postings since my previous posting; so much for
> your "1.6 posts per month" - this is a DAILY thing.
> RECENT POSTINGS
> **
> Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr2000232wiv.4.1345483722243;
> Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!yt 1no33184098wib.1!news-out.google.com!q11ni228877310wiw.1!nntp.google.com !feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet. nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.138.MISMATCH!xlned.c om!feeder5.xlned.com!feed.xsnews.nl!ramfeed-1.ams.xsnews.nl!post-feeder-02.xsnews.nl!frontend-F10-12.ams.news.kpn.nl
>
> From:
> Subject: Slow software (^_^)
> Newsgroups: alt.computer
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC)
> Lines: 1
> Message-ID: <50327335$0$32682$>
> Organization: KPN.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19
> X-Trace: 1345483573 news.kpn.nl 32682 213.75.39.19@kpn/213.75.39.19:56150
> Bytes: 830
> Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.computer:316808
>
> Slow software (^_^)
> **

I loaded up Seamonkey in Ubuntu, pointed it at aoie.org for a test.
In alt.computer, AIOE has the kpn.nl junk on Aug.10/2012, but not later.

I used Windows:Mail and Newsgroups, to set up a new USENET account.
Gave it aioe.org as a server to use. Subscribed to alt.computer.

Then:

Click on alt.computer.

Select Tools:Message filters

The filter is limited to "Subject", "From", "Date", "Size", with the
latter two being completely useless. There's no option to search
on more useful fields, such as MID or portion-of-mid.

In this case, since all the spam has a from of "kpnmail.nl",
I selected the "From" option and used that as a value.

I set the action method to "Delete Message", but it doesn't
really delete anything. Just removes the header from the list.
The filter was really designed for email, and USENET news was
an afterthought.

Clicked OK when I was done. You can see my filter here.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9...nkeyfilter.gif

Next, go back to the menu of the mail/news window and
select Tools:Run Filters On Folders. You should notice
the crap in alt.computer disappear from the header list.

While I set the filter to "Checking Mail or Manually Run",
I can't be sure the filter will remove new spam headers,
without doing a manual run.

You really need a newsreader with better filter rules.

Or, use an NSP server with more attentive administration.
Both AIOE and Eternal-September, remove those (flood) posts.

Paul

"Robert Baer" wrote:

> I have been seeing around 100 posts at alt.computer on a DAILY basis
> from what appears to be two idiots exactly describes as you did ("the
> jumbled mess nym" in both cases).
>
> These posts are in English and the body is an exact copy of the
> subject, and are something like (faking now) "Good times ^_^".
>
> I have heard this nasty (to me) rumor that a filter can be used.
> First,where is it (SeaMonkey)?
> Second, how do i use it assuming it exists (have yet to find it)?
> (by sender?, by something else?)
> Third,since i saw nothing in the posts referring to KPN,how would it
> do that "discovery"?
>
> Thank you very much for your patience in addressing my abysmal
> ignorance concerning "filters".

I don't use and never have use Seamonkey. Ask in the Mozilla newsgroups
for Seamonkey on how to define filters within that product. Mozilla
operates their own NNTP server (nntp.mozilla.org) to which you would
have to connect to get at the Seamonkey newsgroups. Ask them if
Seamonkey can test on non-overview headers.

Somewhere in Seamonkey should be a function that lets you see the
headers for an e-mail or newsgroup message. After finding out how to do
that, you would see the asshole flooder's posts have kpn.nl as the
injection node in the PATH header. Servers prepend their node in the
PATH so the first node is on the right end of the PATH header, the next
server is prepended, and so on until the last server prepends itself
into the PATH header (so it's at the left or start of the PATH header).
When you see the headers, you'll also see this malcontent's MID (message
ID) header also has the kpn.nl domain in the right-id token (after the
"@" character). While some newsreaders let you test on the non-overview
PATH header, most will let you test on the MID overview header. The
problem with testing only on the MID header is that NNTP servers will
not overwrite it with their own value if the client already added this
header. That is, if missing the NNTP server will add its own MID header
but if present then the NNTP server leaves it there. That means the
sender can configure their client to use whatever MID header value they
want, and why I include a test on the PATH header that the sender can't
modify (the NNTP server adds that). If a sender doesn't include their
own MID header, the server adds it and my filter is valid. If the
sender wants to pretend their sending from kpn.nl in their MID header by
having their client enter its own MID header then I my filter is still
valid for eliminating the domain forger (just like I filter out trolls
along with anyone impostering the troll).

In my newsreader, overview headers get tested first. So if kpn.nl is in
the MID header then that post gets flagged. A post flagged in the first
pass doesn't need to get retested in the second pass. My newsreader
will then perform a second pass on the non-flagged posts to exercise any
filters that test on non-overview headers and flags those that match in
the second pass. So the MID overview header gets tested first and has
kpn.nl then the post gets flagged in the first pass. If the MID header
doesn't have kpn.nl, the second pass will catch that idiot's post in its
second pass on testing the PATH non-overview header and finding kpn.nl
is the injection node (i.e., where the idiot's post originated).

My newsreader does not support the XPAT command that lets it request the
value of a specific header in the specified article. That's an
expensive operation which most NNTP servers don't support. So I have to
configure my newsreader to download the complete article which means it
gets all headers. Instead of just getting the overview headers, it gets
both the overview and non-overview headers. That also means having to
download the bodies of the articles. I don't do binary newsgroups so I
don't end up downloading a bunch of files (encoding within the articles
as attachments) that I don't want and which would take a lot longer to
retrieve. I only do text-only newsgroups and their articles download
pretty quickly.

You'll have to ask in a Seamonkey newsgroup on what filters you can
define within that product, on what header types it can test (just
overview headers or both overview and non-overview headers), if it
supports XPAT (but few NNTP servers do which means XPAT support in your
client will have limited or no value) or if you have to configure
Seamonkey to download the complete article (so all headers become
available for testing provided the client lets you define filters on ANY
header). Supporting regex so you can accurately define on what to test
and where in a string to test within a header is almost a requirement to
ensure you don't filter out articles you didn't mean to match on (i.e.,
to reduce collateral damage).