Antivirus e-mail trouble

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. 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, Oct 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    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
     
    Richard, Oct 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 3, 2005
    #3
  4. 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
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Oct 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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, Oct 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "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
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 4, 2005
    #6
  7. 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, Oct 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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
     
    Enkidu, Oct 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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
     
    Enkidu, Oct 5, 2005
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    Sure, but it was STILL an add-on on top of email.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
     
    Enkidu, Oct 6, 2005
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:434394ee$...
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In article <434244dc$>,
    >> 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


    But it doesn't even transfer text at all. It breaks down what you type into
    data and sends that off instead.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 6, 2005
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:50:56 +1300, E. Scrooge wrote:

    > But it doesn't even transfer text at all. It breaks down what you type
    > into data and sends that off instead.


    What do you mean by "breaking down into data"?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Oct 6, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <4344ce49$>,
    Enkidu <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> 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.
    > >

    >Sure, but it was STILL an add-on on top of email.


    That's like saying the Internet was never designed for sending files,
    because file sending is an add-on function on top of the Internet.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <>, says...
    > 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
    >


    I recently had a case where this was complicated by the fact that my
    client was using outlook, and had set up outlook to disconnect from the
    net after sending the mail.

    Outlook would send mail, NAV would grab it, and tell Outlook the mail
    was sent, Outlook would hang up the modem while NAV was still crunching
    on the sent mail.

    Let it suffice to say my client is now using pmail, and NAV no longer
    messes with outgoing email (no use, Pmail doesn't send out virii).

    -Peter

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
     
    Peter Huebner, Oct 8, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim

    Sophos AntiVirus Vs Norton AntiVirus

    Tim, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    10,545
    Robert de Brus
    Aug 17, 2003
  2. Nicole Kidman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,212
    °Mike°
    Aug 16, 2003
  3. alexander rickert

    symantec: norton antivirus versus norton antivirus corporate

    alexander rickert, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,326
    James Baber
    Nov 3, 2004
  4. John Penney
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    927
    Rick Merrill
    Aug 29, 2006
  5. dfinc
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,595
    dfinc
    Aug 6, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page