E-mails not getting through

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Rob, May 10, 2004.

  1. Rob

    Rob Guest

    Can anyone tell me whether either IHUG or Paradise Net are
    having problems at the moment processing e-mails? I have been
    sent twice some .jpg file attachments from an IHUG customer
    but my Paradise Net account has not received either of them
    during the last 36 hours. We are sure the correct e-mail address
    has been used, as no problems have been experienced in the past
    with sending each other e-mails. Thanks for the help.

    Rob
    Rob, May 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Rob" <> wrote in message news:409f3971$...
    > Can anyone tell me whether either IHUG or Paradise Net are
    > having problems at the moment processing e-mails? I have been
    > sent twice some .jpg file attachments from an IHUG customer
    > but my Paradise Net account has not received either of them
    > during the last 36 hours. We are sure the correct e-mail address
    > has been used, as no problems have been experienced in the past
    > with sending each other e-mails. Thanks for the help.
    >
    > Rob


    I get this message

    Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ihug.co.nz.
    I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
    This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

    >
    >
    John Wesley Hardin, May 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    Nelly Guest

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:11:36 +1200, "Rob" <> wrote:

    >Can anyone tell me whether either IHUG or Paradise Net are
    >having problems at the moment processing e-mails? I have been
    >sent twice some .jpg file attachments from an IHUG customer
    >but my Paradise Net account has not received either of them
    >during the last 36 hours. We are sure the correct e-mail address
    >has been used, as no problems have been experienced in the past
    >with sending each other e-mails. Thanks for the help.
    >
    >Rob
    >

    I and my friend have no problem sending files back and forth between
    us over the last 24hrs. I'm on Ihug they are on Paradise.


    Nelly.
    If you see someone without a smile, give them one of yours :)
    Nelly, May 10, 2004
    #3
  4. "Rob" <> wrote in message news:409f3971$...
    > Can anyone tell me whether either IHUG or Paradise Net are
    > having problems at the moment processing e-mails? I have been
    > sent twice some .jpg file attachments from an IHUG customer
    > but my Paradise Net account has not received either of them
    > during the last 36 hours. We are sure the correct e-mail address
    > has been used, as no problems have been experienced in the past
    > with sending each other e-mails. Thanks for the help.
    >
    > Rob
    >


    Rob, have you checked the spam folder on Paradise webmail? Login to
    webmail.paradise.net.nz and click the spam tab.

    Athough the spam filter seem to be very good, sometimes a word or file on an
    e-mail can trigger it.

    I'm having no problems on Paradise.

    --
    Mauricio Freitas, Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices
    Bluetooth guides: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=449
    Performance Centre (Pocket PC reviews):
    http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?ContentId=2028
    Handango discount: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/handango_code.asp
    Mauricio Freitas, May 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Rob

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nelly" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:11:36 +1200, "Rob" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Can anyone tell me whether either IHUG or Paradise Net are
    > >having problems at the moment processing e-mails? I have been
    > >sent twice some .jpg file attachments from an IHUG customer
    > >but my Paradise Net account has not received either of them
    > >during the last 36 hours. We are sure the correct e-mail address
    > >has been used, as no problems have been experienced in the past
    > >with sending each other e-mails. Thanks for the help.
    > >
    > >Rob
    > >

    > I and my friend have no problem sending files back and forth between
    > us over the last 24hrs. I'm on Ihug they are on Paradise.
    >
    >
    > Nelly.
    > If you see someone without a smile, give them one of yours :)


    But are your email files 200MB in size?
    Rob isn't saying what the size of the emails he's trying to send are.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Rob

    Rob Guest

    Thanks for the replies to this enquiry about the missing e-mails.
    After a very long wait I managed to talk to a tech. person from
    Paradise Net. I was told that very big e-mails can present a problem
    and that e-mails shouldn't be larger than 1 megabyte. Has anyone else
    had problems with large e-mail attachments not getting through?
    Smaller e-mails are getting through OK from the person who sent
    me the large file attachments. These jpeg pics still haven't arrived!

    I checked the Paradise webmail, and the problem has not been
    caused by the Paradise spam filter, there is no sign of any spam
    having been blocked.

    I also talked to a person from IHUG who said that e-mails sometimes
    may be blocked by the sender's virus program, and they suggested
    that a program such as Norton AntiVirus should be turned off
    before sending the e-mails! The "sent items" of Outlook Express
    will still show the e-mails as having been sent even though the
    ant-virus program "inadvertently" blocked them, even though they
    were free of viruses.

    In the meantime, the e-mails still haven't arrived, and IHUG said
    they don't keep records of individual e-mails sent, so they
    wouldn't know what has happened to the e-mails!

    Rob

    "Mauricio Freitas" <> wrote in message
    news:OqHnc.1069$...
    > Rob, have you checked the spam folder on Paradise webmail? Login to
    > webmail.paradise.net.nz and click the spam tab.
    >
    > Athough the spam filter seem to be very good, sometimes a word or file on

    an
    > e-mail can trigger it.
    >
    > I'm having no problems on Paradise.
    Rob, May 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Rob

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Rob" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Thanks for the replies to this enquiry about the missing e-mails.
    > After a very long wait I managed to talk to a tech. person from
    > Paradise Net. I was told that very big e-mails can present a problem
    > and that e-mails shouldn't be larger than 1 megabyte. Has anyone else
    > had problems with large e-mail attachments not getting through?
    > Smaller e-mails are getting through OK from the person who sent
    > me the large file attachments. These jpeg pics still haven't arrived!
    >
    > I checked the Paradise webmail, and the problem has not been
    > caused by the Paradise spam filter, there is no sign of any spam
    > having been blocked.
    >
    > I also talked to a person from IHUG who said that e-mails sometimes
    > may be blocked by the sender's virus program, and they suggested
    > that a program such as Norton AntiVirus should be turned off
    > before sending the e-mails! The "sent items" of Outlook Express
    > will still show the e-mails as having been sent even though the
    > ant-virus program "inadvertently" blocked them, even though they
    > were free of viruses.
    >
    > In the meantime, the e-mails still haven't arrived, and IHUG said
    > they don't keep records of individual e-mails sent, so they
    > wouldn't know what has happened to the e-mails!
    >
    > Rob


    3MB is more than large enough for an email and should get through, pretty
    slow on dial up. Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Rob

    Rob Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    news:...


    > 3MB is more than large enough for an email and should get through, pretty
    > slow on dial up. Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    > to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.


    As an experiment, I tried sending a 1.1MB jpg file from a
    Hotmail e-mail address. After spending a few minutes loading
    the file, Hotmail put up a message saying that the attachment
    size limit is 1 MB and told me to remove attachments until
    the total size is below this limit. The person at Paradise Net
    also suggested that ISPs are limiting the file sizes that can
    be sent to no more than 1MB. At least with Hotmail I was
    warned that if the text and attachments of the message exceeded
    the size limit, one or more attachments may be removed.

    I recently sent a 2MB jpeg file from a Paradise Net e-mail address
    to an XTRA e-mail address without any problems. But it now seems
    that the file size has "annoyed" either the IHUG or the Paradise Net
    e-mail systems, and without warning, they have either delayed
    sending the e-mails, or consigned them to a black hole in outer
    space!

    p.s. If you compress jpeg files into smaller files for the purpose
    of transmission by e-mail, you also reduce the quality of the
    image. If the image was intended to be used for a big enlargement,
    then it is most unwise to compress it if you want the best results.

    Rob
    Rob, May 10, 2004
    #8
  9. E. Scrooge wrote:
    > Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    > to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.


    speak for your self... some idiots with higher end digital cameras want
    the images to be as good as possible.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, May 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Rob

    Kerry Guest

    On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:30:57 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    <> wrote:

    >E. Scrooge wrote:
    >> Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    >> to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    >
    >speak for your self... some idiots with higher end digital cameras want
    >the images to be as good as possible.



    He doesn't know what he doesn't know


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
    Teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Kerry, May 10, 2004
    #10
  11. Rob

    Gordon Smith Guest

    "Rob" <> wrote in message news:409ffa89$...
    >
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >
    > > 3MB is more than large enough for an email and should get through,

    pretty
    > > slow on dial up. Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too

    lazy
    > > to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    >
    > As an experiment, I tried sending a 1.1MB jpg file from a
    > Hotmail e-mail address. After spending a few minutes loading
    > the file, Hotmail put up a message saying that the attachment
    > size limit is 1 MB and told me to remove attachments until
    > the total size is below this limit. The person at Paradise Net
    > also suggested that ISPs are limiting the file sizes that can
    > be sent to no more than 1MB. At least with Hotmail I was
    > warned that if the text and attachments of the message exceeded
    > the size limit, one or more attachments may be removed.
    >
    > I recently sent a 2MB jpeg file from a Paradise Net e-mail address
    > to an XTRA e-mail address without any problems. But it now seems
    > that the file size has "annoyed" either the IHUG or the Paradise Net
    > e-mail systems, and without warning, they have either delayed
    > sending the e-mails, or consigned them to a black hole in outer
    > space!
    >
    > p.s. If you compress jpeg files into smaller files for the purpose
    > of transmission by e-mail, you also reduce the quality of the
    > image. If the image was intended to be used for a big enlargement,
    > then it is most unwise to compress it if you want the best results.
    >
    > Rob
    >



    Sending files by email is very inefficient. The files have to be uuencoded
    for transmission, which does tend to push the attachment size up. You're
    better off using FTP, which is much better suited for the task
    Gordon Smith, May 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Gordon Smith wrote:
    > Sending files by email is very inefficient. The files have to be uuencoded
    > for transmission, which does tend to push the attachment size up. You're
    > better off using FTP, which is much better suited for the task


    WTF... don't go using good common sense on usenet... next you'll be
    telling me that bad phone lines cause dialup users disconnections,
    helpdesk workers are under paid, and that Telecom/Xtra really are a
    bunch of arseholes.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, May 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Rob

    brundlefly Guest

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    > > Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    > > to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    >
    > speak for your self... some idiots with higher end digital cameras want
    > the images to be as good as possible.


    To sum up
    There are many types of idiots, but only one type of email.
    So the alternatives are to split the files, make them smaller with
    compression, or use a different protocol.
    You would think that some idiots get off on calling idiots, idiots.
    brundlefly, May 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Rob

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    > > Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    > > to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    >
    > speak for your self... some idiots with higher end digital cameras want
    > the images to be as good as possible.


    You're brave bugger to be claiming quality as an excuse. I saw your wedding
    photos, some of which were on the dark side compared to others, and some
    were obviously better than others.

    A jpg is compressed compared to a RAW file, and even so there's still room
    by compressing the jpg image further without much loss of quality.

    Most people are more interested in content of the pictures, just like people
    would be with your wedding pictures (which could've been improved with a bit
    of PSP editing) instead of large resolution large MB pictures.

    Some idiots with higher end cameras will have the best results for
    themselves and to work with. If they want to send large files around, let
    them send them on CDs.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 11, 2004
    #14
  15. Rob

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Kerry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:30:57 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >E. Scrooge wrote:
    > >> Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    > >> to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    > >
    > >speak for your self... some idiots with higher end digital cameras want
    > >the images to be as good as possible.

    >
    >
    > He doesn't know what he doesn't know


    You can't make sense without a brain, so at least you've got an excuse.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 11, 2004
    #15
  16. Rob

    Enkidu Guest

    On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:55:34 +1200, "Rob" <> wrote:
    >
    >p.s. If you compress jpeg files into smaller files for the purpose
    >of transmission by e-mail, you also reduce the quality of the
    >image. If the image was intended to be used for a big enlargement,
    >then it is most unwise to compress it if you want the best results.
    >

    Yes, and if you have a CD burner you could put dozens of uncompressed
    images on it and post it in a CD mailer. Or run around the corner with
    the CD or something. Email is not an appropriate medium for large
    files. Well, there are a lot of low-tech solutions to the problem.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, May 11, 2004
    #16
  17. Rob

    Enkidu Guest

    On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:58:50 +1200, "brundlefly" <>
    wrote:
    >
    >"Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> E. Scrooge wrote:
    >> > Some idiots with higher end digital cameras are too lazy
    >> > to compress the pictures into smaller jpg files.

    >>
    >> speak for your self... some idiots with higher end digital cameras want
    >> the images to be as good as possible.

    >
    >To sum up
    >There are many types of idiots, but only one type of email.
    >So the alternatives are to split the files, make them smaller with
    >compression, or use a different protocol.
    >You would think that some idiots get off on calling idiots, idiots.
    >

    Um, you could take that thought to its logical conclusion and not send
    it electronically at all!

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, May 11, 2004
    #17
  18. Rob

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:55:34 +1200, "Rob" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >p.s. If you compress jpeg files into smaller files for the purpose
    > >of transmission by e-mail, you also reduce the quality of the
    > >image. If the image was intended to be used for a big enlargement,
    > >then it is most unwise to compress it if you want the best results.
    > >

    > Yes, and if you have a CD burner you could put dozens of uncompressed
    > images on it and post it in a CD mailer. Or run around the corner with
    > the CD or something. Email is not an appropriate medium for large
    > files. Well, there are a lot of low-tech solutions to the problem.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    Exactly, Cliff. When people send by email all they're mainly concerned with
    is the content the family in the picture or whatever. As you've said it
    doesn't matter about file size on a CD. There's nothing worth than an email
    taking 20 minutes to download just to see a few pictures, which could've
    seen in 5 minutes and still be quite recognisable.
    It's also a bugger if someone wants to quickly send an email, but can't
    because some idiot's large email is very slowly arriving. I had to delete 2
    such emails (both over 7MB in size) for someone off their Paradise server
    just so they could use their PC to quickly send an email of their own.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 11, 2004
    #18
  19. Rob

    brundlefly Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    news:...

    > If they want to send large files around, let
    > them send them on CDs.
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >
    >


    Why not ride your donkey over and chisel it on the wall of their cave ?
    Why not use the appropriate tools instead of just giving up
    Send no more than the quality the recipient needs.
    Use whatever the file will fit into.
    Its a legitimate use for p2p applications
    brundlefly, May 11, 2004
    #19
  20. Rob

    Steve Bell Guest

    On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:05:00 +1200, "Rob" <> wrote:

    >Thanks for the replies to this enquiry about the missing e-mails.
    >After a very long wait I managed to talk to a tech. person from
    >Paradise Net. I was told that very big e-mails can present a problem
    >and that e-mails shouldn't be larger than 1 megabyte.


    There is no reference to a largest permissible size of attachment any
    more in their T&C. It used to be 10 MB. They do say:

    "5.4 You agree to promptly remove your email from our mail server and
    to keep the space used by your files on our system to one megabyte or
    below. We reserve the right to remove email data in excess of one
    megabyte left by you on our mail server unless we have previously
    entered into an alternative arrangement with you."

    I queried that at the time it was first proposed, and was assured that
    as long as I removed emails promptly (ie within a day or so) there
    would be no problem. But that was more than a year ago, and they may
    have quietly changed what passes for a policy there.

    I routinely send photographic attachments of > 1 MB with up to two
    attaches on the same mail from home to the office (and no, they can't
    be compressed, as they are intended for publication). They seem to go
    Paradise to Xtra without problems.

    I don't suppose they had any characteristic that might attract the
    attention of our censorial police, like a suggestive file-name or
    title? I had that trouble once for period of about two weeks, where
    every attachment with a female name either disappeared or arrived
    delayed by several days.

    With an Amendment Bill coming up, they might be getting a bit
    assiduous in their scanning again, looking for a scandal.

    Steve B.
    Steve Bell, May 11, 2004
    #20
    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. Martin Geers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    680
    Mueen Nawaz
    Jul 17, 2004
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    372
    Smokey
    Mar 13, 2007
  3. Mauricio Freitas
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    522
    Bruce Sinclair
    Feb 10, 2004
  4. Paul Smith
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    780
    Kline Sphere
    Dec 9, 2008
  5. Paul Smith
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    437
    Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)
    Nov 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page