Outlook Email Groups - messages don't arrive

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Ghostwriter, Feb 2, 2004.

  1. Ghostwriter

    Ghostwriter Guest

    Hi All,

    I have a friend who has an E-mail group set up on Outlook Express which
    contains about 300 e-mail addresses. She sent a mail to the group informing
    them that her site had been updated, but none of the e-mails got through.
    She's used the same method in the past with success, but now it seems to
    have failed.

    I have tried to figure this out but can't seem to reach a solution. My only
    guess is that the group is too large - 300 - and her adding to it over time
    has caused the problem. Does anyone know about a size limit? I also thought
    her group file may have become corrupted during a crash and thought that
    re-creating it might help, but with 300 she's a little reluctant!

    She's using Windows 98 and if anyone can offer any help I'd be grateful.

    Cheers,

    Brian.
    Ghostwriter, Feb 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ghostwriter

    Dan Shea Guest

    Her ISP may restrict the number of recipients she can send to at once.
    It's a not-uncommon anti-spam maneuver. But she should be getting a
    rejection message.

    Cheers,
    dan

    On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:13:06 -0000, "Ghostwriter"
    <> wrote:

    >Hi All,
    >
    >I have a friend who has an E-mail group set up on Outlook Express which
    >contains about 300 e-mail addresses. She sent a mail to the group informing
    >them that her site had been updated, but none of the e-mails got through.
    >She's used the same method in the past with success, but now it seems to
    >have failed.
    >
    >I have tried to figure this out but can't seem to reach a solution. My only
    >guess is that the group is too large - 300 - and her adding to it over time
    >has caused the problem. Does anyone know about a size limit? I also thought
    >her group file may have become corrupted during a crash and thought that
    >re-creating it might help, but with 300 she's a little reluctant!
    >
    >She's using Windows 98 and if anyone can offer any help I'd be grateful.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Brian.
    >
    Dan Shea, Feb 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ghostwriter

    L Beck Guest

    "Ghostwriter" <> wrote in message
    news:bvm7f5$8dm$...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I have a friend who has an E-mail group set up on Outlook Express which
    > contains about 300 e-mail addresses. She sent a mail to the group

    informing
    > them that her site had been updated, but none of the e-mails got through.
    > She's used the same method in the past with success, but now it seems to
    > have failed.
    >
    > I have tried to figure this out but can't seem to reach a solution. My

    only
    > guess is that the group is too large - 300 - and her adding to it over

    time
    > has caused the problem. Does anyone know about a size limit? I also

    thought
    > her group file may have become corrupted during a crash and thought that
    > re-creating it might help, but with 300 she's a little reluctant!
    >
    > She's using Windows 98 and if anyone can offer any help I'd be grateful.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Brian.


    Does she get any error when trying to send, or do they just disappear?
    Could be her ISP (mail server) has a limit on how many email addresses can
    be on one email. Might check with them for that answer. However, I think
    she would get some kind of error message rejecting the sending attempt.
    L Beck, Feb 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Ghostwriter

    Richard Guest

    Ghostwriter wrote:

    > Hi All,


    > I have a friend who has an E-mail group set up on Outlook Express which
    > contains about 300 e-mail addresses. She sent a mail to the group
    > informing them that her site had been updated, but none of the e-mails
    > got through. She's used the same method in the past with success, but now
    > it seems to have failed.


    > I have tried to figure this out but can't seem to reach a solution. My
    > only guess is that the group is too large - 300 - and her adding to it
    > over time has caused the problem. Does anyone know about a size limit? I
    > also thought her group file may have become corrupted during a crash and
    > thought that re-creating it might help, but with 300 she's a little
    > reluctant!


    > She's using Windows 98 and if anyone can offer any help I'd be grateful.


    > Cheers,


    > Brian.


    Try sending fewer batches.
    If each e-mail is 5kb in size, times 300, that's way to much for the server
    to handle at once.
    Send 50 at a time and see if that works.
    Richard, Feb 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Ghostwriter wrote:

    > I have a friend who has an E-mail group set up on Outlook Express which
    > contains about 300 e-mail addresses. She sent a mail to the group informing
    > them that her site had been updated, but none of the e-mails got through.
    > She's used the same method in the past with success, but now it seems to
    > have failed.


    Her ISP probably spamblocks it.

    --
    Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    Happily slrning again.
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Ghostwriter

    Ghostwriter Guest

    --
    Keep Your Eyes on the Prize and Keep Watching the Skies
    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ghostwriter wrote:
    >
    > > I have a friend who has an E-mail group set up on Outlook Express which
    > > contains about 300 e-mail addresses. She sent a mail to the group

    informing
    > > them that her site had been updated, but none of the e-mails got

    through.
    > > She's used the same method in the past with success, but now it seems to
    > > have failed.

    >
    > Her ISP probably spamblocks it.
    >
    > --
    > Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    > Happily slrning again.


    Thanks everyone, that sounds like sound advice :) I really appreciate the
    responses, kind regards,

    Brian.
    Ghostwriter, Feb 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Ghostwriter wrote:

    [nothing]

    Well, that probably explains the nickname.

    --
    Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    Happily slrning again.
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Ghostwriter

    trout Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Ghostwriter wrote:
    >
    > [nothing]
    >
    > Well, that probably explains the nickname.


    I assume that this is a rather oblique admonition to not begin a
    post with a delimiter?
    --
    "Or just too damn much blinking?"
    trout, Feb 3, 2004
    #8
  9. trout wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    >> Ghostwriter wrote:


    >> [nothing]


    >> Well, that probably explains the nickname.


    > I assume that this is a rather oblique admonition to not begin a
    > post with a delimiter?


    His post was empty, here. My client doesn't fall for the "begin "
    thing that screws up OE, so far's I know there was nothing there. So I
    was having a little fun with that and the nick. Did you see content?

    --
    Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    Happily slrning again.
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Ghostwriter

    Ghostwriter Guest

    I didn't top post ;-) was at the bottom guys :)

    --
    Keep Your Eyes on the Prize and Keep Watching the Skies
    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > trout wrote:
    >
    > > Blinky the Shark wrote:

    >
    > >> Ghostwriter wrote:

    >
    > >> [nothing]

    >
    > >> Well, that probably explains the nickname.

    >
    > > I assume that this is a rather oblique admonition to not begin a
    > > post with a delimiter?

    >
    > His post was empty, here. My client doesn't fall for the "begin "
    > thing that screws up OE, so far's I know there was nothing there. So I
    > was having a little fun with that and the nick. Did you see content?
    >
    > --
    > Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    > Happily slrning again.
    Ghostwriter, Feb 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Ghostwriter

    trout Guest

    Ghostwriter wrote:

    > I didn't top post ;-) was at the bottom guys :)


    Yes, your *post* was. However, your *signature* was at the top.
    So, the sig delimiter ("dash, dash, space, return") was the very first
    line. So, instead of cutting off your signature from the view of some
    browsers; it snipped the entire thing, and made it appear to Blinky that
    you'd sent a 'blank'.
    Thus, the ghost-post comment.

    >> trout wrote:
    >>
    >>> Blinky the Shark wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Ghostwriter wrote:

    >>
    >>>> [nothing]

    >>
    >>>> Well, that probably explains the nickname.

    >>
    >>> I assume that this is a rather oblique admonition to not begin a
    >>> post with a delimiter?

    >>
    >> His post was empty, here. My client doesn't fall for the "begin "
    >> thing that screws up OE, so far's I know there was nothing there.
    >> So I was having a little fun with that and the nick. Did you see
    >> content?
    trout, Feb 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Ghostwriter

    trout Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > trout wrote:
    >
    >> Blinky the Shark wrote:

    >
    >>> Ghostwriter wrote:

    >
    >>> [nothing]

    >
    >>> Well, that probably explains the nickname.

    >
    >> I assume that this is a rather oblique admonition to not begin a
    >> post with a delimiter?

    >
    > His post was empty, here. My client doesn't fall for the "begin "
    > thing that screws up OE, so far's I know there was nothing there. So
    > I was having a little fun with that and the nick. Did you see
    > content?


    Yes; OE reads the post as written. (Sig at the top; post at the
    bottom). By the way, he said thanks, and wanted to send you a lot of
    money. Oh, well.
    OE Quotefix only snips in the replies. The actual delimited
    signature, and either a seemingly-arbitrary number of lines, afterward;
    or up until there's a blank line. So, (for example) when I open a reply
    message to that post, it snipped his sig and his attribution line for
    you, keeping the rest intact.
    You'll no doubt count this as a flaw; but I just consider it another
    facet of OE's charming quirkiness. Like a favourite uncle that drinks
    too much.
    --
    "Never a dull moment."
    trout, Feb 3, 2004
    #12
  13. trout wrote:

    > Ghostwriter wrote:


    >> I didn't top post ;-) was at the bottom guys :)


    > Yes, your *post* was. However, your *signature* was at the top.
    > So, the sig delimiter ("dash, dash, space, return") was the very first
    > line. So, instead of cutting off your signature from the view of some
    > browsers; it snipped the entire thing, and made it appear to Blinky that
    > you'd sent a 'blank'.
    > Thus, the ghost-post comment.


    Weird. I *see* valid sigs. They're just snipped by my client on the way
    to my editor, if I reply. I can't figure out how his sig delimiter kept
    me from seeing his content *in slrn*.

    --
    Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    Stolen SCO Code: http://snipurl.com/stolen
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 3, 2004
    #13
  14. Ghostwriter

    DC Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote in <>:
    > trout wrote:


    >> Ghostwriter wrote:


    >>> I didn't top post ;-) was at the bottom guys :)


    >> Yes, your *post* was. However, your *signature* was at the top.
    >> So, the sig delimiter ("dash, dash, space, return") was the very first
    >> line. So, instead of cutting off your signature from the view of some
    >> browsers; it snipped the entire thing, and made it appear to Blinky that
    >> you'd sent a 'blank'.
    >> Thus, the ghost-post comment.


    > Weird. I *see* valid sigs. They're just snipped by my client on the way
    > to my editor, if I reply. I can't figure out how his sig delimiter kept
    > me from seeing his content *in slrn*.


    I missed his text the first time, too. My sigs are magenta on grey, and
    because his delimiter was above, it blended right in.

    http://dcmoose.fateback.com/screens/slrn.png

    Looks empty, dunnit?

    --
    DC Registered Linux User #1000111011000111001

    Why I love Open Source: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=111601
    DC, Feb 4, 2004
    #14
  15. DC wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote in <>:
    >> trout wrote:


    >>> Ghostwriter wrote:


    >>>> I didn't top post ;-) was at the bottom guys :)


    >>> Yes, your *post* was. However, your *signature* was at the top.
    >>> So, the sig delimiter ("dash, dash, space, return") was the very first
    >>> line. So, instead of cutting off your signature from the view of some
    >>> browsers; it snipped the entire thing, and made it appear to Blinky that
    >>> you'd sent a 'blank'.
    >>> Thus, the ghost-post comment.


    >> Weird. I *see* valid sigs. They're just snipped by my client on the way
    >> to my editor, if I reply. I can't figure out how his sig delimiter kept
    >> me from seeing his content *in slrn*.


    > I missed his text the first time, too. My sigs are magenta on grey, and
    > because his delimiter was above, it blended right in.


    Ack, Shirley - and this not is for trout, too <waving to get his
    attention - I went back and yeppers, I do see the content. I don't have sigs
    configured to be *that* invisible <g> -- they're black on light grey,
    and the most recent level of content is bold black on light grey. Not
    that different at all, but if it really showed up the first time, I
    guess that's a sign of how much I *mentally* block them out when I read
    news. Except for when I consciously want to check one.

    > http://dcmoose.fateback.com/screens/slrn.png


    > Looks empty, dunnit?


    About the same as mine (same grey bg, too), but without the girly
    color... ;)

    Ironically, my own sig, here in gvim, is magenta...

    But here's an interesting quirk -- my *headers* in gvim are a different
    font (sans serif) than the rest of the post being composed (serif, same
    font as your slrn body). I don't remember *that* on other installations.

    --
    Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    Stolen SCO Code: http://snipurl.com/stolen
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Ghostwriter

    DC Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote in <>:
    > DC wrote:


    [...]

    >> http://dcmoose.fateback.com/screens/slrn.png


    >> Looks empty, dunnit?


    > About the same as mine (same grey bg, too), but without the girly
    > color... ;)


    Hey!

    > Ironically, my own sig, here in gvim, is magenta...


    I thought that "once you go black..." }:OP

    > But here's an interesting quirk -- my *headers* in gvim are a different
    > font (sans serif) than the rest of the post being composed (serif, same
    > font as your slrn body). I don't remember *that* on other installations.


    Drove me nuts, too. Fixed with

    set guifont=Lucida\ Console\ 12 in .gvimrc.


    <clickety>


    You have mail.

    --
    DC Registered Linux User #1000111011000111001

    Why I love Open Source: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=111601
    DC, Feb 4, 2004
    #16
  17. DC wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote in
    > <>:
    >> DC wrote:


    > [...]


    >>> http://dcmoose.fateback.com/screens/slrn.png


    >>> Looks empty, dunnit?


    >> About the same as mine (same grey bg, too), but without the girly
    >> color... ;)


    > Hey!


    >> Ironically, my own sig, here in gvim, is magenta...


    > I thought that "once you go black..." }:OP


    I've been sigged in another group, with my statement
    "Yellow-cyan-magenta is the new black." You don't want to go up against
    a true expert on colors. ;)

    >> But here's an interesting quirk -- my *headers* in gvim are a
    >> different font (sans serif) than the rest of the post being composed
    >> (serif, same font as your slrn body). I don't remember *that* on
    >> other installations.


    > Drove me nuts, too. Fixed with


    You had headers differently fonted than body, too?

    > set guifont=Lucida\ Console\ 12 in .gvimrc.


    ><clickety>


    I'll try that. I did play with the ones you gave me backchannel, just
    now. Didn't like 'em. I haven't seen anything like the above, with
    *two* fonts set.

    --
    Blinky Linux RU 4892F
    Stolen SCO Code: http://snipurl.com/stolen
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 4, 2004
    #17
    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. Robert11
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    411
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Nov 2, 2003
  2. patrick m

    my email news groups don't work

    patrick m, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    387
    Bob Hopeless
    Oct 30, 2004
  3. Willem

    messages arrive multiple times from server

    Willem, Dec 19, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    452
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Dec 19, 2006
  4. simola
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    643
    Bucky Breeder
    Feb 28, 2007
  5. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,070
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page