From: Mike '/m' 

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:50:03 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:bqvlk1l7i6sop98aku904r7tlfer6fobsu{at}4ax.com...
>
>> >I think it was a completely proper analogy.
>>
>>
>> The name of the server in that field was the main email server.
>
>uh huh.. and is outlook talking to the machine named in that field as it was
>designed to do? No of course not, instead of changing this setting so that
>you can tell what outlook is talking to and so that error messages from
>outlook reflect that it's norton causing an error instead of
>mail.yourdomain.com they sneak in between and pretend they are not there.
>
>It's very bad form if you ask me. Every ISP on the planet takes heat for
>having crappy mail servers when all the time it's crappy norton that's
>generating the errors. Even you are falling for it blaming either the
>overloaded mail server or outlook for something that most likely is being
>caused by norton.


The slow mail server was not overloaded after all.  The IT guy applied a
hotfix to the copy of Windows the mail server was running, and the server
is responsive once again.  The slowness was caused by a bug in Windows
networking stuff.  I didn't get all the details, but it was something about
Windows not closing network sessions properly or in a timely manner.

No more lost email messages in Outlook (though I still am concerned about
the robustness of Outlook when the SMTP session is wobbly).


Oh, in reply to your comment above -- lots of AV software place themselves
between the email client and the server, and do not change the config of
the email client to show it.   You're reaching to try to
discredit Norton.  You shouldn't have to.  Norton discredits itself nicely.  :-)

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5