From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_040C_01C5C1B2.F689E9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   You are still describing a broken email server that accepted an email =
then lost it.  As you already noted your server is overloaded, maybe = your
upgrade to it will help you with your email server problems.  Maybe = you
should consider a higher quality email server like Exchange.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:nj5dj1psfkmgmu48i6iij0d39hs6465m1p{at}4ax.com...
  Outlook removed the message from Outlook's Outbox (indicating it was
  sent), yet the message never made it to Outlook's Sent Items box.
  Outlook lost the message somewhere inside of Outlook.  Gone, no trace =
of
  the message at all.  It's not in Outlook anywhere, and the server
  doesn't have it.  These are messages to clients with quotes, and other
  information.  If the email server was the culprit, the message should
  still be in one of the Outlook boxes (most likely Outlook's Outbox
  because it wasn't sent).

  Postfix feeding the mail server has not had a problem at all, even
  though a few people are now using it instead of having Outlook feed =
the
  main email server directly.  Only people who use Outlook have a =
problem
  with the message disappearing inside of Outlook. =20

   /m


  On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:17:24 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >   Other than your assertion, how did you determine that the message =
was never accepted by your overloaded SMTP server?  It sure appears that =
your server is accepting email and losing it not that you would ever be =
honest enough to admit that.
  >
  >Rich
  >
  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:ae1cj11en1g74dhk25h4bchng01uvlset0{at}4ax.com...
  >
  >  Man, that problem drives me crazy at work.  Our email server is
  >  overloaded and will be upgraded in a couple of weeks (40% annual =
growth
  >  in a company creates interesting problems...).  Until then, I am =
greeted
  >  my POP3 and SMTP timeouts.  The SMTP timeouts are particularly =
egregious
  >  with Outlook.  Outlook says the message is sent, but the message =
was
  >  never accepted by the email server.
  >
  >  One of the Software Engineers on my team sent me an email that he =
was
  >  taking a two days vacation.  Outlook said it was sent fine, but the
  >  email server never accepted it.   Needless, I became *very* =
concerned
  >  when he didn't show up for two days....
  >
  >   /m  email...>
------=_NextPart_000_040C_01C5C1B2.F689E9A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You are
still describing a =
broken=20
email server that accepted an email then lost it.  As you already = noted=20
your server is overloaded, maybe your upgrade to it will help you with = your=20
email server problems.  Maybe you should consider a higher quality
= email=20
server like Exchange.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:nj5dj1psfkm=
gmu48i6iij0d39hs6465m1p{at}4ax.com...Outlook=20
  removed the message from Outlook's Outbox (indicating it wassent), =
yet the=20
  message never made it to Outlook's Sent Items box.Outlook lost the =
message=20
  somewhere inside of Outlook.  Gone, no trace ofthe message at =

  all.  It's not in Outlook anywhere, and the serverdoesn't =
have=20
  it.  These are messages to clients with quotes, and=20
  otherinformation.  If the email server was the culprit, the =
message=20
  shouldstill be in one of the Outlook boxes (most likely Outlook's=20
  Outboxbecause it wasn't sent).Postfix
feeding the mail =
server has=20
  not had a problem at all, eventhough a few people are now using it =
instead=20
  of having Outlook feed themain email server directly.  Only =
people=20
  who use Outlook have a problemwith the message disappearing inside =
of=20
  Outlook. 
 /mOn Sat, 24
Sep 2005 =
23:17:24 -0700,=20
  "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   Other than your =
assertion, how=20
  did you determine that the message was never accepted by your =
overloaded SMTP=20
  server?  It sure appears that your server is accepting email and =
losing=20
  it not that you would ever be honest enough to admit=20
 
that.>>Rich>> 
"Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:ae1cj11en1g=
74dhk25h4bchng01uvlset0{at}4ax.com...>> =20
  Man, that problem drives me crazy at work.  Our email server=20
  is>  overloaded and will be upgraded in a
couple of weeks =
(40%=20
  annual growth>  in a company creates interesting=20
  problems...).  Until then, I am
greeted>  my POP3 and =
SMTP=20
  timeouts.  The SMTP timeouts are particularly =
egregious> =20
  with Outlook.  Outlook says the message is sent, but the message=20
  was>  never accepted by the email =
server.>> =20
  One of the Software Engineers on my team sent me an email that he=20
  was>  taking a two days vacation. 
Outlook said it =
was sent=20
  fine, but the>  email server never accepted =
it.  =20
  Needless, I became *very* concerned>  when he
didn't show =
up for=20
  two days....>>  
/m<and don't ask me about=20
  Outlook's non-compliance with the RFC's for> =20
email...>

------=_NextPart_000_040C_01C5C1B2.F689E9A0--

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