From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0455_01C5C1E3.A017D2E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Any of a number of reasons.  It's an option.  It was deleted.  You =
are making it up.  So far all we have is the hearsay of your employee = who
claimed to have sent you an email that you have no evidence of.  No = doubt
that to keep to your adgenda you would post a claim that the = message
magically disappeared within Outlook because that is the only = story that
works for you.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:4hsdj11c2q68an6mbs4tht3qaqcasidj7r{at}4ax.com...

  If the server accepted the email and lost it, as you suggest, why =
isn't
  the message in Outlook's Sent Items box?

  The problem I describe is two-fold, though you conveniently overlook =
the
  part of the problem involving Outlook.   Why does Outlook lose a =
message
  after the server accepts it?


   /m




  On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:24:43 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >   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_0455_01C5C1E3.A017D2E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Any of a
number of =
reasons.  It's=20
an option.  It was deleted.  You are making it
up.  So = far all we=20
have is the hearsay of your employee who claimed to have sent you an = email that=20
you have no evidence of.  No doubt that to keep to your adgenda
you = would=20
post a claim that the message magically disappeared within Outlook = because that=20
is the only story that works for you.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:4hsdj11c2q6=
8an6mbs4tht3qaqcasidj7r{at}4ax.com...If=20
  the server accepted the email and lost it, as you suggest, why =
isn'tthe=20
  message in Outlook's Sent Items box?The problem I
describe is=20
  two-fold, though you conveniently overlook thepart of the problem=20
  involving Outlook.   Why does Outlook lose a =
messageafter the=20
  server accepts
it? /mOn
Sun, 25 =
Sep 2005=20
  09:24:43 -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   You =
are still=20
  describing a broken email server that accepted an email then lost =
it.  As=20
  you already noted your server is overloaded, maybe your upgrade to it =
will=20
  help you with your email server problems.  Maybe you should =
consider a=20
  higher quality email server like=20
 
Exchange.>>Rich>> 
"Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:nj5dj1psfkm=
gmu48i6iij0d39hs6465m1p{at}4ax.com...> =20
  Outlook removed the message from Outlook's Outbox (indicating it=20
  was>  sent), yet the message never made it to Outlook's =
Sent Items=20
  box.>  Outlook lost the message somewhere inside of =
Outlook. =20
  Gone, no trace of>  the message at
all.  It's not in =
Outlook=20
  anywhere, and the server>  doesn't have
it.  These =
are=20
  messages to clients with quotes, and other>  =
information.  If=20
  the email server was the culprit, the message should>  =
still be in=20
  one of the Outlook boxes (most likely Outlook's
Outbox>  =
because=20
  it wasn't sent).>>  Postfix
feeding the mail server =
has not=20
  had a problem at all, even>  though a few
people are now =
using it=20
  instead of having Outlook feed the>  main email server=20
  directly.  Only people who use Outlook have a =
problem>  with=20
  the message disappearing inside of Outlook.  =
>>  =20
  /m>>>  On
Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:17:24 -0700, =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:>> 
>   Other than =
your=20
  assertion, how did you determine that the message was never accepted =
by your=20
  overloaded SMTP server?  It sure appears that your server is =
accepting=20
  email and losing it not that you would ever be honest enough to admit=20
  that.>  >> 
>Rich> =20
  >>  >  "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. =20
  Our email server is>  > 
overloaded and will be =
upgraded=20
  in a couple of weeks (40% annual growth> 
>  in a =
company=20
  creates interesting problems...).  Until then, I am =
greeted> =20
  >  my POP3 and SMTP timeouts.  The SMTP timeouts are =
particularly=20
  egregious>  >  with
Outlook.  Outlook says =
the=20
  message is sent, but the message was> 
>  never =
accepted=20
  by the email server.> 
>>  >  One =
of the=20
  Software Engineers on my team sent me an email that he =
was> =20
  >  taking a two days vacation.  Outlook said it was sent =
fine,=20
  but the>  >  email server never
accepted =
it.  =20
  Needless, I became *very* concerned> 
>  when he =
didn't=20
  show up for two days....> 
>>  =
>  =20
  /m<and don't ask me about Outlook's non-compliance with the RFC's=20
  for>  > 
email...>

------=_NextPart_000_0455_01C5C1E3.A017D2E0--

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