From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C5C1E5.C98BA190
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You're wrong, it's not the mail server.

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:4336cefc{at}w3.nls.net...
     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_0075_01C5C1E5.C98BA190
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








You're wrong, it's not the mail=20
server.
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4336cefc{at}w3.nls.net...
     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>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:nj5dj1psfkm=
gmu48i6iij0d39hs6465m1p{at}4ax.com...Outlook=20
    removed the message from Outlook's Outbox (indicating it =
wassent), yet=20
    the message never made it to Outlook's Sent Items box.Outlook =
lost the=20
    message somewhere inside of Outlook.  Gone, no trace ofthe =
message=20
    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=20
    has not had a problem at all, eventhough a few people are now =
using it=20
    instead of having Outlook feed themain email server =
directly.  Only=20
    people who use Outlook have a problemwith the message =
disappearing=20
    inside of Outlook. 
 /mOn Sat, 24
Sep =
2005=20
    23:17:24 -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   =
Other than=20
    your assertion, how did you determine that the message was never =
accepted by=20
    your overloaded SMTP server?  It sure appears that your server =
is=20
    accepting email and losing it not that you would ever be honest =
enough to=20
    admit
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_0075_01C5C1E5.C98BA190--

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