🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 26 May 2008 16:11:31 -0500  'VanguardLH'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

>"hummingbird" wrote in
><news:5829f34b35e7839b2accb9d56d6113f2@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:21:03 -0500  'VanguardLH'
>> wrote this -[three times]- on alt.comp.freeware:
>> 
>>>"John" wrote in <news:483ab3b8@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message 
>>>> news:g1c5iu$brf$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> 
>>>>> For large attachments, you can configure Outlook to NOT download e-mails
>>>>> that exceed a certain size.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, but it doesn't work. I still get the large mails. Oh well.
>>>
>>>Where did you configure the size threshold?  Did you check the 
>>>appropriate boxes?  This feature has worked for me and many of my 
>>>coworkers for many years.  If I set it to limit received e-mails to only 
>>>download their headers if they exceed, say, 200KB, then it doesn't get 
>>>downloaded if it is 10MB in size.
>>>
>>>> The reason for my request, is that I have seen proxy services for Outlook
>>>> in the past, that activate when Send/Receive is performed. But none let me
>>>> delete from the server, so I was kinda hoping someone here might know of
>>>> one. Doesn't seem to be the case. I don't like MailWasher either.
>>>
>>>A proxy is meant to operate invisibly.  Proxy, by definition, performs 
>>>actions on behalf of whomever is using the proxy; see 
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proxy.  It does what Outlook or 
>>>whatever e-mail client tells the proxy to do; however, Outlook will 
>>>retrieve the whole message whereas other e-mail clients may not.  If you 
>>>want something that is active to go deleting e-mails up on the server 
>>>then use an e-mail monitor, as I mentioned.
>>>
>>>> Thanks to all for your patience.
>>>
>>>You won't get what you want using Outlook.  You'll either need to change 
>>>to a different e-mail client or add something more into your e-mail 
>>>setup than just Outlook.
>> 
>> When you have something important to say, always say it 
>> at least three times ;-)
>
>Motzarella's server has been fucked up for a couple weeks.  It will
>sporadically get slow and start reporting failures to post a message -
>yet it actually received the message but the user doesn't know that
>until sometime later when the submitted post finally shows up as
>available at that server.  AIOE has the same problems.  This is a new
>problem at Motzarella beginning about the time a drive died in their
>RAID setup.  That's why I quit using Motzarella for awhile.
>
>Notice the timestamps.  First one was 9:53AM through Motzarella.  Next
>one was at 9:55AM also through Motzarella.  They said my post had failed
>to submit so I tried a 2nd time.  Then because of the same posting
>failures elsewhere, I quit using Motzarella and switched to Comcast.
>However, even until 10:21AM my posts through Motzarella hadn't shown up
>so I submitted it a 3rd time but this time through Giganews.  That one
>worked, then the ones from Motzaralle showed up.
>
>Hey, if the NNTP server said that my submission failed then I have to
>assume it actually did fail.

Sure, I was just kidding ... I'd noticed the timings and I'm also
aware of Motzy's recent problems - and aioe's. That's life.


-- 
most people don't like to hear the truth,
so they elect politicians to hide it from them.