|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Dan DuboskyDan Dubosky Date: Sep 20, 2008 09:34
In trying to hide email addresses of members from others, we send messages
to our organization with the members all listed in BCC. We have done this
using Outlook 2003 for a large number of members (in excess of 200) until
recently when the process stopped working. Everything appears to be normal
inasmuch as the email appears in the Sent folder, but the member do not
receive the email. There are no error messages from anyone.
In an effort to troubleshoot the problem, we sent an email to ourselves and
listed us in CC and BCC. Using either Outlook Express or Outlook 2000 we
get three messages back. Using Outlook 2003, we only get one message back.
We therefore thought that something may have changed in recent updates to
Windows XP that caused Outlook 2003 to no longer operate as it used to. Not
wanting to lose the features of Outlook, we then upgraded to Outlook 2007,
and it works in the same way as Outlook 2003. In other words, it doesn't do
the job.
We have now gone all the way back to Outlook Express, and it works just
fine. All the named members in BCC receive their emails. The tech people
at the email server have no suggestions as to what the problem might be.
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
|
| | 6 Comments |
|
  |
Author: F.H. MuffmanF.H. Muffman Date: Sep 20, 2008 10:06
> In trying to hide email addresses of members from others, we send
> messages to our organization with the members all listed in BCC. We
> have done this using Outlook 2003 for a large number of members (in
> excess of 200) until recently when the process stopped working.
> Everything appears to be normal inasmuch as the email appears in the
> Sent folder, but the member do not receive the email. There are no
> error messages from anyone.
>
> In an effort to troubleshoot the problem, we sent an email to
> ourselves and listed us in CC and BCC. Using either Outlook Express
> or Outlook 2000 we get three messages back. Using Outlook 2003, we
> only get one message back. We therefore thought that something may
> have changed in recent updates to Windows XP that caused Outlook 2003
> to no longer operate as it used to. Not wanting to lose the features
> of Outlook, we then upgraded to Outlook 2007, and it works in the same
> way as Outlook 2003. In other words, it doesn't do the job.
>
> We have now gone all the way back to Outlook Express, and it works
> just fine. All the named members in BCC receive their emails. The
> tech people at the email server have no suggestions as to what the ...
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: Dan DuboskyDan Dubosky Date: Sep 20, 2008 10:49
> Well, do those people at the email server see the messages being submitted
> from Outlook? Get them on the phone, walk through the issue with them and
> by sending to them to verify that their server is accepting the message
> and then delivering it to the right mailbox.
The Office Manager has been dealing with the server tech people up until
now, and although she is fairly computer literate, she has not had much
cooperation from them up to now. The Office of this nonprofit corp. isn't
open until Wed., but I will probably have to contact them myself at that
time. Their initial response given to her has been that we are trying to
send too many BCC's, but if that is the case, why does Outlook Express work?
> If I had to guess, it's a spam filter somewhere blocking it, and the only
> reason OE works and OL doesn't is because OL as a mail client (which gets
> put into the message header) weights the message a little heavier in
> whatever spam filter is blocking the message.
I have removed all spam filtering for the email account, and I know that has
been effective since the organization gets tons of spam. Our only spam
filtering being done is by software in the Office...
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: Dan DuboskyDan Dubosky Date: Sep 20, 2008 11:50
>
> If I had to guess, it's a spam filter somewhere blocking it, and the only
> reason OE works and OL doesn't is because OL as a mail client (which gets
> put into the message header) weights the message a little heavier in
> whatever spam filter is blocking the message.
>
You may be right f.h. Looking at a message header that was received when
Outlook 2003 was still working I can't find any mention of any spam
filtering. Looking at a message header which was received more recently
when using Outlook Express I find the following lines:
"X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0
X-Spam-Level:"
The server processing our outgoing emails may have started using a Spam
filter recently that now effects the Outlook 2003 messages. The X-Mailer is
properly identified in each message. I find it hard to believe however that
the Spam filter distinguished between "Microsoft Office Outlook" and
"Microsoft Outlook Express", but I guess anything is possible.
Could you expand upon your statement that "OL... weights the message a
little heavier in whatever spam filter is blocking the message." ?
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: F.H. MuffmanF.H. Muffman Date: Sep 20, 2008 14:46
>> If I had to guess, it's a spam filter somewhere blocking it, and the
>> only reason OE works and OL doesn't is because OL as a mail client
>> (which gets put into the message header) weights the message a little
>> heavier in whatever spam filter is blocking the message.
>>
> You may be right f.h. Looking at a message header that was received
> when Outlook 2003 was still working I can't find any mention of any
> spam filtering. Looking at a message header which was received more
> recently when using Outlook Express I find the following lines:
>
> "X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0
> X-Spam-Level:"
> The server processing our outgoing emails may have started using a
> Spam filter recently that now effects the Outlook 2003 messages. The
> X-Mailer is properly identified in each message. I find it hard to
> believe however that the Spam filter distinguished between "Microsoft
> Office Outlook" and "Microsoft Outlook Express", but I guess anything
> is possible.
>
> Could you expand upon your statement that "OL... weights the message a ...
|
| Show full article (2.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: F.H. MuffmanF.H. Muffman Date: Sep 20, 2008 14:46
>> Well, do those people at the email server see the messages being
>> submitted from Outlook? Get them on the phone, walk through the
>> issue with them and by sending to them to verify that their server is
>> accepting the message and then delivering it to the right mailbox.
>>
> The Office Manager has been dealing with the server tech people up
> until now, and although she is fairly computer literate, she has not
> had much cooperation from them up to now. The Office of this
> nonprofit corp. isn't open until Wed., but I will probably have to
> contact them myself at that time. Their initial response given to her
> has been that we are trying to send too many BCC's, but if that is the
> case, why does Outlook Express work?
Without knowing why and how it's getting blocked, it'd be pure guesswork.
OE may send messages with fewer recipients at one time in SMTP.
But it's relatively easy to rule it out as a problem. Just reproduce it
by bcc'ing a single address.
>> If I had to guess, it's a spam filter somewhere blocking it, and the
>> only reason OE works and OL doesn't is because OL as a mail client
>> (which gets put into the message header) weights the message...
|
| Show full article (3.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Dan DuboskyDan Dubosky Date: Sep 20, 2008 16:51
> Your troubleshooting steps are really going to be:
> 1) Reproduce the problem by sending to a single user in house.
> 2) Verify with the mail provider that the message was submitted to the
> server successfully and then delivered to the mailbox successfully and can
> be viewed via a web based mail reader. If all of this is good, then you
> need to look at the client downloading the message and determine why it's
> not downloading the message successfully. If one of this isn't good, you
> need to hash it out with the mail provider.
>
Thanks, f.h., for all of your help and for an excellent description of what
you meant by weighting the message.
|
| Show full article (1.57Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
  |
|
|
|