88V8 wrote:V8
BTW, are you using POP3 or IMAP?
Is the offending message in your Sent folder (i.e. WLM thinks it has already sent it)?
And what do you see (Outbox/Sent wise) if you use Zen's webmail interface?
Thanks to Wasron,jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly, for Donating to support the site
88V8 wrote:V8
mc2fool wrote:Infrasonic wrote:I've had 550's from my domain when sending to my own addresses as test emails (with no attachments), allow listing solved it immediately, which could have been entirely coincidental but I've never had a domain 550 since.
550's are pretty generic and require further investigation, so it may not be the same issue for the OP but the fact that a .js attachment triggered it is a bit damning.
I agree the WLM outbox issue is strange, but could be separate. I'd be inclined to delete the problematic email account and redo it followed by a full restart (cold boot).
Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear. My comment was related to the source of the error message: end receiving server vs Zen's sending server. If it's from the end receiving server then it would come as a bounce message after (attempted) delivery, but as it comes directly from WLM and blocks any further outgoing activity, then what appears to be happening is that the Zen outgoing server is refusing to accept the message in the first place. If that is indeed the case then allow listing at the recipients end won't help as it never gets that far.
So, yes, two separate issues, (a) the Zen server refusing to accept the message, by the looks of it from a policy of not accepting outgoing messages with .js files attached*, and then (b) the WLM outbox problem, which is the killer one, 'cos if a message can't be sent to the SMTP server then it should still be sitting in the outbox for later retry -- or for the user to delete it -- and the fact that it isn't there but somehow still is there is what's totally blocking 88V8.
* there is possibly another issue which is that as 88V8 was trying to attach a "Firefox screenshot" why did he end up with a .js file...
88V8 wrote:
To be continued tomorrow.
mc2fool wrote:* there is possibly another issue which is that as 88V8 was trying to attach a "Firefox screenshot" why did he end up with a .js file...
Urbandreamer wrote:I'm not sure what "WLM" is but suspect that it could be the discontinued "Windows Live Mail".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mail
88V8 wrote:
Then I turned off the firewalls in Control Panel, but no change in the error message.
Then immediately turned them back on.
UncleEbenezer wrote:If one bad message causes other mail not to be sent, that would indicate "WLM" is a seriously defective mailer. It already suggests poor UI design, if the OP hasn't found a way to dismiss (permanently) the error message.
As a general rule, try finding it at %userprofile%AppDataLocalTemp. Delete all files in it via the Delete button from the Home menu, then restart Windows Live Mail.
88V8 wrote:
So, I tried Work Offline and bingo!! five unsent emails appeared in the Outbox, one of which had the offending attachments.
Which I deleted, along with the email itself, and the other four emails queued up behind it
That still still didn't enable me to send, but then we had to go out and when I came back and restarted, the problem had cleared, hooray.
mc2fool wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:If one bad message causes other mail not to be sent, that would indicate "WLM" is a seriously defective mailer. It already suggests poor UI design, if the OP hasn't found a way to dismiss (permanently) the error message.
IIRC Outlook Express, which WLM grew out of, did the same and it wasn't unreasonable at the time 'cos SMTP servers then wouldn't reject outgoing messages from clients on a per-message-contents basis, but rather for more systemic issues (invalid account, improper configuration, broken server, etc, etc) which would be persistent for all outgoing messages until corrected/fixed, so having failed on the first there wasn't any point in it continuing with the rest as they'd almost certainly encounter the same problem.
UncleEbenezer wrote:mc2fool wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:If one bad message causes other mail not to be sent, that would indicate "WLM" is a seriously defective mailer. It already suggests poor UI design, if the OP hasn't found a way to dismiss (permanently) the error message.
IIRC Outlook Express, which WLM grew out of, did the same and it wasn't unreasonable at the time 'cos SMTP servers then wouldn't reject outgoing messages from clients on a per-message-contents basis, but rather for more systemic issues (invalid account, improper configuration, broken server, etc, etc) which would be persistent for all outgoing messages until corrected/fixed, so having failed on the first there wasn't any point in it continuing with the rest as they'd almost certainly encounter the same problem.
Quite the contrary! That kind of issue can still happen, but is neither more nor less likely than long before there was ever an Outlook.
The distinction between per-message and systemic issues goes back at least to the 1980s, even if some things have changed since then like trying to deliver for up to five days to deal with intermittent servers and connections.
mc2fool wrote:Well I've been using SMTP clients since 1982 and it's only in recent years that I've even heard of, let alone experienced, SMTP servers refusing to accept messages from clients because of their content. At heart SMTP is very trusting and server implementations were too for a very long time.
mc2fool wrote:Well I've been using SMTP clients since 1982 and it's only in recent years that I've even heard of, let alone experienced, SMTP servers refusing to accept messages from clients because of their content. At heart SMTP is very trusting and server implementations were too for a very long time.
UncleEbenezer wrote:mc2fool wrote:Well I've been using SMTP clients since 1982 and it's only in recent years that I've even heard of, let alone experienced, SMTP servers refusing to accept messages from clients because of their content. At heart SMTP is very trusting and server implementations were too for a very long time.
For what it's worth, I've had my own domain and run a mailserver on it since 1997. That was a little before email spam became a problem, and my address was public.
By the turn of the century I was filtering based on aspect of contents. In 2001 as an experiment I turned off my spam filtering (excepting a blacklist of spam-factory IP addresses, and got a crop of between 4000 and 4500 spam messages a day for an unfiltered week. It was necessary back then if you had a visible address!
Infrasonic wrote:It's getting to the stage where I seriously think email might slowly die as it's becoming too labour intensive to maintain.
88V8 wrote:As another minor oddity, my wife's end of WLM persistently puts my emails to her, in her Junk folder, even though I'm a Safe Sender. Huh.
Return to “Technology - Computers, TV, Phones etc.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests