Outlook: Large Attachments

Dell Christopher wrote:
Up until now, I've been able to send large attachments using Outlook
2007. Whether it be several photos adding up to between 12-18 mb, or one
large 12 or 16 mb file, they've gone through fine. However, now I'm
getting error messages that the connection to the server has been
interrupted.

So far, the only troubleshooting I've done is to check the
MaximumAttachmentSize in regedit and it was at 25600. I increased it to
30000, but the problem remains. I also did a System Restore back to
when it was working fine but that didn't work, either. Finally, I
checked the "time out" status in my Outlook account settings and it's at
4 minutes. This error message comes up after only 20 seconds.

For the record, my ISP is Time Warner. Are there any other settings I
can check? All input is appreciated. Thanks!

Can you provide the exact details (verbatim) including error codes of
the error messages.

Fyi...the general rule (with Outlook but unwritten/undocumented)...if
the email requires a timeout of greater than 5 min. the message
shouldn't be sent in Outlook.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Dell Christopher wrote:

Up until now, I've been able to send large attachments using Outlook 2007.
Whether it be several photos adding up to between 12-18 mb, or one large 12
or 16 mb file, they've gone through fine. However, now I'm getting error
messages that the connection to the server has been interrupted.
[]
All e-mail is sent as plain text. ALL of it. Any binary attachments
get converted into long encoded text strings (the MIME part you see when
looking at the raw source of a received e-mail). That conversion and
encoding will bloat the size of the e-mail by, at least, a third more.
So those 12-18MB photos you attached will enlarge your e-mails by more

Although he didn't explicitly say so, I think the OP is implying that
he's not sending files any bigger than he was before it stopped working.

than 16-23MB. Many e-mail providers only permit 10MB for message size
when sending. It's not always an exact byte count check so you may
simply have gotten away with abusing your e-mail quotas. Check with
your e-mail provider as to what are their quotas regarding maximum sent
message size (and that's AFTER adding a signature, inline attachments
that need to get converted to text strings, like images, and attachments
that also have to get converted to long text strings).

Could also be total allowance over several emails in, say, a day. Though
I doubt it.

You should be including both a text and HTML version of your message in
your outbound e-mails. That will double the size of your e-mail but
only for the text you entered. E-mail messages are anywhere from 5KB to
30KB in size so doubling them up to 60KB is not a problem. This makes

No, but if you know which format your recipient can handle, I see no
point in sending both. (Also, you should not be sending an HTML one if
your message doesn't warrant it, i. e. is plain text.)

sure that recipients that have their e-mail client to read all messages
as plain text or are using clients that don't support HTML can read your

(If you're in that sort of doubt, I wouldn't send HTML email at all.)

e-mails sent to them. It's the attachments (inline or attached) that
cause the huge bloat in the message size.

Are you sure your recipients have e-mail accounts that permit messages

He hasn't actually _said_ that he's sending to different recipients to
the ones he was sending to when it _did_ work.

that large? Are you sure your recipients always want to get e-mails

[Are you sure they don't (-:?]

that large? Why don't you store the photos in online file storage (lots
of free services out there plus many ISPs provide "personal web page
space" that can be used to store files) Then just put links to the
photos in your e-mails. Your way consumes the recipient's disk quota in
their e-mail account, wastes their time to download, and wastes their
disk space on photos they may not want or don't want to look at right

I would agree if you're sending to multiple recipients. If you're only
sending to one, there's no advantage to using a third party, other than
if they don't want them - in which case you shouldn't be sending them
anyway.

now. Your e-mails would be a hell of a lot smaller, take a lot less
time to download by the recipients (e-mail is a s-l-o-w file transfer
medium with no resume and no error recovery - and there still are users
on dial-up). Be polite to your recipients by giving them links to large
files rather than trying to choke down on them some rather huge e-mails.

All good advice, but more suited to a guide to netiquette than this
specific case - you're making assumptions about the OP and his
recipients.

Do you have your anti-virus software interrogating both your incoming
and outbound e-mails? It's superfluous but many users enable that
feature. That interrogation takes time which causes delays on which the
client or server may timeout.

Though wouldn't explain why it's suddenly _started_ happening. (They
also, given half a chance, add a malformed and erroneous advertisement -
"scanned by AVG" or whatever - onto the end; this has even been known to
break the recovery of attachments, though mainly in multipart messages
which aren't used as much as they used to be.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`Where a calculator on the Eniac is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps
weigh 1.5 tons.' Popular Mechanics, March 1949 (quoted in Computing 1999-12-16)

In message , Mayayana
writes:
| For attachments, different encoding schemes are available. On
| my old client, I would be using BASE64 (~33% overhead).
|

What different schemes are there? I'm not aware
of anything other than Base64. Email is a text-based
format, with a standard protocol. Base64 allows all
256 byte values to be transferred as common text
characters by breaking each 3 bytes (8 bits each)
into 4 groups of 6 bits, allowing each 6-bit value
to be represented by a standard character so that
there are no nulls, carriage returns, etc.

Anything attached or embedded is converted to
Base64. The rendering software assumes Base64.
It's a fairly old and primitive system. I don't know of
any other method one could use that would be
recognized by standard email programs.


There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode. An increasing
number of email clients don't know how to recover a UUcoded attachment
these days, though. It used to be UUcode or MIME, with UUcode initially
the default, then MIME. (I _think_ MIME and Base64 may be the same
thing, or one a subset of the other; UUcode certainly isn't.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's a dead horse that's been flogged and turned into a lasagne. It's useful
life is done. - Alison Graham (on "A Question of Sport"), RT, 2-8 March 2013

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:09:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.

I think you mean UUencode and Uudecode. I don't think there's such a thing
as UUcode.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:53:31 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:09:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.

I think you mean UUencode and Uudecode. I don't think there's such a thing
as UUcode.


I don't think so either, which is why I said what I did.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:32:31 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:53:31 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:09:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.

I think you mean UUencode and Uudecode. I don't think there's such a thing
as UUcode.


I don't think so either, which is why I said what I did.

I should have prefaced my response with "Like Ken said, " because I was
really just reinforcing what you said.

--

Char Jackson

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:35:42 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:32:31 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:53:31 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:09:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.

I think you mean UUencode and Uudecode. I don't think there's such a thing
as UUcode.


I don't think so either, which is why I said what I did.

I should have prefaced my response with "Like Ken said, " because I was
really just reinforcing what you said.


OK, no big deal.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:35:42 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:32:31 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:53:31 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:09:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.

I think you mean UUencode and Uudecode. I don't think there's such a thing
as UUcode.


I don't think so either, which is why I said what I did.

I should have prefaced my response with "Like Ken said, " because I was
really just reinforcing what you said.


OK, no big deal.

When you've UUencoded something, what do you call what you end up with?
And what do you UUdecode?

In other words, to me encode and decode are verbs, with code (noun) the
result of encoding, and something I can then decode. With UU stuck on
the beginning, they refer to a particular method of encoding and
decoding.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(If you are unlucky you may choose one of the old-fashioned ones [language
schools] and be taught English as it should be, and not as it is, spoken.)
George Mikes, "How to be Decadent" (1977).

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:22:24 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:35:42 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:32:31 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:53:31 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:09:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:16:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

There are I think several others: at least one is UUcode.


Is that Unitarian Universalist Code? g

I think you mean UUencode.

No, UUcode; you UUencode it, and I UUdecode it.

I think you mean UUencode and Uudecode. I don't think there's such a thing
as UUcode.


I don't think so either, which is why I said what I did.

I should have prefaced my response with "Like Ken said, " because I was
really just reinforcing what you said.


OK, no big deal.

When you've UUencoded something, what do you call what you end up with?

You end up with data that has been UUencoded.

And what do you UUdecode?

You UUdecode the UUencoded data.


--

Char Jackson