From: Aaron J. Grier Date: 19:31 on 03 May 2004 Subject: outlook (not so good) there's plenty to hate about outlook: its virus propensity; its complete bloated being; its bugs that microsoft admits exists but won't fix "until the next version". but what's really pissing me off today is its piss poor SMTP client implementation. once a month marketing sends out a newsletter to a hundred or so recipients . eventually I'll set up a mailman list , but until then they're sent with via Bccs. this would be fine if the client were sane. but it's outlook, so it's not. if there's a bad address in the list  postfix dutifully returns a 501 error, which outlook doesn't deal well with. it aborts sending the email, flashes a vague message to the user, and leaves the message in its outbox, only to fail the next time around... in the same way. which means I end up having to look through my logs to find the failing address and tell the user about it. the user then gets to search through their address book, since outlook shows names and not addresses in the Bcc field. even eudora handles this correctly by allowing the bad address to fail, keeping the message on its outbound queue, but marking the rest of the recipients as delivered, allowing you to fix the failed address . I'd love to move this user from outlook. but until I discover a way to migrate outlook's large address book to another less-hateful client, they're stuck with it. which leaves providing another (internal-only) mail server which blindly accepts all recipients as the only feasable solution. bah. hate. not seething, just a slow smoldering burn of hate...  completely opt-in, mind you.  dependent on getting machines renumbered and our ISP changed   yeah, I'm working on it. however, there's still a problem with integrating the recipients from the user's outlook address book with a mailman list. hate hate hate.  non-RFC 821 characters, basically.  even eudora has its hateful side. but that's another rant.
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi