Read reciept stuck in outbox

[Andrew]

Folks - I'm running outlook 2003 and getting mail from
external ISP.
I opened an old outlook data file I archived from where I
work. I read a mail that sent a 'read reciept'. It can't
be sent as the return address is invalid (an internal one
for where I work).
I can't see it in the outbox and every bloody time outlook
does a send recieve it comes up with:
Sending reported an error (0x80040201) Unknown Error.

I know what it is! I just can't see it to delete it!
I set the delete unsent messages after 1 day, but it's
still there 3 days later....

Any ideas?

 

[Jim C]

IMHO, the real problem here is that Microsoft, for some unknown but very
ridiculous reason, decided to make read receipts be hidden objects that sit
in the Outbox in Outlook 2003. So if for some reason your ISP won't take
read receipts because of the NULL FROM address (<>), there is no way to stop
it for the average user without installing a third party piece of software.
There may be some other way, but I haven't seen it posted by any MVP's
around here.

I've read post after post of this problem, trying to find the answer, and
all they do is say "Tell your ISP he is wrong". Well he may be wrong, but
it might not change for a long time. In the meantime, you have to live with
that message.

-Jim C

 

[Guest]

Bloody Microsoft. They try to be a little too helpful. I
want to see EVERYTHING that outlook sends. It's not much
to ask is it? I mean, it's my PC that's doing the sending.
What else are they hiding?

I'm going to ask one of my programming buddies to look
into this and see what can be done. There's got to be a
little hack you can do to show these hidden items.....

Thanks for your help o this. I'll post any fixes I may be
able to get.

 

[Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]]

So why is it that when an ISP violates the Internet mail standards and
causes a problem, the real problem is with Microsoft?

I agree that read-receipts should be put in the outbox, and am trying to
convince others to do that. But this wouldn't even be an issue if the ISPs
involved would simply follow the very clear Internet standards on this. Why
is it that you can buy any telephone, plug it in your wall, and have it
work? Standards. Were your phone company not to follow those standards and
you plugged your phone in and it didn't work, who would be at fault? The
phone company, not the maker of the phone. The same applies here. Complain
to your ISP about their refusal to follow the Internet mail standards. If
ISPs all do their own thing, rather than following the standards, the mail
system will break down.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I agree that read-receipts should be put in the outbox, and am trying
to convince others to do that. But this wouldn't even be an issue if
the ISPs involved would simply follow the very clear Internet
standards on this. Why is it that you can buy any telephone, plug it
in your wall, and have it work? Standards.

This is rich! Someone advocating standards adherence while working for a
company that subverts standards at every opportunity.

 

[Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]]

It is *much* more fun to flame someone than to be reasonable, isn't it?
Were Microsoft to be subverting standards at every opportunity you wouldn't
have been able to post this little rant with OE, would you? Nor would you
be able to use OE or Outlook to send mail via SMTP or receive it with POP3.

Yes, there are areas in which we're not necessarily standards-compliant;
sometimes they're bugs, sometimes they're standards changing after we
shipped, sometimes it's just ignorance of the existence of the standard. In
no case, however, have I ever heard someone advocate violating a standard in
order to "subvert" it. We're not the only company that isn't perfectly
compliant - just the one that everyone loves to take shots at. The reality
is that there is often a disconnect between the standards timeframe (do you
know how long it took the DRUMS working group to come up with RFCs 2821 and
2822? Years! I know, because I was involved) and the timeframe in which a
company needs to ship software. This leads to companies striking out on
their own when the standards aren't done, or implementing to a draft of a
standard that then changes. It's just the way the world works, with no evil
intent.

--
Jeff Stephenson
Outlook Development
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights

 

[Brian Tillman]

It is *much* more fun to flame someone than to be reasonable, isn't
it? Were Microsoft to be subverting standards at every opportunity
you wouldn't have been able to post this little rant with OE, would
you? Nor would you be able to use OE or Outlook to send mail via
SMTP or receive it with POP3.

Rich Text - Microsoft Proprietary. Front Page - All kinds of so-called HTML
that is recognizable only by IE and can't pass a validator. MS Java
engine - so bad that Sun forced MS to drop it. Locking Netscape out of
WIndows until forced. Need more examples? How about C programmers so
stupid they never check for buffer overruns? I could go on, but what's the
point?

Yes, there are areas in which we're not necessarily
standards-compliant; sometimes they're bugs, sometimes they're
standards changing after we shipped, sometimes it's just ignorance of
the existence of the standard.

Yeah, right. I have a bridge to sell you.

In no case, however, have I ever
heard someone advocate violating a standard in order to "subvert" it.

Front Page is a HUGE example.

We're not the only company that isn't perfectly compliant - just the
one that everyone loves to take shots at.

That's because MS is constantly on the lookout for ways to break other apps
while their own continue to work.

 

[Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]]

Rich Text - Microsoft Proprietary.

And developed before HTML became a standard in email - how were the
developers to write to a non-existent standard? It continues because we
can't just drop it (can you say "backward compatibility"?), but you'll note
that a new installation of Outlook uses HTML as its default.

MS Java engine - so bad that Sun forced MS to drop it.

Java a standard? Hello!? As I recall, Sun pulled back on the effort to
standardize Java because doing so would have required them to relinquish
control of their *proprietary* language. Were it a standard, how could Sun
have forced MS to pull their engine? Do you also rant against Sun for using
proprietary technology, or is it only wrong when Microsoft does so?

That's because MS is constantly on the lookout for ways to break other apps
while their own continue to work.

Your opinion, to which you're entitled. I obviously will never change that,
but I can tell you as someone who actually works here, and with the people
you assume to be evil, that you're absolutely wrong. But hey, I'm just one
of the zombies, right?