Takes too long to send an e-mail with a 2mb attachment in WLM desk

This is really ridiculous - no av scanner, no anything running in the
background and yet whenever I send an e-mail with an attachment (usually
pics) that is over 2MB it takes minutes, like 5 or 6 minutes.

If I go to my browser and send it from there, it takes approximately 20
seconds! I'm running Hi-Speed DSL, btw.

As convenient as it is to have a desktop e-mail app. why on earth would
anyone use this if it's so sluggish? Or is there (like with most things MS) a
particular configuration that I need to do beforehand?

To send a picture with an email, the picture has to be encoded as text which
adds 33 1/3% to the size.
I am not sure how the picture is being sent with the browser.
I suspect that a smaller version of the picture is being sent by the browser
or just a link to the picture.
--
Ronald Sommer

"Jakobkraft" <Jakobkraft@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1FA273B6-CEAE-4DED-88E8-626E576A95AC@xxxxxx

What firewall, anti-virus application or security suite is installed? There
are some that cause problems even if you have email scanning disabled.
-------
*Report back, please*

"Ron Sommer" <rsommer@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ewIFFSJmIHA.3940@xxxxxx Where did you get that gem from?

"Bob" <bob@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jMudnXUd86ApsGfanZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@xxxxxx How do you think an SMTP or POP server, which can only understand text,
copes with images? Take a look at the source of an email containing an image
(eg. by hitting F3 while a suitable candidate is selected in the Message
list) and you'll see what Ron means. HTTP is different, of course.
--
Noel

"Bob" <bob@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:jMudnXUd86ApsGfanZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@xxxxxx That would be the 8-bit to 7-bit conversion.
--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)

Granted that is a long time but why do you need it sent so fast? Your
recipient is probably only checking mail every ten minutes or so. WLM is
probably optimized for background sending. The web app. on the other hand
has no real choice but to operate in the foreground.

Cheers,

Earle

"Jakobkraft" <Jakobkraft@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1FA273B6-CEAE-4DED-88E8-626E576A95AC@xxxxxx

"Gary VanderMolen" <gary@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OfY#nuNmIHA.4480@xxxxxx If people are still skeptical here's a fragment of a Word file I sent myself
using WLM. It goes on like that.

Cheers,

Earle

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C897D2.B6E5F7F0
Content-Type: application/msword;
name="Die Architektur der DDR, Finale.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Die Architektur der DDR, Finale.doc"

0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAPgAAAAAAAAAA
EAAAQAAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAD0AAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////s
pcEAJWAJBAAA8BK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABgAAhCEAAA4AYmpiapXZldkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
....

Running AVG Free 7.5 & standard Windows XP SP2 firewall...that's all.

"Bob" wrote:

No, my recipient was someone who was waiting for it for app. 5 of the 6
minutes that it took to attach. And, in any case, in this day & age, to wait
6 minutes to attach a 2mb image file with a high speed connection is
unacceptable.
Such thinking is largely why my office switched over to Macs this year; the
advent of 'boot camp' pretty much sealed the deal...but I can't afford to
switch for myself right now, unfortunately.

"Earle Horton" wrote: