L
Lynn Hunter
I want a shorter intervals between email arrivals. Is there a setting for
this?
this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
BillW50
In DL typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:06:07 -0000:
Really? I never heard of this problem. I have set Outlook 97/2000 for 5
minutes and I don't ever recall a problem.
Depends on version of Outlook, but start looking under Options
Do not set for less than 10 minutes otherwise resource problems could
occur
Really? I never heard of this problem. I have set Outlook 97/2000 for 5
minutes and I don't ever recall a problem.
V
VanguardLH
BillW50 said:In DL typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:06:07 -0000:
Really? I never heard of this problem. I have set Outlook 97/2000 for 5
minutes and I don't ever recall a problem.
The most common problem of overly short polling intervals is of still
performing one mail poll when another comes along that is scheduled to
start. The result is the first mail poll gets aborted before it
finishes because a new one started. Outlook may end up re-retrieving
the same e-mails because it retrieved them once but its mail session got
aborted before it could delete them from the server and before it
updated its UID list.
If your retrieved e-mails are huge in size, it takes longer for them to
download. If they are large enough to take long enough, they could
still be getting retrieved when the next mail poll is scheduled to
occur. Bam, you step on your current mail session and abort it with a
newly started mail session.
Also, if you get so many e-mails at a high rate thinking that you need
to have a short polling interval to get them as soon as they arrive, you
still won't be able to read all those e-mails as they come in fast and
furious. So the polling interval can still be longer because it'll take
you some time to get reading through the ones you just got. 5 minutes,
or less, is considered abusive to the e-mail provider because if you
were getting e-mails as faster or faster than that you still wouldn't
get done processing them yourself that quick. 10 minutes is considered
a polite load on the mail server. If it's for your home e-mail account,
just how many e-mails do you get in a day that a 15- or 20-minute
polling interval can't handle?
After all, although you set Outlook to poll at 10-, 15-, or 20-minute
intervals, you don't have to be concerned that your host won't be
powered up that long for you to check for new e-mails. No matter what
polling interval is configured in Outlook, it always does a poll on
their zeroeth minute. That is, if polling is enabled, and after Outlook
loads and is ready, it will do an immediate poll. So as soon as you
start Windows and can load Outlook is when you do your first mail poll.
Based on the volume of e-mails you get *thereafter* and how fast you can
read them, just how fast do you need to poll again?
E-mail is NOT a chatting venue where immediacy is expected and required
to continue a discussion. For immediacy, use a messenger client.
P
Peter Foldes
Never too late to have a problem with your 5 minute setting
B
BillW50
In VanguardLH typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:20:49 -0600:
Well I generally use IMAP servers instead of POP, does that make a
difference? And if mail servers which one usually pays for doesn't like
polling too often, why are they not complaining and asking users to poll
less?
The most common problem of overly short polling intervals is of still
performing one mail poll when another comes along that is scheduled to
start. The result is the first mail poll gets aborted before it
finishes because a new one started. Outlook may end up re-retrieving
the same e-mails because it retrieved them once but its mail session
got aborted before it could delete them from the server and before it
updated its UID list.
If your retrieved e-mails are huge in size, it takes longer for them
to download. If they are large enough to take long enough, they could
still be getting retrieved when the next mail poll is scheduled to
occur. Bam, you step on your current mail session and abort it with a
newly started mail session.
Also, if you get so many e-mails at a high rate thinking that you need
to have a short polling interval to get them as soon as they arrive,
you still won't be able to read all those e-mails as they come in
fast and furious. So the polling interval can still be longer
because it'll take you some time to get reading through the ones you
just got. 5 minutes, or less, is considered abusive to the e-mail
provider because if you were getting e-mails as faster or faster than
that you still wouldn't get done processing them yourself that quick.
10 minutes is considered a polite load on the mail server. If it's
for your home e-mail account, just how many e-mails do you get in a
day that a 15- or 20-minute polling interval can't handle?
After all, although you set Outlook to poll at 10-, 15-, or 20-minute
intervals, you don't have to be concerned that your host won't be
powered up that long for you to check for new e-mails. No matter what
polling interval is configured in Outlook, it always does a poll on
their zeroeth minute. That is, if polling is enabled, and after
Outlook loads and is ready, it will do an immediate poll. So as soon
as you start Windows and can load Outlook is when you do your first
mail poll. Based on the volume of e-mails you get *thereafter* and
how fast you can read them, just how fast do you need to poll again?
E-mail is NOT a chatting venue where immediacy is expected and
required to continue a discussion. For immediacy, use a messenger
client.
Well I generally use IMAP servers instead of POP, does that make a
difference? And if mail servers which one usually pays for doesn't like
polling too often, why are they not complaining and asking users to poll
less?
V
VanguardLH
BillW50 said:In VanguardLH typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:20:49 -0600:
Well I generally use IMAP servers instead of POP, does that make a
difference?
IMAP uses more resources on the mail server than does POP. Rather than
just sync with items in a mailbox, IMAP has to sync item across multiple
folders.
And if mail servers which one usually pays for doesn't like
polling too often, why are they not complaining and asking users to poll
less?
I said it was polite not to poll when not needed, just like it is polite
not to butt in the front of the line. Plus more and more e-mail
providers ARE establishing connection quotas due to the abuse by
overzealous users.
B
BillW50
In VanguardLH typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 19:34:39 -0600:
Well that is true, but IMAP is different in the respect that it can be
set to only poll headers and not download the body of the messages
and/or attachments. Plus you have control which folders to poll. Thus
IMAP can use much less.
I have no problems with changing if my server ask me too. Although I
never heard a peep.
IMAP uses more resources on the mail server than does POP. Rather
than just sync with items in a mailbox, IMAP has to sync item across
multiple folders.
Well that is true, but IMAP is different in the respect that it can be
set to only poll headers and not download the body of the messages
and/or attachments. Plus you have control which folders to poll. Thus
IMAP can use much less.
I said it was polite not to poll when not needed, just like it is
polite not to butt in the front of the line. Plus more and more
e-mail providers ARE establishing connection quotas due to the abuse
by overzealous users.
I have no problems with changing if my server ask me too. Although I
never heard a peep.