Read-only archive of the All About Symbian forum (2001–2013) · About this archive

Reply to webmail -> error?

2 replies · 2,218 views · Started 05 January 2003

Hello!
I get this strange behaviour from my p800.

I have a pop account witch U use thru the p800 via grps. I can send and recive as I should and all is well.

But: Whyen I reply to Hotmail-messages (also Excite) the p800 says that some adress (to, cc or bcc) was not valid. So I checked and rechecked *a few times...* and found nothing. So I tried to forward to some other adress of my own. Same result - some adress was not valid. I noticed that the original mail was a HTML-attatchment. So I removed the attatchment an tried again. And it worked.

So, since im no expert and so forth - anyone else seen something like this? And more interesting - anyone know what to do about it?

Regards
A

When I try the same with my own hotmail and send as non-html (plain text) I can reply from the p800 with no problem.

I therefore conclude that its the teply to html that poses a problem? Any ideas or comments or something?

//A

I'm beginning to wonder if this might be due to Tele2's (Swedish operator company) less-than-100%-stable GPRS service... For instence they let circut based calls crowd out packet based calls. They don't have more than one or is it two timeslots available for GPRS. Curious stuff this GPRS...I wonder if somone actually thinks it has got anything to do with comsumers? Seems that there is a geat need to be some kind of expert on GPRS - how should one otherwise know that one must know the operators trafic policy, the timeslots available - I even heard somewhere that one can modify MTU size (don't know if thats correct though) in the phones to optimize performance/thruput.

Bakc to the topic:

When I watch the session it looks as the connection to the mailserver is lots ("disconnected"😉 first and just after that the error turns up complaining about non-valid email-addresses. But why should the p800 keep up this non valid email-address thing!? The adresses in question are valid as hell!

(Yep, the 2 posts above are mine2)