I had the same issue with outlook, its real slow when accessing Imap mail. I set the MTU, adjusted other things, etc..nothing seems to fix this issue for me. I set up Netscape 6.2x messenger/mail. Installed the mail client for Imap mail, and it works fine...sometimes it hangs for a second or two, but not anything like outlook....
Larry Creighton Bill-BCREIGH1 wrote: >I may be way out of line, but there aren't any access lists which may be >prohibiting the IMAP ports used by exchange, are there. I ran into a config >mess with DMZ's and access lists for a beta product test once. And that was >what we saw - all worked (http, proxy, etc.) but Exchange was gone. Turned >out to be some Checkpoint and access-list tweaking. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: JohnZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:43 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Confused about MTU size [7:54689] > >Thanks Priscilla, I definitely don't mind even if it was criticisim >especially coming from some one of your caliber. Thank you for the pointers >and I will do some more deligant troubleshooting. And yes Mike it is outlook >that refuses to work properly. There is no problem browsing, home user is >able to copy files of all sizes with out any problems. We can ping the email >server from the user's workstation heck I am even pc-anwhered into his >machine. But as soon we start outlook it just hangs. I will further >investigate the router's config although it's using a template that's >working elsewhere under different service provider without a hitch. >""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >>I agree that it doesn't sound like an MTU problem. There are often >> >problems > >>with MTU when DSL, VPNs, tunnels, etc. are used, so people might jump to >>that conclusion. But e-mail messages are often very short and would easily >>fit into most MTUs even after overhead. To test whether it's an MTU >> >problem, > >>try some oversized pings. >> >>The MTU issue occurs when a full-sized packet arrives at an interface that >>needs to squeeze it into an MTU along with the overhead. The interface >> >could > >>fragment, but maybe the application or transport layer set the Don't >>Fragment bit. Quite a few applications do that as part of their MTU >>discovery process. The problem is made worse if there's an access list >> >that > >>is blocking the ICMP "Fragmentation required but DF bit set" message. >> >>Here's a Cisco article on MTU: >> >>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/56.html >> >>This isn't a criticism of the original poster, who was already doubting >> >the > >>people who told him it was an MTU problem, but it does give me a chance to >>get on my soapbox about troubleshooting methods. A lot of people >>troubleshoot using the technique we learned in grade school to match items >>from Column A with items from Column B. ;-) Column A has network types and >>Column B has most common problem for network type. It's important to know >>about common problems, but it's just as important to gather data, research >>symptoms, and use logic and reasoning. >> >>Cisco's troubleshooting method really does work: >> >>1. Define the problem. >>2. Gather facts. >>3. Consider possibilities. >>4. Create an action plan. >>5. Implement the action plan. >>6. Observe the results. >>7. Do problem symptoms stop? >> >>If no, go back to 4 or possibly to 2. >>If yes, problem resolved, document the results. >> >>OK, off my soapbox now! :-) >> >>_______________________________ >> >>Priscilla Oppenheimer >>www.troubleshootingnetworks.com >>www.priscilla.com >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>I found email to be a touchy thing... Especially when dealing >>>with M$ >>>0utlook. Are you sure it's the MTU size that's the problem >>>with email. >>> >>>I know in our situation, I had to add the mail server name & IP >>>to the host >>>file of the remote pc. Some times we experience some latency, >>>but for the >>>most part it's only been about half a minute. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>mkj >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: JohnZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:55 PM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Confused about MTU size [7:54689] >>> >>> >>>Can some one explain clearly how does MTU size affect windows >>>applications >>>where these applications won't work over a network link. I have >>>a certain >>>home user that can establish a vpn tunnel through a DSL to >>>corporate network >>>and all applications will work except for email. The only >>>difference is a >>>cisco router in between the homeuser and corporate network. >>>Without this >>>cisco router (with homeuser directly attached to DSL modem) >>>there are no >>>problems. Some one mentioned MTU could be the problem, but if >>>the frames are >>>larger then MTU don't they get fragmented and re-assembled at >>>the other end. >>>How could MTU size fail single application while everything >>>else works fine. >>>Thanks for any help. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54771&t=54689 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
