Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Outlook 2010 Bug Creates Monster Email Files

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the rodents-of-unusual-size dept.

Bug 126

Julie188 writes with this snippet from Network World "Office 2010 is still in beta and a patch is already out. Microsoft is trying to fix a bug in the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space. The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward, although previous emails will remain super-sized. This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes, such as Gmail or BlackBerry."

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A bug in a beta? (5, Insightful)

Evro (18923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177162)

Oh my heavens! A bug in a beta? What is the world coming to?

Re:A bug in a beta? (4, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177194)

Exactly! So what? Isn't the point of a beta to identify bugs before the software goes into regular use?

I mean, unless you're Google, who seems to use it like a marketing term for "exclusive!".

Re:A bug in a beta? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177282)

Oh my heavens! Microsoft fucking up email? What is the world coming to?

Re:A bug in a beta? (2, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178632)

Of course, IMAP, POP and SMTP are so limitative that the World needs proprietary solutions and Exchange servers in order to save itself ;-))

More seriously IMAP is fine ;-)

Beta? (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177892)

You mean the fact that Outlook "creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space" is new?

Silly me, thinking 3K of HTML/header overhead to send a one sentence email fell into that description, because Outlook has done that forever.

Re:Beta? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179168)

You mean the fact that Outlook "creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space" is new?

Exactly what I was thinking. "That's no bug... it's the Outlook 2010 installer!"

Re:Beta? (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180530)

In this case, we're talking several hundred kilobytes for a 10-line message. That's pretty damn annoying, especially when you get a long conversation in a high-volume discussion list - since now every reply will quote the original message, and carry that overhead (even if the responder is using Outlook 2007, or a different email client altogether - so long as it is capable of and is set up to produce HTML email).

What happens there, actually, is that it puts a huge (and 99% unused) CSS stylesheet inline inside the HTML body of the message.

Anyway, it's called a beta for a reason. I'm surprised anyone would even use it in production at this point. We do at MS, for the sake of that "dogfooding" thing (which is where the aforementioned annoyance comes from), but it's precisely so that such things don't slip through to the customers on release.

Re:A bug in a beta? (5, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178742)

Oh my heavens! A bug in a beta? What is the world coming to?

Indeed, though a story about recursive dependencies in any product does introduce a little welcome schadenfreude into my day, it's a pretty trivial issue.

What I found infinitely more newsworthy about the article was this:

With Outlook 2010, Microsoft is trying to take yet another stab at one of the most perplexing issues for computer users -- e-mail sprawl. Microsoft has introduced "conversation arrangement" features in previous versions of Outlook -- as have other e-mail program makers -- in which messages are saved based on the participants in the "thread" and in the order in which messages were received.

Microsoft, the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting, then relying on Word (WORD!) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading!

It's touching, really. Kind of like watching an autistic adolescent say his first word....

Re:A bug in a beta? (1)

ender- (42944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179034)

Darn it! And me without mod points!

Re:A bug in a beta? (4, Insightful)

Wayne247 (183933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179908)

That's not all. To this day, we still occasionally receive an email consisting of nothing more than an attachment "winmail.dat"

i eventually gave up on trying to tell mail administrators to set outlook clients properly or to set Exchange rules for outbound formating. I've installed "Lookout" plugin on all users' Thunderbirds.

It's really as if Microsoft deliberately tried to break email interoperability so they can attempt to monopolize it. Hmm.....

Re:A bug in a beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31180276)

Did you read your whole quote? It said MS introduced threading in previous versions. So what do you mean "finally" discovered threading?

dom

Re:A bug in a beta? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180510)

I *HATE* inline comments, stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where. Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what, having replies going on top means it's easy to see who wrote what earlier.

Re:A bug in a beta? (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178802)

I think you missed that those bugs create MONSTERS.

Arm yourselves people! This is the warning that Tokyo never got!

Stop the presses!!! (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177172)

A bug in beta? From an MS product? Thanks slashdot!

Re:Stop the presses!!! (5, Funny)

Zouden (232738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177242)

Yeah, they should really put their products through some sort of testing phase, perhaps open to members of the public so that bugs like this can be reported and fixed.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177252)

It's a beta... but one that's open to the public to use against real e-mail servers, so for anybody who runs an e-mail system this is breaking news about where all their file space went...

Re:Stop the presses!!! (4, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177408)

Uhhh. I could give you an e-mail client that you could use against real servers, too. I still don't see how this is news. It's a beta. If someone is running an important e-mail system and using a beta, they're crazy...

Re:Stop the presses!!! (2, Informative)

StayFrosty (1521445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177676)

What happens if I am running an important e-mail system for my company. None of the users of my email system are running any sort of beta client. Now, someone who is not employed at my company (a client or whatever...) starts using the Outlook beta and starts sending oversized messages to users on my email server. I would care about where all of that space went. If my accounts have a limited size, my users may care as well and it's nice that now I would have an answer for them.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177788)

Yep, Slashdot is sometimes a traffic report that's critical for system admins to know why their systems are failing and what the corrective action to take when a big guy like Microsoft makes a blooper this bad.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (2, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178002)

But my question is: how is this any different from any random person sending giant e-mail addresses to your servers? Isn't that fairly easy to do, without a bug in a client?

Yes, it's a bug. Yes, it's a major bug. Yes, it's a major bug in an open beta. Of course, not having read the article, I have no idea HOW MANY people or how many e-mails it affected, how it affects them, etc. I don't know if it's sent e-mails or received e-mails - it sounds like it's sent e-mails, otherwise the ywouldn't bother saying that it's not retroactive (duh, it can't fix e-mails on someone else's servers!). But how is a bug in a beta big news?

You may as well report on a Thunderbird bug found in beta. I'm not sure that would be big news. I'm sure bugs are found in Mozilla products during lots of betas.

In fact, the Opera 10.5 beta crashed on me while going to gmail. Twice in a row. I was not surprised. And I wasn't using it for my business.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (1)

StayFrosty (1521445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179000)

But my question is: how is this any different from any random person sending giant e-mail addresses to your servers? Isn't that fairly easy to do, without a bug in a client?

I was not saying it's big news. I was mainly replying to this part of your original comment:

If someone is running an important e-mail system and using a beta, they're crazy...

Re:Stop the presses!!! (2, Interesting)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179178)

It wasnt really that big of a bug. It required sending multiple emails with bullets/ordered lists in one session of Outlook. If you dont use bullets/lists then youre safe. If you shut down Outlook occasionally, youre safe. If you rebooted your computer when you went home from work, youre safe. I'd imagine that there were very few people actually effected by this. I've been using the Beta for a while myself and have never heard about it.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177798)

*closes GMail and whistles innocently.*

Re:Stop the presses!!! (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177966)

Heh heh. I thought about Gmail. First, it's not in beta anymore, right? ;)

Second, don't they have an "enterprise" sort of e-mail hosting?

Third, there HAVE been gmail outages that affected businesses. My response was: serves you right for choosing a beta, even from Google, to do your important stuff. If it's really that important, maybe one should consider a competent system administrator to do your infrastructure for you...

You must be new here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178352)

Events that happen elsewhere, especially in OSS, for some reason are press stopping announcements. Maybe because its due to Slashdot's bias against anything non-Linus. Had this happened to Linux, it would be called a feature and you'd be pilloried for daring to cast a flaw, erm, "feature" in Linux in such a bad light. OSS has some of the most hypocritical fanbois around. To think that OSS can be flawed, that just isn't possible in their mindset. They are really no different from jihadists in their mentality. Good thing the only things they blow up are love dolls, not bombs.

Re:You must be new here. (1, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178800)

You mean when they posted just yesterday that Linux Not Quite Ready For New 4K-Sector Drives [slashdot.org] ? Or was it when they wrote Some Early Adopters Stung By Ubuntu's Karmic Koala [slashdot.org] ?
Oh, you must mean the story "Zero-Day Vulnerabilities In Firefox Extensions [slashdot.org] ". No, no, this is it: Bug In Most Linuxes Can Give Untrusted Users Root [slashdot.org]

You're full of shit.

Have you never dealt with management? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178726)

> I still don't see how this is news. It's a beta. If someone is running an important e-mail system and using a beta, they're crazy...

I should introduce you to the management at the place I work sometime... Sometimes, "crazy" is just being polite.

Just for one example (a true story, alas), suppose you have a production worker who hurts himself, hides it, then ships out a product that is *covered in blood* without bothering to clean it. Further suppose that said employee was on drugs at the time and everyone knows this and that he's been in the local police reports, having spent a few days in jail for assault. Do you:

A) Fire him.
B) Call the police.
C) Give him a paid vacation ("administrative leave with pay")
D) Blame everyone else for not noticing the blood (even though they complained about the drugged behavior)
E) A & B
F) C & D

(The correct answer is F, of course.)

But you really think that management won't do minor things like run beta products to handle email? At least email isn't that important, no matter how much they protest otherwise. We just have our customers use an old hotmail account when our email server craps out.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179474)

Posting AC because we're using this email service at my current work and its use (versus Google Apps) is mostly based off of political reasons.

Microsoft has a program called "Live@EDU" which provides a free hosted Exchange service for schools, along with all sorts of stuff that comes with a Live account, like cloud storage, etc.

Unfortunately, Microsoft also decided to use Exchange 2010 for Live@EDU, which isn't out of beta yet. We're talking about mailboxes breaking every other week (it's always fun for us when all of the mailboxes simply go down for everyone, and it takes Microsoft about 5+ hours to resolve the issue), not being able to, say, disable someone's account or access shared calendars on the web client (because Microsoft plans to release that functionality in a point release of the beta), etc.

It disturbs me why Microsoft would knowingly use beta software in a free service that's meant for schools... at least Google lets schools use the same Google Apps services for free.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178380)

Yup, "beta" would have been in the headline by any responsible editor.

That said, yeah it's news -- /.ers test beta apps, and creating enormous files is a worthy heads-up. But more importantly we've a lot of devs here who probably aren't testing the beta, and now have an interesting bug to go look at.

If anyone, including editors, take it as an opportunity to hetfield-growl "MS...bad!", well that's just a side-embarrassment for /.. The story has technical interest of its own to stand by.

Re:Stop the presses!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178480)

A bug in beta? From an MS product? Thanks slashdot!

The better question is does Monster Cable(TM) know about these Monster(TM) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster(TM) brand?

Re:Stop the presses!!! (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179712)

The better question is does Monster Cable(TM) know about these Monster(TM) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster(TM) brand?

Why sue, this is a business opportunity for them. I can see it now, Monster Ethernet Cables, for those extra large e-mail messages (now with gold plated connectors to impress the ladies).

Monster email files? (2, Funny)

richdun (672214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177196)

So what if they're just covered in shiny material and cost 10x more than regular email files? The guy in the blue shirt told me they were worth it.

Re:Monster email files? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177294)

Just use the AmazonBasics e-mail files that work just as well and ship free if you're a Prime member.

Re:Monster email files? (1)

Stele (9443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177422)

No, this is Microsoft we're talking about, not Apple.

Re:Monster email files? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177578)

The comparison was to Monster Cables, not Apple or Microsoft.

Re:Monster email files? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178350)

Looks like someone didn't get it.

EOUS? (5, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177292)

Buttercup: Westley, what about the E.O.U.S.'s?
Westley: Emails Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.
[Immediately, an E.O.U.S. attacks him]

Re:EOUS? (2, Funny)

Knackered (311164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178644)

[Immediately, an E.O.U.S. attacks him]

Surely the last line should be:

"You've got MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILL!"

Email is largely useless anyway (0, Offtopic)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177304)

And I'm not talking about UCE.

Simple abuse of email as a broadcast medium means that I receive a mean of around 100 emails per day (in a corporate environment) from dozens of different people and organisations. Sure, I have filters, dozens of them and constantly adding more, but, you know, it's really just not worth it for the numbers of useful and relevant emails which I do receive. Particularly when outlook is so dire at handling large numbers of mails.

 

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (2, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177340)

E-mail's going away because broadcast messages are better served over RSS, quick person-to-person notes cam travel over IM, SMS, or Twitter, and business documents can be transferred over secured web sites. Whole lot of new ways of doing things...

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177486)

Maybe in Grandma's basement Email is going away but not in the real business environment. In the basement twitter and RSS and IM are all valuable communication tools in the business world they are toys and email is the only really valid tool with a little bit of IM possibly as outlook now has that ability if companies enable it. People like you that make such comments simply make me laugh as it's obvious you have no real world experience where business is concerned. Email isn't going anywhere, it's a barely valid tool thats at least partially traceable, IM, twitter and other social networking has no valid business purpose and most of the protocols have no way to validate either the content or the author and as a result will just be toys in the business world.

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177564)

most of the protocols have no way to validate either the content or the author

you can validate content and author in emails? you must be new to spam, or have been away from the net since 1992.

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (3, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177794)

Sure you can. You use digital signatures. The problem is you need somebody with above room temperature IQ to administer the key signing infrastructure, and those folks are in short supply. That's why it's never caught on.

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

Edzilla2000 (1261030) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178180)

Celsius or Fahrenheit?

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179118)

Celsius or Fahrenheit?

Looks like you might have a shot a job, Sparky! We're all pulling for you!

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179180)

Kelvin you insensitive clod

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177594)

Closed internal e-mail systems may be perfectly secure... as it's easy to fire anybody who makes trouble with it. However, once you expose e-mail to the internet, you've got to deal with spam and other troublemakers.

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177622)

While I agree with you in most points, but

most of the protocols have no way to validate either the content or the author and as a result will just be toys in the business world.

Read RFC 821 (SMTP)! E-Mail has no validation of the source either...
Your E-Mail Program just has to pretend to be an SMTP server itself

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180280)

Maybe in Grandma's basement Email is going away but not in the real business environment. In the basement twitter and RSS and IM are all valuable communication tools in the business world they are toys and email is the only really valid tool with a little bit of IM possibly as outlook now has that ability if companies enable it.

Your dad just called. He said that SNDMSG isn't going away and that e-mail is considered a 'toy' in the business environment. And your grandfather is on line two...err...he's on the telegraph...I think he's saying something about that new-fangled phone and a business or something. I was never good at morse code...

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178044)

>>>E-mail's going away because broadcast messages are better served over RSS, quick person-to-person notes cam travel over IM, SMS, or Twitter, and business documents can be transferred over secured web sites. Whole lot of new ways of doing things...
>>>

I'm an electrical engineer and have to idea what you're talking about.
And if I don't know what you're talking about,
neither does your average secretary or business manager.

Re:Email is largely useless anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179562)

I agree with you in principle, but the alternatives aren't any better. At the end of the day the problem is that people want a written record of their communications, even for the most trivial things. I share a large room with 5 other people and we all send emails to each other; it's kind of sad, really.

Problem (2, Insightful)

iamavirus (590736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177312)

This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes, such as Gmail or BlackBerry.

I'd say this this is a problem for programs that don't limit sizes. TFA doesn't state any numbers, but I wouldn't want my BlackBerry to try and open files with thousands of lines of redundant CSS code.

Mobile? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177336)

What's this story doing in "Mobile"?

Besides, a beta bug? Front page news? Come on... :-S

No one I know even use Office 2010 in a production system yet.

Re:Mobile? (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177366)

Because mobile data services easily overload when hit with large amounts of data, and this bug is creating e-mails that are much bigger than they're supposed to be. Too many beta users interacting with "production" servers and services could cause an unintentional DDOS on weaker e-mail systems.

Fixed going forward (2, Funny)

neiljt (238527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177370)

Sounds like half a solution to me. When will they fix the problem going backward?

Re:Fixed going forward (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180496)

The patch for signed integers haven't been implemented yet.

Really? (0, Troll)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177404)

Can they be any bigger than the emails dumbass users send around anyway? Single Lolcat pictures as ppt? A dozen numbers as a honking big Excel file?

Size Limits on Email (2, Insightful)

sanjacguy (908392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177448)

More than just free email limits size. Size limits are one of the variables you can set in Exchange 2003, and I believe the default maximum email size is 5MB. Given that most private organizations do not have unlimited email space, setting a limit on size is just as important as monitoring the size of the Information Store. (Fair warning, I may be wrong about the specific default max email size for exchange 2k3.)

Re:Size Limits on Email (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178836)

Back in the day (and this i a really long time ago), I wrote a mail server that could be used as a file server. You could set up accounts so that when you attempted to receive the mails from the mail server, files from some given directory would download as email attachments. Some mail clients dealt with this admirably well, downloading large files with out trouble. However, others didn't ... cope so well, and crashed or consumed insane amounts of memory when attempting to download emails of that size. It was really sorted the chaff from the wheat in terms of email clients.

Granted, at the time (some 10 years ago), emails of that size (several hundred megabytes) were pretty much unheard of, so I don't really blame them for not putting a lot of effort into making their software cope with those extreme cases. But it gladdened me that some did.

Outlook 64bit (0, Troll)

Mr_Plattz (1589701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177478)

While we're talking about it, I thought I'd use this space to inform others about how my Outlook 2010 beta is going on Windows 7 64bit. Back end is Exchange 2010 RTM.

  • Since installing it, IE -> Office 'Sharepoint Services Support'" literally doesn't work. Obviously supporting being able to click a Document in Sharepoint and have it Open or Edit inside it's Office counterpart is too hard. You can't even manually open a document from 'Open' and save it to Sharepoint.
  • Composing an Email Message will take 100% CPU until you send it. I can confirm this on other SOE's with AMD to Intel CPU's. Lucky I have a Core2Duo so my workstation is usable. My team mate who is also trying it is unlucky enough to only have a single CPU so he literally can't leave an email half composed. Well he can, but he can't do anything else.
  • Returning from PC from Standby leaves the Inbox empty, It reconnects, but just doesnt show any email. You need to click another folder than another one.
  • The Send-A-Smile 'feature' is stupid. Yes I want to give some feedback (for example, the above 3 points) but I'm NOT giving you a screenshot of my Corporate SOE Desktop while doing so.
  • It's slow, really slow.
  • Composing an Email in HTML default with a signature and then trying to change it to Plain-Text will cause all your cause in the Email to be deleted.

Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems. Some of the new features are pretty cool though, and I'm looking forward to having a true 64bit Office SOE Workstation

Re:Outlook 64bit (2, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177886)

Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems. Some of the new features are pretty cool though, and I'm looking forward to having a true 64bit Office SOE Workstation

Because we all know just how much better email is in 64bit.

Re:Outlook 64bit (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178476)

I suppose you weren't kind enough to report that?

No?
Well then, screw you, someone might say, as it is beta and you didn'd do your part.

Re:Outlook 64bit (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178650)

"Well then, screw you, someone might say, as it is beta and you didn'd do your part."

Beta testing is the phase where it has been extensively tested "in house" and the product is believed to be close to ready for release. Beta does not mean "Here end user, we don't want to do any testing; you do it all"

If Microsoft didn't do their part, why is Mr Plattz a scumbag for not doing their part for them?

Re:Outlook 64bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179274)

Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems.

This, my friends, is why some people shouldn't be permitted to post on Slashdot: They're idiots.

Mr_Plattz is an idiot because he installed a beta version of a program on a production system, rather than a test system or a virtual machine.

It is my sincerest hope that you do not work in an MIS department, because you're fucking clueless... and, I pity the MIS department that has to support you, for the same reason.

Written in .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177498)

Because the garbage collection in .NET keeps building up until almost out of memory. Maybe it is getting attached to every new email to try and get rid of it? :)

Re:Written in .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178048)

ahahahah. no your analogy sucks because the gc doesnt do that.

Re:Written in .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178422)

No, the GC cleans up gen 0 after 256kb of objects have been allocated.

Bug Creates Monster (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177530)

Tokyo is so screwed!

Re:Bug Creates Monster (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178388)

I used to think that too... until I grew up and learned that it's not real. No kidding! Japan figured out that if a giant monster is invading them, all they have to do is put out miniatures on a movie set and the monster will go after those until it gets tired or has to fight another monster, and then retreats to the ocean. I'm guessing the Japanese came up with this idea to save costs on getting their city destroyed, after the first few times.

How did this reach beta? (-1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177540)

Isn't this the kind of thing that's supposed to be caught before a product goes into beta testing? Outlook is used by large numbers of big corporations, and including numbered and/or bulleted lists are not exactly uncommon in their email. I don't know what type of testing this went through in-house, and I'm not exactly an expert in such things, but it does seem odd that they didn't spot it sooner.

Re:How did this reach beta? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177608)

No, this kind of thing is why you have beta testing. It's only February and I think we already have a strong contender for "Non-story of the Year" here.

Re:How did this reach beta? (3, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177638)

No this is the kind of thing a BETA is supposed to catch, i.e. bugs that were not caught by internal testing. The entire purpose of a beta is to find these sort of bugs.

Re:How did this reach beta? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179512)

You miss my point: this is the type of bug I'd expect to get caught before it reaches beta.

Re:How did this reach beta? (1)

matrim99 (123693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178240)

We don't know when this defect was introduced into the code. It could have been a recently introduced defect or one that has been around for awhile; we have no way of knowing.

Bottom line is this is a BETA release. Sometimes the simplest defect can cause very nasty looking symptoms and look like a giant problem even though it has a very simple solution. And the most harmless looking defect can really be the tip of the iceberg, a huge design defect (or whatever) that is extremely difficult to resolve. It is pretty pointless to speculate about the state of a product just by looking at defects it has at any point on the pre-release stages of the product's lifecycle, because we just don't have enough information to make a meaningful conclusion.

Re:How did this reach beta? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179544)

Sometimes the simplest defect can cause very nasty looking symptoms and look like a giant problem even though it has a very simple solution.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this is one of them. Please understand; I'm not Microsoft bashing, just wondering why this particular bug didn't get caught earlier, because it looks like it's triggered by a very common type of text.

You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177602)

Outlook creating unusually large e-mail files was not by design?

Outlook what? (-1, Troll)

cvtan (752695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177606)

2010? I can't even get Outlook 2003 to work. It got slower and slower until it wouldn't run at all. Thunderbird yes, Outlook no!

It's not news, its Far... er, I mean, slashdot. (1)

megla (859600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177650)

I mean really? A bug in beta software? This is outrageous, haul Microsoft up before congress immediately.

Quick and easy patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177776)

OpenOffice 3.2. Seriously, no email problems.

oh wait...

Really?? (2, Funny)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177778)

Is /. turning into Fox News now?

That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007 (3, Interesting)

tekrat (242117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177908)

And Outlook 2007 is a *shipping product*.

Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them), It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself), And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...

Outlook 2003 was a miracle of speed and stability compared to 2007, so I imagine that, given their reputation to build worse and worse products over time, Outlook 2010 will be a disaster of titanic proportions. With a slew of "features" no one ever wanted or needed.

Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178402)

Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them),

Ehm, what? Can't replicate this error right now. (Outlook 2007 SP2)
Infact, the search function is pretty darn good. Just recently noticed the search find text within my attachments (well, excel documents, not sure about anything else).

It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself)

Been using Outlook 2007 for about 2years now, never seen this happen.

And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...

I can only assume your copy of Outlook is completely borked. I'm not saying Outlook 07 is rocksolid, but hell, it works atleast 95% of the time for me.

Outlook 2003 was a miracle of speed and stability compared to 2007, so I imagine that, given their reputation to build worse and worse products over time, Outlook 2010 will be a disaster of titanic proportions.

Office 2007 is a sloppy bloated whore, no arguments there. Outlook is the one app that wasn't too badly affected in 2007, but that's not excuse for the entire Office 07 suite. That said, I'm guessing Office 2010 will be Office 2007 fine-tuned & optimised.

With a slew of "features" no one ever wanted or needed.

I didn't "need", nor did I "want" the new Ribbon UI. Fortunately, the ribbon is pretty darn good if you get over the shock of change. God forbid MS "try" to improve over time.

Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007 (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179030)

MS employs the “upside-down pyramid” model of software lifecycle design.

It works like this:
app = code(design(BASIC_ARCHITECTURE)) # original design and intentions are instantly forgotten
bf = marketing.getBlingFactory();
while (sales.sell(app)) {
    f = bf.getNewFeature()
    management.fuckUp(f)
    sales.addLockIn(f)
    hammerIntoSomethingPhysicallyPossible(f,IGNORE_MANAGEMENT)
    try {
        code(f)
    } catch (ManagementExpectsItToBeFinishedAlreadyError) {
        tieTogheterLooseStrings(f,[SPAGHETTI_STYLE,IGNORE_BUG_HAZARDS,MAKE_HASTE])
    }
    try {
        app.add(f)
    } catch (DoesntFitArchitectureAnymoreError) {
        p = code(new Patchwork(NASTY))
        p.add(f)
        app.add(p,USE_BRUTE_FORCE)
    }
}

So instead of doing a proper redesign and rewrite, where everything would fit nicely, they only cram more onto a tiny basis.
Windows ME is the perfect example: A 32-bit extension of a 16-bit graphical shell of an 8-bit operating system coded for a 4-bit processor by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition. ;)

Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007 (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179252)

I rabidly hate anything 2007 from Microsoft, in fact I am compiling a list of bugs in Vista and 2007 products that's about 300 lines long, and I've never seen any of this. You might want to see if you have plug-ins or integrations or something interfering, or an incompetent Exchange admin. Unless you're talking about Express, if a 2007 version exists.

Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179292)

The deal seems here that people have something else in the OS interfering with Office.

There have been some that explode the phone. The issue with comp RAM, such as an Intel, there is particulate all over the RAM. These are people that have 8GB and are playing around with Office Beta. When looking at the 2010, you might as well have a better time with 2GB.

Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007 (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179574)

Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them), It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself), And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...

Can't say I've seen any of these problems, ever. Do you have any custom extensions or plugins for your Outlook install ?

FCrist psot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177998)

leaving 7he play [goat.cx]

Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178086)

MS Grunt: Sir, people are reporting Outlook 2010 having a bug that creates massive file sizes.

MS Manager: Outlook's been doing that for years. Let's call it a feature.

Slow News Day (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178200)

Can't imagine why this is on here and why any of us are wasting our time replying. Dang! Just lost 30 seconds of my life.

Re:Slow News Day (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178356)

Yes, as a programmer, why should I be required to optimize my programs to use less than 100 GB?

This problem has been in Word since 2003 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178318)

This is a Word bug according to the article, where Word is used as the email editor and in-lines a huge number of CSS styles with the same properties, thereby massively increasing email size.

I have experienced the same problem in earlier versions of Word (2003) saving as a normal .doc file. In some circumstances, nested lists create a huge number of redundant styles stored in the document file (10-50kB). This is particularly obvious when you then save as HTML (thousands of lines of CSS all declaring the same styles), and massive file bloat.

Obviously there's a recursion loop going awry somewhere, and it's been around for a while. TBH, I haven't checked to see if it's ever been reported on before, or fixed.

Bug? Or feature? (1, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178824)

the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space.

Isn’t that expected behavior for all MS Office programs? ;)

Easter Eggs! Eggs full of bugs! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178950)

It has to be an Easter Egg. But what is it? I, for one, would be quite happy to discover during the course of examining my work email files that there was a new way do something constructive with my day, perhaps a World of Warcraft ICC rep run. And as far as bugs go, I could always use a few more stacks of Nerubian Chitin.

Ludicrous...always... (-1, Troll)

YankDownUnder (872956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179116)

Microsoft, a company that is worth HOW MUCH? Can't ever seem to create ANY software without ANY issues, past, present or future? They've been going at this for how many years, and still can't get a single issue straight from the beginning? I just find this all so bloody amazing - they've got the money, the manpower, the resources, and still, they just can't do it. Right.

Re:Ludicrous...always... (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179456)

Virtually no consumer software is without bugs. You try programming something that large-scale that works flawlessly, especially with the oversight of a team leader, a division manager, etc. In fact, due to all that bureaucracy, large corporations are in some ways more vulnerable to bugs than smaller teams.

Slow Microsoft-Bashing Day? (5, Informative)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179192)

Not only did Microsoft announce this on their Outlook 2010 blog [msdn.com] back on Jan 22, but they announced the patch for it [technet.com] on Feb 11.

And it's beta software. We kinda expect it to make mistakes. Unlike some companies that keep their products in beta for a decade.

I've been using Office 2010 for a few months now and absolutely love it. It's not very different from 2007. Just refined, like Windows 7 is to Vista. It has a few new features in each application that users will enjoy, especially in Sharepoint environments.

One very cool feature in Outlook is the "People Pane" which appears optionally next to the message you're reading. Expand it and it will show you all of your prior appointments, emails, IMs, attachments, and more that are connected to that person. So when Fred sends you an email and says "what did you think about that other email I sent you?" it's a piece of cake to find it.

But oh noes! A beta has a bug! There must be nothing else to bash Microsoft for today.

re: limiting the size of emails (1)

MyBrotherSteve (944845) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179400)

"This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes..." It's not necessarily a program that limits the size of an email message, it's an internet service or email provider that limits the message size to or from it's servers. For example, Gmail (remember, it's Google as a company that sets the limit on the message size, not the Gmail app itself) has a 25MB limit on message size, AT&T and Comcast are still 10MB, I believe, and companies like Earthlink (that are still in the ISP dark ages) are 5MB. Also, I believe Earthstink still only gives people a 100MB inbox, while most other ISPs are 1or 2GB or more.

2010 version? (1)

brendan.hill (1218328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179644)

I'm pretty sure this bug has been there since Outlook 2003.

*waits for 4GB PST file to back up over the network*

.
.

(*places spare change into piggy bank to save up for MS Exchange*)

Rendering html format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179744)

I wonder if LookOut 2010 will render html-formatted emails using something besides Word as the engine. LookOut 2007 is awful.

I doubt many sysadmins would have noticed this... (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180032)

I probably wouldn't have noticed this as the number of users I see who attempt to email files between 50MB and 4.2GB is amazing! They actually complain that it is taking forever to send their email or that their email has stopped working completely because they are receiving a massive file which clogs their receive queue!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>