Delay or slowness difference between the 1.9.4 and 2.x versions of Blat

[optiri]

I've been using the 1.9.4 version of Blat for sometime, I would like
to use some of the new functionality in the 2.4 version but I've run
into a problem with speed or performance in the new 2.x versions.

With the 2.x versions of Blat I'm getting an 11 second delay by Blat
after the SMTP server sends a 250 DSN reply to my EHLO request.

For the 2.4 version:
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat pauses for .135 secs and then ACKs
Blat pauses for 11.129 seconds and then sends the MAIL FROM: info

For the 1.9.4 version:
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat immediately sends the MAIL FROM: info

A number of months ago I tried an earlier 2.x version of Blat with the
same results.

Thanks

[c***@att.net]

Post by optiri
I've been using the 1.9.4 version of Blat for sometime, I would like
to use some of the new functionality in the 2.4 version but I've run
into a problem with speed or performance in the new 2.x versions.
With the 2.x versions of Blat I'm getting an 11 second delay by Blat
after the SMTP server sends a 250 DSN reply to my EHLO request.
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat pauses for .135 secs and then ACKs
Blat pauses for 11.129 seconds and then sends the MAIL FROM: info
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat immediately sends the MAIL FROM: info
A number of months ago I tried an earlier 2.x version of Blat with the
same results.
Thanks

The delay is because Blat attempts to determine your server's capabilities before it builds the message to be sent. In 1.x versions, Blat built the message before it contacted your server, which meant that Blat could not determine the maximum message size, of whether 8-bit data is supported. With version 2.x, Blat began to interrogate the server so it can properly build messages, including multipart messages, before sending anything to the server. An 11 second delay indicates to me that you are sending very large messages, and/or using slow hardware. How much memory do you have in the sending PC, which OS, who made the CPU, what speed is your CPU, and is this a laptop? Each of these will effect how fast or slow Blat runs.

For myself at home, I run an AMD Athlon 2200+ (1800 MHz) with 2 GB of memory, WinXP, multiple UDMA 5 hard drives, and have a 3 Mbit DSL connection. The delay I see in sending message is quite short for my typical usage.

Chip

[optiri]

Post by c***@att.net

Post by optiri
I've been using the 1.9.4 version of Blat for sometime, I would like
to use some of the new functionality in the 2.4 version but I've run
into a problem with speed or performance in the new 2.x versions.
With the 2.x versions of Blat I'm getting an 11 second delay by Blat
after the SMTP server sends a 250 DSN reply to my EHLO request.
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat pauses for .135 secs and then ACKs
Blat pauses for 11.129 seconds and then sends the MAIL FROM: info
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat immediately sends the MAIL FROM: info
A number of months ago I tried an earlier 2.x version of Blat with the
same results.
Thanks

The delay is because Blat attempts to determine your server's

capabilities before it builds the message to be sent. In 1.x
versions, Blat built the message before it contacted your server,
which meant that Blat could not determine the maximum message size, of
whether 8-bit data is supported. With version 2.x, Blat began to
interrogate the server so it can properly build messages, including
multipart messages, before sending anything to the server. An 11
second delay indicates to me that you are sending very large messages,
and/or using slow hardware. How much memory do you have in the
sending PC, which OS, who made the CPU, what speed is your CPU, and is
this a laptop? Each of these will effect how fast or slow Blat runs.

Post by c***@att.net
For myself at home, I run an AMD Athlon 2200+ (1800 MHz) with 2 GB

of memory, WinXP, multiple UDMA 5 hard drives, and have a 3 Mbit DSL
connection. The delay I see in sending message is quite short for my
typical usage.

Post by c***@att.net
Chip

Here's the command line I used for my test:

blat.exe - -body "body of message" -subject "This is html" -server
test.com -to ***@test.com -f ***@sender.com -html -debug

It's a very small message . My workstation isn't that great it runs
WinXP on a dual PIII 927Mhz with 512 RAM, but I don't thinks it should
cause an 11 second delay.

I use Blat to test an email product so all my traffic is on an
internal/private 100mb network. As for Blat interrogating the server,
that makes sense but I would think I could see that interrogation
process over the wire. All I see different between 1.9.4 and 2.4 is a
single ACK packet. This occurs on multiple workstations as well.
I'll try it against a different SMTP server and see if the results are
the same.

Thanks for the input.

[Chip]

Post by c***@att.net

Post by c***@att.net

Post by optiri
I've been using the 1.9.4 version of Blat for sometime, I would like
to use some of the new functionality in the 2.4 version but I've run
into a problem with speed or performance in the new 2.x versions.
With the 2.x versions of Blat I'm getting an 11 second delay by Blat
after the SMTP server sends a 250 DSN reply to my EHLO request.
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat pauses for .135 secs and then ACKs
Blat pauses for 11.129 seconds and then sends the MAIL FROM: info
The trace shows that Blat sends the EHLO
The server responds with 250-<host name> with the various 250
responses
Blat immediately sends the MAIL FROM: info
A number of months ago I tried an earlier 2.x version of Blat with the
same results.
Thanks

The delay is because Blat attempts to determine your server's

capabilities before it builds the message to be sent. In 1.x
versions, Blat built the message before it contacted your server,
which meant that Blat could not determine the maximum message size, of
whether 8-bit data is supported. With version 2.x, Blat began to
interrogate the server so it can properly build messages, including
multipart messages, before sending anything to the server. An 11
second delay indicates to me that you are sending very large messages,
and/or using slow hardware. How much memory do you have in the
sending PC, which OS, who made the CPU, what speed is your CPU, and is
this a laptop? Each of these will effect how fast or slow Blat runs.

Post by c***@att.net
For myself at home, I run an AMD Athlon 2200+ (1800 MHz) with 2 GB

of memory, WinXP, multiple UDMA 5 hard drives, and have a 3 Mbit DSL
connection. The delay I see in sending message is quite short for my
typical usage.

Post by c***@att.net
Chip

blat.exe - -body "body of message" -subject "This is html" -server
It's a very small message . My workstation isn't that great it runs
WinXP on a dual PIII 927Mhz with 512 RAM, but I don't thinks it should
cause an 11 second delay.
I use Blat to test an email product so all my traffic is on an
internal/private 100mb network. As for Blat interrogating the server,
that makes sense but I would think I could see that interrogation
process over the wire. All I see different between 1.9.4 and 2.4 is a
single ACK packet. This occurs on multiple workstations as well.
I'll try it against a different SMTP server and see if the results are
the same.
Thanks for the input.

Do you have a virus scanner running in the background, checking outbound
emails?

Try running Ethereal to capture your packet traffic, then check where the
actual delay is. I did that here tonight and saw a five second delay from
AT&T the first time I accessed AT&T with Blat, then a 1.4 second delay
before Blat begins sending my 1.8 MB video attachment message to some
friends. The 1.4 second delay is Blat building / encoding the full message
for transmission. After that, the packet stream is nice and fast.

When I sent a single message such as yours listed above, there was no delay
anywhere in the Ethereal capture.

Trying the same Blat command as I did the first time, but sending to myself
instead, there was still the 1.4 second delay by Blat to build the outgoing
message, but no other delays. The first packet was sent at time offset
0.000000, the last 250 message form AT&T was at time offset 0.424303, then
Blat sent the MAIL FROM: at time offset 1.850201.

Chip

[chip.guest]

How do I send an embedded image in / with a HTML file? And maybe the other
question, is what kind of an HTML page or style spec do I need.



Only 4 image and basic format, nothing special (for now).



Are there some examples somewhere?



Thanks

Chip G



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[c***@att.net]

Post by chip.guest
How do I send an embedded image in / with a HTML file? And maybe the other
question, is what kind of an HTML page or style spec do I need.
Only 4 image and basic format, nothing special (for now).
Are there some examples somewhere?
Thanks
Chip G

Use the "cid:" identifier in your tags, like "img src=cid:imagename". On the command line, use -embed instead of -attach for those files to be embedded.

Chip

[chip.guest]

Chip



Thanks so much. perfect.



Thanks

Chip G



_____

From: ***@yahoogroups.com [mailto:***@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
***@att.net
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:48 PM
To: ***@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [blat] How do I send embedded images with a HTML file

Post by chip.guest
How do I send an embedded image in / with a HTML file? And maybe the other
question, is what kind of an HTML page or style spec do I need.
Only 4 image and basic format, nothing special (for now).
Are there some examples somewhere?
Thanks
Chip G

Use the "cid:" identifier in your tags, like "img src=cid:imagename". On
the command line, use -embed instead of -attach for those files to be
embedded.

Chip