OL 2003 Attachment vs Embedded

[Steve]

What's the difference between, an embedded image and an attachment, besides that embedded images are HTML docs?

I know that embedded take longer to load in order to realign any text accordingly.

But we are seeing a major, local client slowdown when certain embedded emails arrive. They take forever to load. And they loose their exchange connection.

In looking at each file in an editor, I noticed that the HTML embedded has the specific image names. Where the attachments are not identified as thoes image files.

I'm guessing here that possibly the embedded info are links that retrieve the image, rather than use the attachment copy of the image itself? And that it could be refreshing them periodically?

This is currently my only thought as to why things slow down soooooo much.

OL 2003 SBS 2003 15 clients XP Pro SP3


Any ideas? Comments welcome.
-Stephen


Submitted using http://www.outlookforums.com

 

[Roady [MVP]]

There are 3 ways of sending a picture with a message;
1) You attach it to a message (Insert-> File)
2) You embed it into the message's body (Insert-> Picture)
3) You link to the picture within the message's body (Insert-> Picture and
specify the web location of the picture)

Which method is being used?

In case of the last, the picture is not part of the message but it
downloaded when the message is being opened or (by default) confirm the
download of the pictures.