Outlook Express

[patio]

Image files in almost any format don't get much smaller with compression...that being said i believe the extra size in that message would be the header info.

patio.  8-)

[soybean]

It seems so, but that's very inefficient.  There's no reason for header info to require so much more space.  See my post, reply #11, where I compared OE to Outlook.  

[Fed]

I'd go back to Soybean's suggestion of reducing the size (MBs) of the pictures.
I can think of no reason for them to be so huge.

[dho891]

I just tested zipping a photo and sending it with OE.  This does prevent a replication of the photo from appearing in the body of the message but seems to not really save on email message file size, which was the OP's main issue.  

I started with a 640KB photo, sent it to a zipped file by right clicking on it in Windows Explorer and sending to a zipped folder.  The zipped folder was 639KB, so no significant savings there.  Then, I created a new message with OE, containing nothing but the attached zipped folder.  The message file size had ballooned to 877KB.  What conclusion can be drawn from this other than that OE is an inefficient way to send photos?

My thanks to all who have given me much info on my agitation in receiving photo's by e-mail.
Your suggestion of using thunderbird bears looking into if you copuld provide more info it would be appreciated, and your mention of your camera programme that allows you to reduce the size of the photo before transmitting is also appealing, will look into that as another possibility.

[patio]

Irfanview


Thunderbird


patio.  8-)

[Fed]

If you posted a link to one of these 5MB pictures I'm sure Soybean would be happy to show you the reductions that can be achieved. (No porn please)