Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Eddy! On Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 9:38:37 PM you wrote: In the case of JPEG attachments, clicking the little tab at the bottom of the window that allows you to view the image results in nothing but a blank pane when the attachment is corrupt. I've seen that with Eddy's zipped file containing a message with a perfectly normal RGB JPEG (a very fun at that). Saving the attachment (by dragging the icon from the attachment sidebar, or right-clicking it and choosing Save) and viewing it in an external viewer, such as IrfanView, ACDSee, Internet Explorer, Photoshop, etc. results in a JPEG image that is partially viewable, and then corrupt at some varying point in the image. Nope. After doing the same as you, I could view the perfectly in IrfanView and PhotoPaint 9. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Interest.Write4U.de/pongo PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Calling Things by their right name marks the beginning of Wisdom. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Technology! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 12:23:19 AM you wrote: Agreed, but would it not have the same effect when the message is being reconstructed in Eudora, Outlook, Outlook Express, Pegasus, Netscape Maill, or SOME other program? Not necessarily; that is the fun part about stochastics. Murphy's Law is nothing else but telling us *what* randomness exactly means - it always strikes when you won't need it. I have never seen one of these programs corrupt an attachment. If memory was the problem, wouldn't I see some evidence of it in other programs? Wouldn't I see BSODs on a regular basis? A friend of mine suggested the same as Adam for various problems on my machine. For one, I can't start Windows 95 without using the boot menu to choose start up with protocol. Otherwise I will invariably get a Schutzverletzung. I am quite sure that my RAM is perfectly in order - but just because I had that specific problem once with other memory banks installed. Nonetheless, it could well be that BSOD are *not* a Windows problem but a hardware failure (which is what MS says for years). But once an image fails, it always fails. If an image is good, it's always good. I got me sent the Test by Eddy (actually someone else sent it to me) and I saw the blank JPEG in the message. I then DD'ed onto my Desktop and tried to open it with PhotoPaint, what initially failed. Since PP is sometimes a bit fickle about resources and RAM I can't pin down the initial failure to the JPEG. when I first opened PP and from within chose the image, everything worked fine. It was also shown in IrfanView. Trust me -- I *really* would love to find out that it's not TB because I really like this program. I've used it for 18+ months and, even with the problem I see, am not seriously considering any other program. There simply is no better or more configurable e-mail program than TB. Here's one thing that bothers me with this discussion: For years no one seemed to have this problem even once, but all of a sudden lots of users come up and tell us they experience this file corruption. There are various possibilities why this happens, the only one I can rule out at the moment is trolling, as this list is quite closed compared to Usenet. There must be a common denominator for this problem, perhaps we should start again and do what we learned in University: Analyze (from Greek for taking apart) the problem step by step. 1. Where do you all store your attachments, in separate directory or within the message? 2. What other tasks are running (TSRs, virus scanners, firewalls, IMs ...)? 3. What kind of connection do you have? 4. Are there any file formats that are *not* affected? 5. Anybody else knowing a good question? -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Interest.Write4U.de/pongo PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Alone: In bad company. (Ambrose Bierce) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Dierk, On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:40:46 +0200 GMT (13/09/02, 14:40 +0700 GMT), Dierk Haasis wrote: DH I am quite sure that my RAM is perfectly in order So is mine. This is not a RAM problem, as everybody who tested the files in question comes to the same results. DH 1. Where do you all store your attachments, in separate directory or DH within the message? In message body. DH 2. What other tasks are running (TSRs, virus scanners, firewalls, IMs DH ...)? I believe we have covered that, but over here it is PC-Cillin, Kerio PF, and a lot of stuff I run as services (internat, Office Shortcut Bar, etc). I do nt believe any of those interfers with TB. DH 3. What kind of connection do you have? DUN. I don't think it matters, though. DH 4. Are there any file formats that are *not* affected? I know only of one file that *is* affected, but others report that their files are corrupt more often than not. DH 5. Anybody else knowing a good question? Yeah: Can somebody read the lower headers? I believe there is something wrong, and it would be nice to compare the headers of the corrupted messages with the headers of the message forwarded to oneself (which is then suddenly not corrupt any more - presumably because the headers have now been created by TB). One remark: When the jpg attachments appears corrupted, I can save it to disk and then open it with IrfanView. Alas, a few lines of pixels at the bottom of the picture are missing. So the file is indeed corrupt. After forwarding to myself however, the file appears fine in TB's viewer, and also in IrfanView does not show any missing pixels. I doubt that TB has a built-in jpg repair kit, so TB read the attachment wrong (MIME-decoding), that's why wer get the errors. Why did TB decode wrong? The only explanation I have is that it has something to with the headers / lower headers. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Note: Please don't misconstrue my 14 jobs as 'job-hopping'. I have never quit a job. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Adam, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:58:23 +0100 GMT (13/09/02, 04:58 +0700 GMT), Adam Rykala wrote: AR Perhaps everybody who has this problem does have mismatched memory AR - because I don't see a lot of other people suffering from it. It was a first for me, and for others. It is definitely the file, not the memory. AR I haven't seen it, and I send and receive a lot of mail and a LOT AR of attachments. Maybe someone can send you the file. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Many people quit looking for work when they find a job. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Adam, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:37:24 +0100 GMT (13/09/02, 05:37 +0700 GMT), Adam Rykala wrote: AR TB! on C drive or another drive? AR Spaces in folder name (here its d:\TheBat) I am using Win98 with TB on C:\ drive (standard installation). AR There MUST be a common thread here! The common thread here is that it will happen to anybody who cares to try it out with the files that Eddy sends. It has nothing to do with hardware. Try it out yourself. ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. On the other hand, you have different fingers. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Quoting Thomas F. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Adam, AR I haven't seen it, and I send and receive a lot of mail and a LOT AR of attachments. Maybe someone can send you the file. Yeah thats not a bad idea. Use the email address in my sig... a -- [ Adam Rykala ] [ www.new-wales.net ] [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - pgp private key] -- the [new-wales] project - http://www.new-wales.net Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Quoting Thomas F. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Adam, AR There MUST be a common thread here! The common thread here is that it will happen to anybody who cares to try it out with the files that Eddy sends. It has nothing to do with hardware. Try it out yourself. ;-) As the man said, Bring it on ;-) a Actually send me the files to this account, then when I've done that, I'll give you another account to try... a -- [ Adam Rykala ] [ www.new-wales.net ] [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - pgp private key] -- the [new-wales] project - http://www.new-wales.net Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Adam, On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:25:15 +0100 GMT (13/09/02, 15:25 +0700 GMT), Adam Rykala wrote: The common thread here is that it will happen to anybody who cares to try it out with the files that Eddy sends. It has nothing to do with hardware. Try it out yourself. ;-) AR As the man said, Bring it on Maybe someone could donate some temporary webspace or ftp space where this file could be uploaded to, so that everybody who wants to try can just download it? ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Die Pille fuer den Mann wurde bei 2 000 Maennern getestet. Und tatsaechlich - keiner von ihnen bekam ein Kind! Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Thomas! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 10:13:17 AM you wrote: AR There MUST be a common thread here! The common thread here is that it will happen to anybody who cares to try it out with the files that Eddy sends. 1. there *must* be a common denominator. 2. Hopefully it's *not* Eddy. ;-) 3. At least two people are experiencing it independently - Eddy and Bill. The last point is vital. If it would only be Eddy's JPEG, the conclusion must be that the file itself or something on Eddy's side is wrong (e.g. the file is a JPEG2000). It cannot be said often enough - please read carefully if you are a scientist (in the broadest sense) or work in journalism: You do need at least two INDEPENDENT [Leno mode] sources to establish a phenomenon or an explanation. This maxim is being violated very often at the moment. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Interest.Write4U.de/pongo PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C He who hesitates is probably right. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Thomas! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 10:43:33 AM you wrote: Maybe someone could donate some temporary webspace or ftp space where this file could be uploaded to, so that everybody who wants to try can just download it? ;-) As I've already put up a small page dedicated to The Bat! problems (just one in there at the moment), I'd gladly do it. Only trouble is, I've lost the original somewhere, so I do need it sent again ... -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Interest.Write4U.de/pongo PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand. (Carole King) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, @13-Sep-2002, 15:43 +0700 (09:43 UK time) Thomas F. [T] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: AR As the man said, Bring it on T Maybe someone could donate some temporary webspace or ftp space T where this file could be uploaded to, so that everybody who wants T to try can just download it? ;-) Done! See http://www.silverstones.com/message.zip. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9ga4rOeQkq5KdzaARAhtqAKCS7AWjtShF8w/PtQ7tSdSywiOW6wCg+Dtc Ufse5El6uBcZw2mVI3ydoFw= =gHKs -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Marck, On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 10:21:46 [GMT +0100], you wrote: T [...] some temporary webspace or ftp space where this file could be T uploaded to, so that everybody who wants to try can just download T it? ;-) MDP Done! See http://www.silverstones.com/message.zip. Nope. Are you sure about the filename? I only get a 404 when I try to download it. -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Lars, @13-Sep-2002, 11:33 +0200 (10:33 UK time) Lars Geiger [LG] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MDP Done! See http://www.silverstones.com/message.zip. LG Nope. Are you sure about the filename? Not in the least! See http://www.silverstones.com/messages.zip. (plural) Sorry! - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gbKTOeQkq5KdzaARAnxUAKDT2/3OuAOtCw0zLe3f0AV/imJHRwCg1jlo pFSnFPh23EkKnVJj5P2hwPg= =EbGC -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Anselm! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 11:20:28 AM you wrote: Separate directory. Just changed settings to message body to check that out. So, it doesn't matter how attachments are stored? Firewall: ZA (not loaded today). Virus Scanner: AntiVir. Rambooster (OK, OK, I'll kick that one out, too...). Seems, firewall and virus scanner do factor in?! 3. What kind of connection do you have? DSL access So, the corruption hits both DUN and DSL users? 4. Are there any file formats that are *not* affected? No problems with zip files, so far. Haven't I seen this right at the beginning? Can anyone confirm? How do you usually open attachments? From the mail or the directory they're saved to? Either I open them from within the message or I save them to an appropriate directory (translation matters for example always land in a folder translations\client\project). Now that's interesting, isn't it? Yes, and promising. Let's see what others are saying. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Interest.Write4U.de/pongo PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C When people have problems using a design, it's not because they are stupid. It's because the design is too difficult. (Jakob Nielsen) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Thomas, i follwed the thread a time. I had the same problems some months ago. My solution was to switch off the stealph mode in my Sygate firewall. I dont know which firewall is running in this case...perhaps it helps. -- Ciao Thomas Mailer: The Bat!1.62/Beta5 System: Windows XP 2600 PGP: PGPckt 6.58 Build: 08 | Key: 0xBB9237A9 ICQ: 121117424 (hardly ever online) HP: http://mirror.at/thebat/ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello vlk! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 12:06:20 PM you wrote: MarthaLiving.jpg looks like not completely downloaded picture from web - probably sent before completed. Perfectly right, I hadn't looked for that the last time I inspected it. But that wouldn't explain why DOCs are also corrupted, or why the JPEG can be seen with TB! when forwarded. And since the JPEG itself is correctly shown within IrfanView and PhotoPaint I'd say the file itself has correct headers and therefore should be shown in TB! except it is a format not yet known by TB! (i.e. JPEG2000). -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Zoo.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Wenn man arbeitet, hat man keine Zeit, Geld zu verdienen. (Polnisch-jüdisches Sprichwort) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 11:40:33 AM you wrote: See http://www.silverstones.com/messages.zip. I put it up, too: http://Software.Write4U.de. As I found out that way the site had been mysteriously disappeared during one of my clean-ups lately. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Zoo.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises. (Samuel Butler) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Dierk, On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 12:23:34 [GMT +0200], you wrote: DH And since the JPEG itself is correctly shown within IrfanView and DH PhotoPaint I'd say the file itself has correct headers and therefore DH should be shown in TB! except it is a format not yet known by TB! DH (i.e. JPEG2000). No, the file itself is not correct, although there may be some viewers which will ignore this. Trying to view the file with SlowView or decompressing it with djpeg (both relying on libjpeg) results in an error: Corrupt JPEG data: premature end of data segment Bogus marker length And in this case, without having a look at the structure of the file itself, I'd trust libjpeg's opinion. But when I forward the message to myself, I receive a longer file which can be decoded correctly and then shows the complete image, without the corruption at the bottom. -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Dierk Haasis [DH] wrote:' DH Perfectly right, I hadn't looked for that the last time I DH inspected it. But that wouldn't explain why DOCs are also DH corrupted, or why the JPEG can be seen with TB! when forwarded. DH And since the JPEG itself is correctly shown within IrfanView DH and PhotoPaint I'd say the file itself has correct headers and DH therefore should be shown in TB! except it is a format not yet DH known by TB! (i.e. JPEG2000). When I try to open the image in Paint Shop Pro, I get a 'this is not a valid jpeg/jfif file' message. If I open it with my default viewer, PMView, it opens OK, but in the status bar is the message 'Invalid Marker Length'. - -- Allie C Martin \ TB! v1.62/Beta5 WinXP Pro (SP1) List Moderator/ PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQE9gcpmV8nrYCsHF+IRAgg4AJ9O6pzxqvA071MKGAF83z0ke9WkZACdGr5r vYfgKkahjJsYKIi75cUCuzU= =Detc -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Lars! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 12:49:26 PM you wrote: But when I forward the message to myself, I receive a longer file which can be decoded correctly and then shows the complete image, without the corruption at the bottom. That seems to me to point towards some bug in TB!'s viewer. Or are JPEGs self-healing? -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Zoo.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Allie! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 1:22:17 PM you wrote: When I try to open the image in Paint Shop Pro, I get a 'this is not a valid jpeg/jfif file' message. If I open it with my default viewer, PMView, it opens OK, but in the status bar is the message 'Invalid Marker Length'. So at last we are homing in. Now we have to find out what corrupts the image and why. And after that we have to find out if this is pure coincidence or if all the other affected attachments are also corrupted like this. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Zoo.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C Is everyone in the world corrupt?! I don't know everyone. (Billy Wilder) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Dierk, On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 13:34:46 [GMT +0200], you wrote: But when I forward the message to myself, I receive a longer file which can be decoded correctly and then shows the complete image, without the corruption at the bottom. DH That seems to me to point towards some bug in TB!'s viewer. Or are DH JPEGs self-healing? Maybe I was a bit unclear here, but the file is corrupt when it is saved to disc. The internal viewer wasn't involved in my tests. But the same file which results in a corrupt JPEG when saved to disc is forwarded correctly and can then be saved and viewed perfectly. That is really strange. -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Lars! On Friday, September 13, 2002 at 2:03:49 PM you wrote: Maybe I was a bit unclear here, but the file is corrupt when it is saved to disc. The internal viewer wasn't involved in my tests. But the same file which results in a corrupt JPEG when saved to disc is forwarded correctly and can then be saved and viewed perfectly. No, you weren't. what you described is exactly what I understood. Upon my testing the file was corrupt - in TB!'s viewer (blank) as when opened from a saved copy. Since to my knowledge JPEG is not self-healing, something very odd is going on. -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de http://Zoo.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.61 on Windows 95 4.0 1212 C It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am. (Derek Leveret) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Technology, Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:47:51 AM, you wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in BBTE TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be BBTE blaming on NAV. BBTE When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments BBTE are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs BBTE will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually BBTE guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. BBTE When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. BBTE Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to BBTE retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. I've seen corruption of various file types. Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results in the files fixing themselves. For me, this is a work-around, not a fix. Mark. -- Regards, Mark mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bat! Version 1.61 OS info: Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mark, @12-Sep-2002, 05:07 -0700 (13:07 UK time) Mark Bernard [MB] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a BBTE bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that BBTE I should be blaming on NAV. ... snip BBTE When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive BBTE intact. ... snip MB I've seen corruption of various file types. MB Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results MB in the files fixing themselves. MB For me, this is a work-around, not a fix. I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other real-time POP3 virus scanner? I don't. I have been a TB user for over 4 years and receive 200-400 messages per day, many of which have attachments; JPG, DOC, GIF, HTM, PDF, PPS, EXE, SQL - the list goes on. I have *never* seen TB corrupt an attachment... and I mean *never*. The only way to prove the error (but not where it is coming from) is to submit a MIME forward of the original message from the sender's system and an exported (.msg) copy of the received version to the BugTraq. I'll wager it's nothing to do with TB though. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gIw0OeQkq5KdzaARAnFrAKD4ENOICgT7eh+1C6y6jAQ1KagrHwCfTW4z 8EMQJKi0ZI/WB7K5+0wWRkk= =/Dn6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi, This problem has been discussed in other threads. Same over here: Attachements (Word, RTF, TXT...) are regularly messed up. I first thought that the problem is sender-dependent but then realized it is not. The spoilt attachments alwas stem from messages with multiple attachments of different file types, though, so that one could suspect a connection. No NAV installed on my system, so that can't be the cause. Resending to myself doesn't work in my case. Attachment management is crucial for me, so I guess, I'll have to switch to another program - at least for the time being. All the best, Anselm For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be blaming on NAV. When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. Thanks! Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 7:39 AM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio http://www.technology-corner.com == NEW HOME FOR THE SHOW! Featured speaker: CorelWORLD - http://www.corelworld.com Random thought: There are two kinds of books: those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read. - H.L. Mencken Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html __ Anselm Buehling - Translations EN/RU DE [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 30 6950 4870 |phone +49 30 6950 4898 |fax +49 170 961 2072 |mobile Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:47:51 AM, you wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in BBTE TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be BBTE blaming on NAV. BBTE When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments BBTE are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs BBTE will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually BBTE guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. BBTE When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. BBTE Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to BBTE retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. I've been using NAV together with TB for 3 years or more, which means through several versions of NAV (up to NAV 2000) .. I don't recall which version of TB I started with, but it was before 1.53. In that time I've received all kinds of attachments. I can't swear that none has ever arrived corrupt, but it's been rare. I've been running it all on NT4, and now w2kp ... I don't suppose this helps much, but ... Lynn 1.60m on Win2kPro SP2 -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * *Aun Aprendo I'd rather be WARP'ed* * * Team OS/2 http://www.sites.onlinemac.com/hawthorne/ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 07:47 your local time, (17:32 my local time), you [BBT] wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a BBTE bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I BBTE should be blaming on NAV. At one time, I did receive a lot of corrupt attachments in TB! But that was not because of NAV, but Zone Alarm. Ever since I discarded ZA, things are fine (and I use NAV). Not only were the attachments corrupt, but at times the file names were messed up. The files names would be something like: report.doc; x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 People in this list said the attachments originated from Mac user but that wasn't the case. They came from my colleagues using NT4. It was Mail Safe settings of ZA that was messing them up. Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ Anything in parenthesis can (not) be ignored /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 07:47 your local time, (17:32 my local time), you [BBT] wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a BBTE bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I BBTE should be blaming on NAV. At one time, I did receive a lot of corrupt attachments in TB! But that was not because of NAV, but Zone Alarm. Ever since I discarded ZA, things are fine (and I use NAV). Not only were the attachments corrupt, but at times the file names were messed up. The names would be something like: report.doc; x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 People in this list said the attachments originated from Mac user but that wasn't the case. They came from my colleagues using NT4. It was Mail Safe settings of ZA that was messing them up. Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ Anything in parenthesis can (not) be ignored /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, September 12, 2002, Anselm Buehling wrote... Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. I, for one, do, so that might be a clue! But would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB if you want to receive correct attachments? Not at all... try turning off the mail filtering options, and see if that helps cure things. I haven't used ZA in a long while, so I cannot point you to where it is. Either that, or try a different firewall for a short while. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPYCoxiuD6BT4/R9zEQLIYACguAzCgz8fvUZeLnI3X9FDw1oEuP4AoNIE NdOwUCCemV8qo51l3b3bowB1 =cohr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Anselm, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 16:40:29 [GMT +0200], you wrote: AB using a broadband access without firewall seems way to dangerous AB these days... Might I recommend to read the FAQ of the (German speaking) newsgroup de.comp.security.firewall? http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/Firewall.html or the English version here: http://www.blood-thirsty-barbarians.de/Firewall.html Although some of the arguments might seem a bit exaggerated at first, I can tell from my own experience that not using a personal firewall isn't much of a loss. You only have to keep up with security updates for your system, but shouldn't everyone do that? ;-) -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Anselm, @12-Sep-2002, 16:40 +0200 (15:40 UK time) Anselm Buehling [AB] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. AB I, for one, do, so that might be a clue! But would that mean AB that no firewall can be used together with TB if you want to AB receive correct attachments? It most certainly does not. Search the archives of this mailing list to see the many rants against ZA as a firewall. I use Kerio and it protects me well without compromising any apps running on my systems. Another highly rated firewall is OutPost. ZA is a villaim of many pieces, working well for some, but interfering with the peaceful computing of others, going beyond its bounds and remit. Anyway, it may be, as advised, that disabling the mail scanning functions of ZA (... why it's a firewall - what business does it have scanning mail for pity's sake!) will be sufficient to clean up its act in your case. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gK3hOeQkq5KdzaARAiw0AKDFjTqQsOoGd6wPKrJk9uMWfrCx2ACfeNrN YZoaJzdBYZVsyWso22CmLCo= =NTrN -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:44:34 +0100 GMT (12/09/02, 19:44 +0700 GMT), Marck D Pearlstone wrote: MDP I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other MDP real-time POP3 virus scanner? MDP I don't. I have been a TB user for over 4 years and receive 200-400 MDP messages per day, many of which have attachments; JPG, DOC, GIF, MDP HTM, PDF, PPS, EXE, SQL - the list goes on. I have *never* seen TB MDP corrupt an attachment... and I mean *never*. Me neither. Until Eddy forwarded a zipped message.tbb and message.tbi pair to me. I have subsequently confirmed the problem. I have never had NAV on my system. See thread starting with [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and my message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MDP The only way to prove the error (but not where it is coming from) is MDP to submit a MIME forward of the original message from the sender's MDP system and an exported (.msg) copy of the received version to the MDP BugTraq. ACK. MDP I'll wager it's nothing to do with TB though. Let's see. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. 31. 'Stewardesses' is the longest English word that is typed with only the left hand. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, BBTE I prefer not to disable it because I BBTE consider it a last line of defense for outbound traffic in the event BBTE that something slips through my defenses. Get Kerio Personal Firewall. MUCH better than ZA+. Smaller footprint and more configurable. KPF has a few quirks of its own but none of them affect how other programs operate like ZA can/does. -- Tom G. http://blarp.com -- Free tech support The Bat 1.61 - Windows 2000 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, @12-Sep-2002, 22:28 +0700 (16:28 UK time) Thomas F. [TF] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MDP I'll wager it's nothing to do with TB though. TF Let's see. And now ZA peeps over the parapet yet again. If it were TB doing it, more of us would be affected. I said never and I mean never. That's not to say it doesn't happen. I accept that looking at a corrupted message as stored in a TBB would reveal that it had happened to someone, but that certainly doesn't mean TB did it! There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip - the message must pass through other ports of call before TB gets it. It is interesting that the problem can sometimes be cleared up by forwarding the message. Hey - perhaps ZA re-corrupts the attachment and renders it legible on the way back round :-). - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gLoOOeQkq5KdzaARAk/0AJ9glkyHMx7wByxIL+R0EQXyNQsfYQCgxyeZ ewUZUlSdbEOjczfDtRQccVc= =2yjI -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello William Thank you for your email dated Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:35:12 PM, in which you wrote: BBTE If nothing else, I have been introduced to AVG Antivirus! Let me introduce you an even better one :-) www.eset.com -- Regards William Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Anselm Thank you for your email dated Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:40:29 PM, in which you wrote: AB ... would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB if AB you want to receive correct attachments? Certainly not. I have broadband, NOD32, and Sygate Pro firewall. No problem. Yes I know, I'll probably regret that last statement! -- Regards William Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi William, @12-Sep-2002, 17:02 William Moore [WM] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: BBTE If nothing else, I have been introduced to AVG Antivirus! WM Let me introduce you an even better one :-) www.eset.com But the price is infinitely worse! - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gLt2OeQkq5KdzaARAjMCAKDPa9KczzH9WBScd8ygpDyXg3NwKACfXzEJ i/NrLA4/hk6SAx/zzjMB1r0= =Cvh0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
BB When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments BB are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs BB will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually BB guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. BB When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. I don't use any sort of antivirus software on my system, so it isn't that. I don't use any sort of firewall software on my system, so it isn't that. I've seen every type of file corrupted, be it a .JPG, .PPT, .ZIP, .DOC... you name it, it has arrived corrupted at one time or another. (Not all attachments arrive corrupt; the larger the attachment, the more likely the corruption is to occur.) I have seen it occur when there has been just a single attachment and when there are multiple attachments. Recently, I created a folder called Test, into which I put several messages which are corrupt in TB!. I zip'd the Test folder (containing the .TBB and .TBI files) and mailed it to several TB! users. When they created a Test folder and placed the .TBB/.TBI files from my .zip in it, they were able to experience the corruption first-hand. Forwarding a message with a corrupt attachment to a non-TB! user always results in an attachment that is perfectly valid for the recipient, meaning that the message was received, and stored, without any errors. Others have said that forwarding the message back to yourself also works, although I haven't tried it. What I usually do is export the message as a Unix mailbox and re-import it, and that USUALLY corrects the problem (but not always). Because of the import/export, I end up with two seemingly identical messages in my Inbox, but one is corrupt and one works. This most certainly appears to be a problem with TB!. I used 'Help Feedback Bug Report' to submit a bug (an even included my zip file of the corrupted Test folder) but never received any acknowledgement or any sort of response from RIT Labs. Eddy Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck Thank you for your email dated Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:06:12 PM, in which you wrote: MDP But the price is infinitely worse! Spoken like a true Londoner ;-) -- Regards William Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 12:26:55 PM, Eddy wrote: Forwarding a message with a corrupt attachment to a non-TB! user always results in an attachment that is perfectly valid for the recipient If the file is alright after it is forwarded, it can't be corrupted when you get it. Where do you store your messages? Do you save them separately when they come it? In what way are they corrupted when you try to use them? What are you trying to do with them when they appear to be corrupted? -- Dwight A. Corrin P O Box 47828 Wichita KS 67201-7828 316.263.9706 fax 316.263.6385 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP version 5,1 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hallo Anselm, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:40:29 +0200GMT (12-9-02, 16:40 +0200GMT, where I live), you wrote: AB But would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB AB if you want to receive correct attachments? No, it doesn't. I use TB, AVG and ZA (free version) and have never received a corrupt attachment. BTW I run W98 and have got ADSL. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:35 your local time, (20:20 my local time), you [BBT] wrote: BBTE I'll try contacting Zone Labs, too. I had a bad experience with them. They kept sending me a same stock mail suggesting to turn off Mail Safe setting. When this didn't work, I asked them again and guess what? They sent me the same friggin' stock mail again !! -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Marck, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 16:08 your local time, (20:53 my local time), you [MDP] wrote: MDP Anyway, it may be, as advised, that disabling the mail scanning MDP functions of ZA (... why it's a firewall - what business does MDP it have scanning mail for pity's sake!) will be sufficient to MDP clean up its act in your case. But, in my case, turning off Mail Safe setting didn't help either. Uninstalling ZA was the only way out. -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
ON Thursday, September 12, 2002, 7:26:55 PM, you wrote: E Recently, I created a folder called Test, into which I put several E messages which are corrupt in TB!. I zip'd the Test folder E (containing the .TBB and .TBI files) and mailed it to several TB! E users. When they created a Test folder and placed the .TBB/.TBI E files from my .zip in it, they were able to experience the corruption E first-hand. Hi Eddy, I am no expert on this but it sure looks like a corrupted Tbb or TBI file. I belive you can delete index file and TB! will recreate it. Have you tried that with a corrupted file in the folder? It could be just a case of mis-indexing. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Wethern's Law -Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 1:36:01 PM, Dwight wrote: DAC On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 12:26:55 PM, Eddy wrote: Forwarding a message with a corrupt attachment to a non-TB! user always results in an attachment that is perfectly valid for the recipient DAC If the file is alright after it is forwarded, it can't be corrupted DAC when you get it. Correct. I have said all along that the message is received and stored correctly by TB!, so it is not a network or ISP issue. I believe it is an issue with how TB! decodes the attachment when it comes time to actually EXTRACT the attachment for viewing/use. DAC Where do you store your messages? Do you save them DAC separately when they come it? Nope. I do not separate out the attachments; I leave them as is. DAC In what way are they corrupted when you try to use them? In the case of JPEG attachments, clicking the little tab at the bottom of the window that allows you to view the image results in nothing but a blank pane when the attachment is corrupt. Double-clicking the attachment to view it with TB!'s internal image viewer results in a JPG Err# 11 or JPG Err# 68. Saving the attachment (by dragging the icon from the attachment sidebar, or right-clicking it and choosing Save) and viewing it in an external viewer, such as IrfanView, ACDSee, Internet Explorer, Photoshop, etc. results in a JPEG image that is partially viewable, and then corrupt at some varying point in the image. Forwarding the mail to a non-TB! user results in a perfectly valid, error-free image, as does exporting and re-importing the message (in most, but not all cases). DAC What are you trying to do with them when they appear to be DAC corrupted? I'm just trying to use whatever attachment is sent to me! .DOC files can't be opened in Word (it complains about the file being corrupt), .PPT files won't open, ZIP files have CRC errors and abort extraction, etc. In _all_ cases, forwarding the message (in many of my tests, I would forward it to my wife's email account; she uses Outlook) results in a perfectly useable file for the recipient. Lately, I've been able to avoid the extra steps associated with forwarding it to her, saving the attachment to one of her shared folders, copying to my computer via the network, etc. by doing the Export/Import trick. But on occasion, even that hasn't worked. I have to believe the problem has to do with how TB! is decoding MIME attachments. If it was anything else (such as corruption in my mailbox folders, etc.) I wouldn't be able to forward or export/import the message and have a useable attachment. So the only explanation is that 100% of the attachment data is there, and decodeable by other mail programs, but _not_ by TB!. Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. Eddy Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Eddy, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 15:38:37 [GMT -0400] (or 20:38 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: E On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 1:36:01 PM, Dwight wrote: DAC On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 12:26:55 PM, Eddy wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. E Eddy Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? a. -- 12 September 2002, 21:35 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X When Gerber first started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as here in the USA - with the cute baby on the label. Later they found out that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what's inside since most people can't read. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
ON Thursday, September 12, 2002, 9:38:37 PM, you wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. Eddy, I would like a go at this. Can you pls sent me the test files to. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Eat right. Exercise. Die Anyway. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 17:25:21 [GMT -0400] (or 22:25 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? BBTE A Adam ... BBTE Everyone who has this problem has bad memory? And I have bad memory on BBTE THREE computers? And the problem doesn't manifest itself with any BBTE other e-mail program? (Not even with that inferior thing Microsoft BBTE ships.) Tell you what, rather then just knocking me back like that. Take your main machine it happens with and try it. FYI I'm a Senior Support guy and the first thing I teach my staff under me is to attack a problem from all likely angles. ANd you say its impossible to have bad ram on three computers - no not impossible. Unlikely, but not impossible. Remove the impossible and whatever is left, even the unlikely - must be suspected. I've seen stranger things that happen. Lets look at what you've said. Attachments come in and on those machines they seem corrupted. JPG's show some file corruption within them right? Documents don't open. Therefore something isn't being read from message store correctly. Seeing as (IIRC) you're storing attachments with the message in the store its safe to assume that for some reason the decoding of the attachment from store is not going right. I said that I suspect a) Its being corrupted in memory as the attachment is being reconstructed. Because its obvious (as other people can read your attachments when forwarded) that the deconstruction process is going wrong. If they are stored in the message base coded then there is no real reconstruction going on in forwarding them - they are merely block copied and sent out. Also you mentioned ZA and mail checking - well I had to rebuild an exchange server with a 12gb database because a virus checker was silently corrupting attachments due to what is called (oh how I laugh) Known Issues So any software that sits between you and the mail store is also suspect. Mainly because the process of checking goes on (1) when writing the message to store and (2) retrieving from store. So there are several angles to try. Me - I'd isolate the easy ones first. Change the RAM - try it. Still the same? then strike ram from it. Check to remove overheating from the equation. Many people just slam in any old RAM into their PC's without a second thought for the issues. Mismatching RAM is a big troublemaker If you have three machines then strip one down to windows and TB!. Remove all extraneous software from it. You may, for example, have an esoteric bit of software that conflicts. a. -- 12 September 2002, 22:32 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X My opinion is neither copyrighted nor trademarked, and it's price competitive. If you like, I'll trade for one of yours. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 17:25:21 [GMT -0400] (or 22:25 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? BBTE A Adam ... BBTE Everyone who has this problem has bad memory? And I have bad memory on BBTE THREE computers? And the problem doesn't manifest itself with any BBTE other e-mail program? (Not even with that inferior thing Microsoft BBTE ships.) BBTE I don't think so . Perhaps everybody who has this problem does have mismatched memory - because I don't see a lot of other people suffering from it. I haven't seen it, and I send and receive a lot of mail and a LOT of attachments. But. try this. Export the messages from TB! into *another* mail client. Mozilla/OE/Calypso whatever verify they open or not Export them back repeat.. What gives? Got an IMAP server? Then copy them to that and repeat. a -- 12 September 2002, 22:56 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X Life is a sexually transmitted disease. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Mark, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 15:04:08 [GMT -0700] (or 23:04 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: MB Hello Marck, MB Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:44:34 AM, you wrote: MB I've seen corruption of various file types. MB Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results MB in the files fixing themselves. MDP I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other MDP real-time POP3 virus scanner? MB I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from MB PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, MB never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was MB my email client. Obviously then you all share a common theme - and so far there's little to go on. Why not register for a free account at www.myrealbox.com - as they have imap access. Worth trying the copy back and forth from imap to test? a -- 12 September 2002, 23:05 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X You've heard about the computer programmer that died while washing his hair in the shower. The instructions said, 'Lather, rinse, repeat.' Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Mark, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 15:04:08 [GMT -0700] (or 23:04 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: MB Hello Marck, MB Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:44:34 AM, you wrote: MB I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from MB PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, MB never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was MB my email client. The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 and other people are on Winxp or whatever? You all using fat32? Large disk? a -- 12 September 2002, 23:07 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X 31.69 nHz = once a year. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:36:21 PM, Adam wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. AR Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? I guarantee to five-9's that this isn't a hardware problem. I have had this same problem since the TB! 1.53 days, and that was two motherboards/CPUs ago! I just recently purchased a new system (I always build myself, using high-quality components, especially when it comes to RAM, and I don't overclock BTW) and after installing Win2K, and doing very little except applying the recommended updates, I installed TB!... Within 24 hours I had a corrupt attachment in my Inbox. If it truly was a dodgy chip, then (a) I would expect flakiness in other programs, which I absolutely do not see; I go for weeks on end without rebooting, and I frequently use memory-intensive applications that would surely have problems as well and (b) rebooting should have some effect, since TB! would be in a different location in physical memory, especially if you ran several other programs (IE, Word, Photoshop, etc.) first. But this has no effect on the corrupted state of the attachment, which, invariably, can be forwarded to a non-TB! user who can open it just fine. All the evidence I have encountered seem to point to a problem with how TB! is processing attachments after they are received. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 2:01:12 PM, Gerard wrote: G I am no expert on this but it sure looks like a corrupted Tbb or G TBI file. I belive you can delete index file and TB! will recreate G it. Have you tried that with a corrupted file in the folder? I don't think so; I can create a new Folder within TB!, drag a message with a mangled attachment to it (thereby creating a new .TBB and .TBI file for the new folder that was just created) and have the exact same problem with the mangled attachment in the newly-created folder that only contains that one message. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Eddy, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:09:44 [GMT -0400] (or 23:09 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: E On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:36:21 PM, Adam wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. AR Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? E I guarantee to five-9's that this isn't a hardware problem. I have had E this same problem since the TB! 1.53 days, and that was two E motherboards/CPUs ago! Notice I said may - it was merely a base check. E Within 24 hours I had a corrupt attachment in my Inbox. E All the evidence I have encountered seem to point to a problem with how TB! E is processing attachments after they are received. Or some sort of DLL conflict. I've posted another message with some questions - can you answer them and see if there is some sort of common ground we can look at. Its odd how a lot of people don't see this, and those WHO DO see it can forward to those who don't and it works. There's a common theme somewhere - all we need to do is find it. a. -- 12 September 2002, 23:16 (`-''-/).___..--''`-._ Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) http://new-wales.net | (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Adam Rykala http://new-wales.net | (il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' pgp key - pgp.arykalanew-wales.net | You are here: X Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:23:19 [GMT -0400] (or 23:23 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A a) Its being corrupted in memory as the attachment is being reconstructed. BBTE Agreed, but would it not have the same effect when the message is BBTE being reconstructed in Eudora, Outlook, Outlook Express, Pegasus, BBTE Netscape Maill, or SOME other program? I have never seen one of these BBTE programs corrupt an attachment. If memory was the problem, wouldn't I BBTE see some evidence of it in other programs? Wouldn't I see BSODs on a BBTE regular basis? Perhaps, perhaps not. The problem might lie in a support DLL that TB! uses that is being supersedeb by a newer one in the WIn directory... If it sounds like I'm pulling solutions out of my backside, its because I'm trying to see all sides of this to spot a common thread for a clue. I've just had to rebuild one machine in work that was being used in Test Equipment that would BSOD on ONE APP only - turns out it was mismatched memory. replaced a DIMM and the machine has been sweet... I did say MAY mind! As in, have you removed it as a suspect - obviously so. BBTE I agree absolutely that it's probably happening when the attachment is BBTE being reconstructed, but if it's bad memory, would the same image fail in BBTE the same way every single time? I would mention overheating/clocking but that looks like its also out to. BBTE But once an image fails, it always fails. If an image is good, it's BBTE always good. BBTE I'm really not trying to knock you back or to be a smart ass, but BBTE I'm not about to take apart three computers (or even one) on what BBTE looks to me like a wild goose chase. Rather then take one apart - I suggested just opening one and swapping RAM round. When faced with a situation that I can't explain I tend to go right back to basics. Mainly because sometimes it gives you a clue to the real problem. BBTE Both ZA and NAV were out of the picture when I received a fax BBTE attachment earlier today -- it was corrupt. Fortunately my jFax BBTE account is set to leave mail on the server, so I retrieved the BBTE attachment with Eudora -- no problem. Can you try the export-import thingy? I haven't been able to replicate this problem with the few computers I have here which is odd. Its a conflict of sorts, but where? BBTE NAV and ZA were on all 3 machines (different versions). Except for that, BBTE running apps and processes differ quite a bit. Removing ZA and NAV had no BBTE effect, as others have already said. Any other odd software - is one particularly clean or particularly app-laden? Does one get a lot of install/de-install. DLL hell is a bitch to diagnose... a. -- | 12 September 2002, 23:25 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://new-wales.net | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP Public Key Request Antivir scanned mail | It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level I'm really quite busy. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:29:01 [GMT -0400] (or 23:29 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 A and other people are on Winxp or whatever? A You all using fat32? Large disk? BBTE I'm on XP. Wouldn't use FAT32 on a dare. All affected systems are BBTE NTFS. All are Seagate drives -- ranging from 7200RPM EIDE to 15000RPM BBTE SCSI. No significant fragmentation thanks to Diskkeeper. No evidence BBTE of impending hardware failure. Same here but SCSI drives, IBM. SO SCSI is out and NTFS is out. Ok keep narrowing the focus ;-) TB! on C drive or another drive? Spaces in folder name (here its d:\TheBat) Only real DLL in the folder are the PGP ones (present) and the Spell Checker. So DLL hell is possibly out as it looks like TB! is pretty self contained (and I got out of programming 10 years ago!!) Write caching on or off? Ultra DMA on? (possibility of some conflict between TB! and something?_) Is there any software on your machine between mail and client? Firewall's, Popup blockers, etc...? There MUST be a common thread here! a. -- | 12 September 2002, 23:32 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://new-wales.net | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP Public Key Request Antivir scanned mail | Then you are cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:09:44 PM, Eddy wrote: All the evidence I have encountered seem to point to a problem with how TB! is processing attachments after they are received. how about setting up an installation which saves attachments separate from the messages, and send some of these messages there to see if the same thing happens. -- Dwight A. Corrin P O Box 47828 Wichita KS 67201-7828 316.263.9706 fax 316.263.6385 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP version 5,1 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Roelof Otten [RO] wrote:' RO No, it doesn't. I use TB, AVG and ZA (free version) and have RO never received a corrupt attachment. BTW I run W98 and have got RO ADSL. Hmmm. One of the lucky ones. I hope it continues for you. I had no problems at first and was a happy camper with ZA for some time but it didn't last. I can see one staying with an operating system that's known to be not the most secure and causes problems because they have invested time and money into it and furthermore, the alternatives may not amount to viable choices. However, the personal firewall thing perplexes me since there are so many viable, compatible choices out there. I don't see the point of running TB! and ZA if there are such known associated problems when running both together. Known problems that can be so insidious in their manifestations. Bad application interactions come and go. Some are universal in that they're experienced by all users and some aren't as is so troublesome with TB! and ZA. I was once neutral with ZA but I'm now frankly against using it ... period. OK, I can see the point of making sleeping dogs lie if there are no current problems but the answer seems clear to me with those having problems. Change the firewall. I'm amazed that the e-mail client is changed instead, when the e-mail is the application that involves more user interaction. Just my opinion though I couldn't keep it to myself any longer. :) PS// ZA can be factored out of the equation only after uninstalling it from your system. Merely deactivating it isn't enough. This is the other horrible thing about it. This should never be the case. -- Allie C Martin \ TB! v1.62/Beta5 WinXP Pro (SP1) List Moderator/ PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
