Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi 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. Seems very reasonable to me, so let's go! 1. Where do you all store your attachments, in separate directory or within the message? Separate directory. Just changed settings to message body to check that out. 2. What other tasks are running (TSRs, virus scanners, firewalls, IMs ...)? Firewall: ZA (not loaded today). Virus Scanner: AntiVir. Rambooster (OK, OK, I'll kick that one out, too...). 3. What kind of connection do you have? DSL access 4. Are there any file formats that are *not* affected? No problems with zip files, so far. 5. Anybody else knowing a good question? Yep: How do you usually open attachments? From the mail or the directory they're saved to? Here's why: I had activated the option store in separate directory, but the only reason was to keep the message base compact and to be able to delete attachments separately when they're not longer needed. For working purposes, I always used to open (or drag and drop) the attached files directly from the mail and save them in client/job specific folders. Only now, when writing this mail, it came to my mind to have a look at the attachment directory. Guess what? I found uncorrupted copies of the problematic files there! But that's not all. I also found one or more corrupted copies of the files in question, with a later creation date and a number attached to the file name. Thus if, e.g. I received a file 'translation.rtf', the directory contains the original file, which opens perfectly fine, and then some other files: 'translation1.rtf', translation2.rtf'... which look messed up like they did when I opened/saved them from the mail. Judging from the creation dates, a new file version with a new number seems to have been created on each attempt to open/save the file from the mail. Now that's interesting, isn't it? All the best, Anselm __ 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[2]: Mangled attachments
-- Message from: Marck D Pearlstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13. september 2002, 11:40:33 AM: -- MDP See http://www.silverstones.com/messages.zip. MarthaLiving.jpg looks like not completely downloaded picture from web - probably sent before completed. the rest is filled with grey color to get the proper size. poit you pic viewer (acdsee, irfan..) to your internet temp folder, there are a lot of pics like this - can be viewed, but not with all apps. :-) -- vlk TB161, w98 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi guys Great idea putting the message store in a zip - a suggestion though. Is there anyone who can set up an auto responder that sens out the one message with the corrupt image...? Mainly because I want to see if there is a difference between the message store version and a forwarded one - I want to see if we can isolate the way it is being written to store... As you all know, virus checkers et al monitor file accesses, (and viruses too ;0( ) and I want to see if we cn at least isolate the obvious ones... I want to see what happens on my machine between opening the two different versions... As you can tell, I'm on my webmail client at the moment but I'll be back home at about 1pm BST - will test this afternoon! 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[2]: Mangled attachments
-- Message from: Dierk Haasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13. september 2002, 12:23:34 PM: -- DH And since the JPEG itself is DH correctly shown within IrfanView and PhotoPaint I'd say the file DH itself has correct headers and therefore should be shown in TB! should or should not. it is the way the apps read the document. ie i can see a damaged jpg image (i mean really corrupted) in a viewer (acdsee) with some garbage at the bottom, but Mr. Photoshop doesn't open it at all, saying image is bad. Same with IExplorer - doesn't need it complete when showing (dowloading) image - in other words, don't care that at the bottom is some bad math. -- vlk TB161, w98 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Dierk Haasis said ... No problems with zip files, so far. D Haven't I seen this right at the beginning? Can anyone confirm? I can't recall a specific problem with a zip file -- it's certainly rare, but probably possible. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/13/2002 at 7:41 AM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Know you know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is mostly treachery and groin kicks. -Dayv Benzino Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Here are some observations (and some files to look at). First, the files: You will find these files at ftp://ftp.blinn.com/thebat/. I think there is a low limit on how many anon ftp users can be connected simultaneously. * Ray4x6.tif: Single standard TIFF that somehow became a 2-page TIFF with non-standard colors. * scampi_test.jpg - successful scampi_test9.jpg - unsuccessful * progress_test.jpg - successful progress_test9.jpg - unsuccessful * Inbox.zip - See below for explanation of what is there. Now the observations: I created a test file with 4 attachments and sent this message to another of my accounts 9 times. The account I sent the messages to was set to store attachments in a separate directory. Here are the results: IMG#1 IMG#2 IMG#3 IMG#4 1 FAIL GOOD GOOD GOOD 2 FAIL GOOD GOOD GOOD 3 FAIL GOOD GOOD GOOD 4 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 5 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 6 GOOD GOOD FAIL GOOD 7 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 8 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 9 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD I then deleted the received messages, emptied the trash, compressed the folders, set the account to store attachments internally, and sent the messages again. Results: IMG#1 IMG#2 IMG#3 IMG#4 1 GOOD GOOD FAIL 2 GOOD GOOD FAIL GOOD 3 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 4 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 5 GOOD GOOD FAIL GOOD 6 GOOD GOOD FAIL GOOD 7 GOOD GOOD FAIL FAIL 8 GOOD GOOD FAIL FAIL 9 GOOD GOOD FAIL This image failed in a way I've never seen before. The icon in TB's attachments panel simply shows base64 -- no file name at all. I have zipped the 2 inbox files and included them on the ftp site. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/13/2002 at 8:03 AM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: You sound reasonable. Time to up my medication. -- Anonymous Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi Sudip, 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? using a broadband access without firewall seems way to dangerous these days... Regards, Anselm __ 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[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi Lars, 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? ;-) Hmm, while one certainly shouldn't overestimate the effect personal firewalls, I wonder whether you're really safer off with M$ security updates... ;-/ Kind regards, Anselm __ 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[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi Jonathan, 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. Thanks, will try that and hope it will be the solution of the mystery! Kind regards, Anselm __ 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[2]: Mangled attachments
Turning off ZA mail filtering options did not help. So i'll have to test on. Next step would be to completely deactivate ZA. Will do as soon as I have time and a partner to test. Kind regards, Anselm -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 __ 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[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Eddy said ... E This most certainly appears to be a problem with TB!. I used 'Help E Feedback Bug Report' to submit a bug (an even included my zip file of E the corrupted Test folder) but never received any acknowledgement or E any sort of response from RIT Labs. I've been hoping that it might be something other than TB, but since others see similar problems with and without firewalls, with and without AV software running, TB appears to be the most likely suspect. The fact that I can send a single message to two accounts on the same server, retrieve one with TB (corrupted) and one with Eudora (not corrupted) or with any version of Outlook (not corrupted) or on a Mac (not corrupted), that further suggests it's something TB is doing. I can also add this: I see the same problem on a W2K desktop, a WXP notebook, and a WXP desktop. Further, I can leave a message with attachments on the server and use dispatch mail to retrieve it several times, with varying results. One of my jobs involves receiving a message with 5 to 20 attachments each week (dog and cat pictures for an animal shelter website). In more than 75 weekly attempts, I cannot remember even ONE time when all of the attachments arrived successfully. Sometimes only 1 or 2 of the attachments fail; sometimes they all fail. Fortunately, I have very little hair left, so pulling out what's left is less painful than it might otherwise be. 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 1:32 PM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up. -- Anonymous Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? A Adam ... Everyone who has this problem has bad memory? And I have bad memory on THREE computers? And the problem doesn't manifest itself with any other e-mail program? (Not even with that inferior thing Microsoft ships.) I don't think so . Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 5:23 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: I think everyone knows that the DoS is real. Lots more were hit today. eBay doesn't count, since that entire operation is a self-inflicted DoS. -- Mike Batchelor Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck, 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? I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was my email client. -- 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[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A a) Its being corrupted in memory as the attachment is being reconstructed. 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? 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? I agree absolutely that it's probably happening when the attachment is being reconstructed, but if it's bad memory, would the same image fail in the same way every single time? Wouldn't that be memory dependent? Wouldn't you expect the attachment to open sometimes and to fail sometimes? That's the nature of a memory problem -- transient. But once an image fails, it always fails. If an image is good, it's always good. I'm really not trying to knock you back or to be a smart ass, but I'm not about to take apart three computers (or even one) on what looks to me like a wild goose chase. A Also you mentioned ZA and mail checking - well I had to rebuild an exchange A server with a 12gb database because a virus checker was silently corrupting A attachments due to what is called (oh how I laugh) Known Issues Both ZA and NAV were out of the picture when I received a fax attachment earlier today -- it was corrupt. Fortunately my jFax account is set to leave mail on the server, so I retrieved the attachment with Eudora -- no problem. A So there are several angles to try. A Me - I'd isolate the easy ones first. Change the RAM - try it. Still the same? A then strike ram from it. Check to remove overheating from the equation. Many A people just slam in any old RAM into their PC's without a second thought for the A issues. Mismatching RAM is a big troublemaker I can't say that the RAM is perfect, but I pay extra for quality, matched RAM when I build a machine. I see no other indication that there is a RAM problem with any of the 3 computers. One of these is a computer that has been replaced during the time I have used TB. The problem occurred with the previous machine, too. So that would be FOUR machines (two that I built with known good components and two from decent manufacturers -- Sony for the notebook and Compaq for the desktop) with bad RAM. That's just too coincidental to fit. Possible, yes, but very unlikely. A If you have three machines then strip one down to windows and TB!. Remove all A extraneous software from it. You may, for example, have an esoteric bit of A software that conflicts. NAV and ZA were on all 3 machines (different versions). Except for that, running apps and processes differ quite a bit. Removing ZA and NAV had no effect, as others have already said. 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. Thanks to EVERYONE for the ideas, thoughts, and suggestions! Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:07 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Managing senior programmers is like herding cats. -- Dave Platt Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
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? I'm on XP. Wouldn't use FAT32 on a dare. All affected systems are NTFS. All are Seagate drives -- ranging from 7200RPM EIDE to 15000RPM SCSI. No significant fragmentation thanks to Diskkeeper. No evidence of impending hardware failure. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:26 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette. -P. Buhr Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hello Adam, Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:07:55 PM, 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. AR The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 AR and other people are on Winxp or whatever? AR You all using fat32? Large disk? FAT32, 40GB HD - divided into approx 8GB partitions. -- 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
