Can’t retrieve – get error

Topic

New Reply

I’m able to send email, but I’m getting this error msg. when trying to retrieve mail:
“The connection to the server has failed. Account: ‘popd.ix.netcom.com’, Server: ‘pop3.norton.antivirus’, Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E”
Is this solely a server failure that my ISP will eventually fix, or is there something on my PC I should be attending to? It occurs even when Norton A-Virus is disabled.
I’ve alerted the ISP, but I can’t access any reply they may make …
Thanks for nodding me in the direction of the fix. Is there anywhere I can look up lists of these kinds of error messages, to find their meanings? Are they standardized across all ISPs?
Peter

Reply | Quote

Replies

See if the following document helps:

Error: “0x800ccc0e, Socket Error 10061” when using Outlook Express

Reply | Quote

Thanks!
a) it doesn’t apply directly – but I’m kicking myself for not having found this KnowledgeBase reference before hollering for help.
in fact the Norton A-V LiveUpdate feature modified my connection settings without prior warning or anticipation to supply the user with a remedy.
Clearly MS is not the only software co. overendowed with a careless mix of arrogance and ignorance …
Thanks for your help!
Peter

Reply | Quote

Peter,
I think next I would go ahead and try setting up your email again from Tools-Accounts in OE, putting in the real email server names, instead of the Norton Supplied ones.
This will tell you whether you have an email issue, or a Norton one.

Remember, virus scanning for email will be disabled if you do this.

Reply | Quote

Soooo .. if I use their LiveUpdate product feature, for the protection of email, it turns off email protection!
And then they also say elsewhere, in some kind of weird doublespeak, that disabling email protection does not really remove virus scanning protection from incoming emails and attachments. I’m not quoting them exactly – they use convoluted words to the effect that email protection is just an additional layer of protection!

Seems to me that the feature is more graphics & marketing than something real. But why does it have to be allowed to interfere with email connection settings? Is it perhaps an attempt to muscle ISPs into paying them a fee for scanning the traffic flow through the ISPs’ servers? Or just stupidity?

Reply | Quote

If all is running right with Norton, it works in the following way: (a very basic description)

With email scanning enabled, your incoming email is scanned PRIOR to reaching your email program, and, if a virus is found, is is prevented from ever getting to your email program. (this is why the email server address is a norton one, and not your real one. Norton runs an intermediate mail server, to check your email first. This scan checks the email and any attachments.

If email scanning is disabled, you still have some protection, it just means a virus containing email will make it to your email client. If, for instance, you got a virus in an attachment, the message would show in your email client, but, when you try to open the attachment, Norton would detect the virus, and warn/stop you (assuming you have Norton set up correctly, the default settings would do this).

So, even with disabling email scanning, you still have plenty of protection, just not as much as you would with it enabled.

Also, one thing that is essential to protecting you from email viruses, is going to http://www.windowsupdate.com, and downloading and installing any security updates for your email client. (If you have Outlook 2000, there is a lot of reasons NOT to install the security update for it, I’m sure there are many threads here on that, as well as some pretty good info in Woody’s newsletters)

Reply | Quote

Thanks for that lucid explanation. Now I understand why my address was modified. But I don’t like the idea of a Symantec server becoming a link in the communication chain, even if its intention is to do good on my behalf. Tks. also for the reminder on security updates. Rgds., Peter

Reply | Quote