Replies

Afaik, it’s not the software registration that’s going to be the problem with XP, but the hardware. It locks into the system you have when you install, and changing your parts means re-registering with MS, which will cost every time you do it. You will also not be allowed in any way to install it on more than one system, and it sees the slightest hardware change as a new system. If that doesn’t kill it before it gets off the ground, the usual bugs probably will.
XP is for the convenience of MS, and not for the user. Shout loudly from the rooftops: leave well alone.

Isn’t that where using staionery (which you don’t with plain text) could allow you to specify your HTML font?

..and it’s freeware. You can get it from my website if the above link fails.

Not sure if I read you right. Have you tried the obvious ToolsOptionsCompose route in OE? Also, You can choose the stationery you use for HTML, and therefore specify the fonts used with it as well.

Yup. Horses for courses…..
Personally, I’m waiting for a cordless optical mouse, but I ain’t holding my breath.
Cheers

Hi Mary J
Quote : a properly secured mail server run by properly trained staff will not have a problem with typical business attachments.
Of course it won’t. But, with respect, that’s begging the question. We are not dealing ever with all three at once of ‘properly secured email servers’, ‘properly trained staff’ or ‘typical business attachments’. If we were, viruses wouldn’t stand a chance.
We shall have to agree to differ, I’m afraid.
Regards

Hi Paul
A wealth of debatable points and no doubt about it, but much of my opinion is from practical experience alone and owes little to theory. It is however, my opinion and is not necessarily true for everyone. As they say, YMMV.
My main point about e-mail attachments was aimed at non-business users : how many of us run a catcher such as VCatch, or inadvertently click on an attachment rather than saving it and running the Virus scanner over it? I only mention it really because of the number of users I come across in trouble from this very oversight. If only it were a case of ‘the odd virus infection’. In a similar vein, attachments don’t give you the option to reject them.
In the business sector, I can’t really comment with any authority : not that that stops me. I’m not sure why you feel not using attachments stops proper communication – a great many could be better sent as text within the body of the message itself. And I do not really see why a company needs HTML enabled e-mail. Is it not just asking for trouble? I would also take you up on the point about companies suffering loss which is higher than the virus infection. Since a malicious virus can knock out your trading completely (and even destroy vital data) I feel a systems manager owes it to his employers not to risk a massive potential loss.
As far as OLS goes, I’m sorry to say I don’t think your arguments hold water. It doesn’t really matter that the file downloaded is infected – you’re going to scan it anyway. The companies selling you OLS (presumably as a business you would not go for the freebie option) have to make sure your files are safe from prying eyes. You can only log on to your space with the appropriate security, and with really sensitive stuff you could encrypt it first, although I haven’t actually tried that. I would say that the user would demand (and get), total control over access, otherwise the idea would disappear without trace, it’s main foundation having been undermined. I can hear the sounds now of lawyers rubbing their hands together should some firm have their files penetrated whilst on an external ‘secure’ server. Bank deposit boxes are an ‘external’ form of storage and I would have to say that OLS, to be workable, must be just as secure. Aything less would be useless.
I don’t doubt the popularity of e-mail attachments, just as I don’t doubt the popularity of unprotected sex. Doesn’t mean we should accept it in silence though, and it sure doesn’t make it a sensible thing to do, except with someone we’d trust with our lives…
Cheers

Hi MaryJ
I think our system manager knows what he’s doing, and I would not try to persuade him to adopt another method. Mind you, he still thinks it’s best to turn computers off at night… The set-up does not actually ‘block’ attachments, it simply alters executables in such a way that they don’t er.. execute.
In a case such as the one you describe, I’m inclined to agree. However, it’s not the usual use most people put e-mail to. By the sound of it you are in a ‘trusted’ environment, where you are quite sure the attachment is uninfected, as it comes from someone you know and trust. (Possibly even within an intranet). All I can say is there are attachments and attachments : yours are the first type.
I’m not sure why OLS should involve many more steps, unless you’re sending a lot of little files frequently. I know that if I wanted to send weekly 50 small files to 70 people, I’d zip ’em up, upload the zip each week and make sure the seventy were in my Ring. On a regular basis, this has to be efficient at least. Having said all that, I still think that ‘normal’ e-mail from relative strangers is safer without attachments being involved, and that’s without even discussing the size question. YMMV.
Cheers

Good one, Kiwi.
If you’d care to slide over to my (totally non-commercial) website and click the Index button, find Instant Information and dnld it (it’s a tiny zip file that opens in Word) you’ll find how to incorporate the desktop idea into Instant Integrated Information. What this means is that all your important phone nos., user names and so on are never more than one click away, no matter where you are in Windows. All you need to be able to do, once your method has been followed, is to make use of standard *.cdf files.
Great minds and all that…

..and I have to agree with you : it is totally unrealistic to expect business users not to try to open attachments – so don’t send ’em.

1. Corporate network firewalls often trash ’em. I needed important updates from a commercial secure dialling firm. They tried to send me them via e-mail attachments. Our firewall made them impossible to execute. It may be that *.exe files and the like are automatically disabled.

2. I have HTML permanently disabled, and get my e-mails text only. That way no inimical script gets on to my system. I haven’t noticed any difficulty with reading them.

3. If you get dozens of e-mails a day, even one attachment of 1Mb is a real bind to wait for. I once had a spammer send me three, each identical and each of 5Mb. My usual sig has a tag which says : ‘if this e-mail has an attachment, it isn’t mine’. That way your correspondents are protected, though as one pointed out, the message would be more fitting at the start of the post. Regulars soon get used to your requirements. No one I know cyberwise ever sends me attachments.

4. There’s a much better, safer and more courteous way to send people large(ish) files : use On-Line Storage. That way you only download what you know about and can clean. I use three different ones, and (cheapskate that I am) they provide around 50Mb free. If I wanted to show around my holiday snaps, that’s the way I’d do it.

Cheers

Hi REB
Get yourself a wheel mouse – they’re inexpensive (you don’t have to go for an Intellipoint). Probably the single most important factor in productivity increase. You’ll wonder how you did without it.

Hi JL
Unless you know exactly what you’re doing (and even then) my advice fwiw is : if you are editing the Registry, back up user.dat and system.dat (your Registry files in Win98 and previous) before altering anything in it via Regedit. With Win98, if you really foul-up you have Scanreg, but don’t bank on it.
I speak, as it were, from bitter experience…

This rings a faint bell from way back. Are any of the column headings in your Data file alphanumeric? iirc they have to be either numeric or letters, but not a mixture of both, or you get odd results when merging.
A long shot, but….

Odd. My version of IrfanView is 3.33, and there is a self-extracting exe that installs itself and gives you the option of associating it with numerous graphics and audio files. Also included are notes on how to uninstall. It’s still a brilliant piece of freeware. Get it.
MerC

Hi Phil
It’s not so much that I no longer use Win98SE (I dual boot with Win2k), but more that I joyfully removed all Adaptec apps when Nero and InCD arrived on the scene. Just at the moment, though, I have no packet writing in Win2k. (Due out shortly).
Apparently writing such software is a difficult task, though I believe Adaptec have a version that ‘works’. I reckon I’ll just wait…
iirc the problem with Gator was the spyware it has built into it.