«

Tim Jackson wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> "Tim Jackson" <> wrote in message
>> news: et...
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>> Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>> BoaterDave wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI - I started responding to you using Thunderbird but an error
>>>>>> message from Thunderbird appeared before I had completed all I had to
>>>>>> say. The only way out was to force the programme to quit, thus losing
>>>>>> all I had written. It has happened before. It's as if someone is
>>>>>> reviewing my message as I write it to decide if I should or should
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> be allowed to send it. That could never be the case ........ could
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Set a short auto-save period in Thunderbirds options
>>>>> (composition/general), or use File/Save regularly to ensure a copy
>>>>> of what you were typing is retained in Drafts if it crashes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the error is repeatable maybe you could track down the event
>>>>> that causes the crash, and report it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Jackson
>>>> Thanks for the advice, Tim.
>>>>
>>>> Auto-save was set to the default of 5 mins - I've reduced it to 2 mins.
>>>>
>>>> The drop-down 'error' message was something like "this message
>>>> cannot be saved in you Drafts folder" - but wouldn't let me cancel
>>>> *or* continue. i.e. not crashed exactly - but stuffed!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>> That's usually something to do with embedded images getting screwed
>>> up, eg if you copy one out of another message it only copies the
>>> link, not the image body, but the link is intra-message so it gets
>>> left hanging and can't be attached on save. (You have to save a copy
>>> to your HD and attach from there.) But that shouldn't happen in a
>>> Usenet post.
>>>
>>> It could possibly having two edited versions of the same message
>>> open, contending for the same Drafts file.
>>>
>>> You could always try sending it to yourself instead of saving it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>> I missed your reply, Tim - sorry for not responding.
>>
>> I'll bear in mind what you have said. It did happen again and this is
>> exactly what happened:-
>>
>> A dropdown window said 'Confirm' "There was an error coppying the
>> message to the Sent folder. Retry?" Options were 'Cancel' or 'OK'
>>
>> Clicking on 'OK' just re-issued the same 'Confirm' dropdown window.
>>
>> Clicking on 'Cancel' initiated another dropdown window - 'Save Draft
>> Error' "Unable to save your message as a draft. Please verify that
>> your Mail and Newsgroup account settings are correct and try again".
>> Only one option 'OK'
>>
>> Clicking 'OK' resulted in the previous 'Confirm' dropdown window!!
>>
>> Stuck in a loop - the only way out was to shut down Thunderbird (and
>> lose what had been written - grrr!)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> David
>>
> It's not system-modal, or it shouldn't be. you can open another window
> to fix the problem, then come back and retry. I think you can even get
> back to the "Mail and Newsgroups" window.
>
> If not, the only way to debug it is to try lopping off bits of the
> message until it stops happening. Preferably with "save" rather than
> "send".
>
> Also try shutting the message box by the "X" in the corner
> Are you sure it said the "Sent" folder? At that point it should already
> have sent the file. You said "Drafts" before. I just wonder because I'm
> sure it didn't actually say "coppying" either.
>
> You must be doing something a bit obscure. The only time I've seen
> Thunderbird do this sort of thing is when I try to edit a previously
> sent message to resend it (eg mistyped address), or to copy and paste it
> into a new message AND the copied message contains embedded objects.
> When it saves or sends the message it tries to append the hyperlink
> targets,but it fails because the links are pointing to temporary files
> (which may have used to create the original). The syntax doesn't exist
> to make a hyperlink point to a message in a TBird folder.
>
> Tim

I didn't expect a reply from you today!

This probably sounds silly - but I do not have an "X" in the corner!

The version of Thunderbird I'm using is 2.0.0.21

I'll load it onto my XP machine and see if it looks different.

I'm also quite certain that the messages were exactly as I described - I
wrote each one down as it happened.

Please refresh your mind on my query at the start of this thread!

--
Dave

"~BD~" <> writes:

> My thanks to 'Unruh' for his/her comments.
>
> Maybe I have misunderstood - but I thought that a NAT router provided a
> complete barrier between a computer and the Internet - a hardware firewall.
>
> You seem to suggest that a software firewall is needed too. Is that
> correct?

Hi BD,

The only thing that provides a complete barrier between your computer
and the internet is a scissors... to cut the connection physically.

While a hardware firewall does a rather good job of thwarting network
based attacks from the Internet into your network, it doesn't
completely protect you by any means.

A hardware firewall allows outbound traffic to the websites you view.
Websites containing code that exploits browser vulnerabilities are
among the threats a hardware firewall doesn't solve. Avoiding use
of Internet Explorer, using Firefox perhaps with the NoScript and
FlashBlock extensions are among some of the things you can do to make
that activity safer, as well as using signature and behavioral
analysis anti-malware software on the client side (i.e. your Windows
machine).

To be even safer, do your browsing in a virtual machine running
something other than Windows, and roll that virtual machine back every
hour or so to a known state.

The value of a host based firewall is debateable in your environment.
They're a useful thing to have however when a mobile computer is
joining hostile networks (think wireless hotspots) though.

Hope this helps some.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Todd H." <> wrote in message
news:...
> "~BD~" <> writes:
>
>> My thanks to 'Unruh' for his/her comments.
>>
>> Maybe I have misunderstood - but I thought that a NAT router provided a
>> complete barrier between a computer and the Internet - a hardware
>> firewall.
>>
>> You seem to suggest that a software firewall is needed too. Is that
>> correct?
>
> Hi BD,
>
> The only thing that provides a complete barrier between your computer
> and the internet is a scissors... to cut the connection physically.
>
> While a hardware firewall does a rather good job of thwarting network
> based attacks from the Internet into your network, it doesn't
> completely protect you by any means.
>
> A hardware firewall allows outbound traffic to the websites you view.
> Websites containing code that exploits browser vulnerabilities are
> among the threats a hardware firewall doesn't solve. Avoiding use
> of Internet Explorer, using Firefox perhaps with the NoScript and
> FlashBlock extensions are among some of the things you can do to make
> that activity safer, as well as using signature and behavioral
> analysis anti-malware software on the client side (i.e. your Windows
> machine).
>
> To be even safer, do your browsing in a virtual machine running
> something other than Windows, and roll that virtual machine back every
> hour or so to a known state.
>
> The value of a host based firewall is debateable in your environment.
> They're a useful thing to have however when a mobile computer is
> joining hostile networks (think wireless hotspots) though.
>
> Hope this helps some.
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/



Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond in a sensible manner,
Todd H - it's much appreciated!

Scissors won't do the job nowadays though - I'm connected wirelessly to my
router (but I get your drift!)

I've always used a firewall - at first Zone Alarm and then, with the advent
of XP SP2, the Windoze firewall.

I've played around with Virtual Machine 'stuff' but decided to go the Apple
Mac route for now. It 'feels' safer, even if it isn't!

Warm regards to you,
--
Dave

Todd H. wrote:
> "~BD~" <> writes:
>
>> My thanks to 'Unruh' for his/her comments.
>>
>> Maybe I have misunderstood - but I thought that a NAT router provided a
>> complete barrier between a computer and the Internet - a hardware firewall.
>>
>> You seem to suggest that a software firewall is needed too. Is that
>> correct?
>
> Hi BD,
>
> The only thing that provides a complete barrier between your computer
> and the internet is a scissors... to cut the connection physically.
>
> While a hardware firewall does a rather good job of thwarting network
> based attacks from the Internet into your network, it doesn't
> completely protect you by any means.
>
> A hardware firewall allows outbound traffic to the websites you view.
> Websites containing code that exploits browser vulnerabilities are
> among the threats a hardware firewall doesn't solve. Avoiding use
> of Internet Explorer, using Firefox perhaps with the NoScript and
> FlashBlock extensions are among some of the things you can do to make
> that activity safer, as well as using signature and behavioral
> analysis anti-malware software on the client side (i.e. your Windows
> machine).
>
> To be even safer, do your browsing in a virtual machine running
> something other than Windows, and roll that virtual machine back every
> hour or so to a known state.
>
> The value of a host based firewall is debateable in your environment.
> They're a useful thing to have however when a mobile computer is
> joining hostile networks (think wireless hotspots) though.
>
> Hope this helps some.
>
> Best Regards,

I went to explore your web pages ('cause I can!)and intended to watch
your video clips. Regrettably I received this message:-

"The requested URL /users/kmorgan/todd/hike_back.avi was not found on
this server."

None of the links worked for me. Just thought you might like to know!

I loved your rabbit piccies!

--
Dave

"~BD~" <> writes:

>
> Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond in a sensible manner,
> Todd H - it's much appreciated!
>
> Scissors won't do the job nowadays though - I'm connected wirelessly to my
> router (but I get your drift!)

Hee hee. Would a scissors between the router and the wall at least
do it?

> I've played around with Virtual Machine 'stuff' but decided to go the Apple
> Mac route for now. It 'feels' safer, even if it isn't!

It's a less popular target for now at least, and your typical user
doesn't run as an administrator, so ... it is safer in a number of
ways. But it's far from impervious.

You can still play with virtualization on the mac too. Give a look at
VMWare Fusion if you want a throwback.

You may want to look with suspicion on Safari as much as one does with
Internet Explorer. It's proven itself pretty darned pourous over the
years.

Enjoy!

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On Apr 5, 5:59*am, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
> "~BD~" <BoaterD...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond in a sensible manner,
> > Todd H - it's much appreciated!
>
> > Scissors won't do the job nowadays though - I'm connected wirelessly to my
> > router (but I get your drift!)
>
> Hee hee. * Would a scissors between the router and the wall at least
> do it? *


Most certainly!



> > I've played around with Virtual Machine 'stuff' but decided to go the Apple
> > Mac route for now. It 'feels' safer, even if it isn't!
>
> It's a less popular target for now at least, and your typical user
> doesn't run as an administrator, so ... it is safer in a number of
> ways. * *But it's far from impervious.


I do understand.



> You can still play with virtualization on the mac too. *Give a look at
> VMWare Fusion if you want a throwback.


I may experiment later - for now I have enough new things to learn!



> You may want to look with suspicion on Safari as much as one does with
> Internet Explorer. *It's proven itself pretty darned pourous over the
> years. *


OK - thanks for the warning!


> Enjoy!
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Todd H.http://www.toddh.net/

Did you note that the links on your web site to your bunnie video
clips no longer 'work' - not here on my computer, anyway?

Cheers
--
Dave