Blocked pictures.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Geopelia, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. Geopelia

    Geopelia Guest

    I've just changed to XP. There is often a message on websites "Some pictures
    have been blocked to help prevent the sender identifying your computer".

    That puzzles me. How can a person sending me a message identify my computer?
    He might identify me if I sent a message to him, but if I am just looking at
    a picture on his website how does he know? They are regular websites, often
    newspaper ones, not blogs.

    Is it safe to look at the pictures?

    Computers never cease to amaze me!

    Geopelia
    Geopelia, Mar 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Geopelia

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:42:32 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    exclaimed:

    >I've just changed to XP. There is often a message on websites "Some pictures
    >have been blocked to help prevent the sender identifying your computer".
    >
    >That puzzles me. How can a person sending me a message identify my computer?
    >He might identify me if I sent a message to him, but if I am just looking at
    >a picture on his website how does he know? They are regular websites, often
    >newspaper ones, not blogs.
    >
    >Is it safe to look at the pictures?
    >
    >Computers never cease to amaze me!


    I take it you mean emails, rather than messages on websites?

    They do it by adding a tag to images stored on their server, then
    recording when you download it (ie the picture isn't actually
    downloaded with the email, it is a link to their site).

    They can then see that you downloaded it, and know that your email
    address is "live", which makes it more valuable to the slimey slugs.
    Fred Dagg, Mar 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Geopelia

    Enkidu Guest

    Geopelia wrote:
    >
    > Geopelia
    >

    Ah! You got your name back!!

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Mar 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Geopelia

    Geopelia Guest

    "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:42:32 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>I've just changed to XP. There is often a message on websites "Some
    >>pictures
    >>have been blocked to help prevent the sender identifying your computer".
    >>
    >>That puzzles me. How can a person sending me a message identify my
    >>computer?
    >>He might identify me if I sent a message to him, but if I am just looking
    >>at
    >>a picture on his website how does he know? They are regular websites,
    >>often
    >>newspaper ones, not blogs.
    >>
    >>Is it safe to look at the pictures?
    >>
    >>Computers never cease to amaze me!

    >
    > I take it you mean emails, rather than messages on websites?
    >
    > They do it by adding a tag to images stored on their server, then
    > recording when you download it (ie the picture isn't actually
    > downloaded with the email, it is a link to their site).
    >
    > They can then see that you downloaded it, and know that your email
    > address is "live", which makes it more valuable to the slimey slugs.


    No, they are on websites, including Sydney Morning Herald! That comes in by
    email, though, but with clicks to pages on websites. (I subscribe to several
    newspapers around the world, and look at others.)

    Is that what these cookies are doing? A scan says I've got some, but I can't
    find anything that says what the number (e.g.1020) means. The warning not
    to remove them in case they affect the computer doesn't say which can be
    safely removed.

    PC-cillin and xtra do a good job in removing the spam.

    Thanks for your help.

    Geopelia
    Geopelia, Mar 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Geopelia

    Geopelia Guest

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:4417215f$...
    > Geopelia wrote:
    >>
    >> Geopelia

    > Ah! You got your name back!!
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >


    Now I know I'm me!
    Geopelia
    Geopelia, Mar 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Geopelia

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:52:27 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    exclaimed:

    > I take it you mean emails, rather than messages on websites?
    >>
    >> They do it by adding a tag to images stored on their server, then
    >> recording when you download it (ie the picture isn't actually
    >> downloaded with the email, it is a link to their site).
    >>
    >> They can then see that you downloaded it, and know that your email
    >> address is "live", which makes it more valuable to the slimey slugs.

    >
    >No, they are on websites, including Sydney Morning Herald! That comes in by
    >email, though, but with clicks to pages on websites. (I subscribe to several
    >newspapers around the world, and look at others.)


    "Websites that come in via email" are still emails - they are HTML
    emails, and it is those that you are being protected from.

    As with most things, a few filthy spammers ruin it for everyone else.

    You can turn it off, BTW. In Outlook Express, go to:

    Tools --> Options --> Security.

    Uncheck "Block images and other external HTML content..."

    Click OK.

    While you're there, you should uncheck "Do not allow attachments that
    could potentially contain a virus". I wont go into great details re:
    why, except to say that this setting permanently deletes many
    legitimate attachments. Don't worry about the virus connotations -
    you're virus scanner will do a much better job, and will let the
    legitimate stuff get through.

    >Is that what these cookies are doing? A scan says I've got some, but I can't
    >find anything that says what the number (e.g.1020) means. The warning not
    >to remove them in case they affect the computer doesn't say which can be
    >safely removed.


    Cookies are a different thing entirely, and 99% of them are A Good
    Thing - they allow you to store logins, do online stuff, etc. Some
    cookies will track your movements online, which is a little annoying,
    however they don't deserve the paranoia that's surrounded them for a
    while now.

    >PC-cillin and xtra do a good job in removing the spam.


    Good stuff - although I didn't think PC-cillin had an antispam?
    Fred Dagg, Mar 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Geopelia

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:52:27 +1300, "Geopelia" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:42:32 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    >> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>>I've just changed to XP. There is often a message on websites "Some
    >>>pictures
    >>>have been blocked to help prevent the sender identifying your computer".
    >>>
    >>>That puzzles me. How can a person sending me a message identify my
    >>>computer?
    >>>He might identify me if I sent a message to him, but if I am just looking
    >>>at
    >>>a picture on his website how does he know? They are regular websites,
    >>>often
    >>>newspaper ones, not blogs.
    >>>
    >>>Is it safe to look at the pictures?
    >>>
    >>>Computers never cease to amaze me!

    >>
    >> I take it you mean emails, rather than messages on websites?
    >>
    >> They do it by adding a tag to images stored on their server, then
    >> recording when you download it (ie the picture isn't actually
    >> downloaded with the email, it is a link to their site).
    >>
    >> They can then see that you downloaded it, and know that your email
    >> address is "live", which makes it more valuable to the slimey slugs.

    >
    >No, they are on websites, including Sydney Morning Herald! That comes in by
    >email, though, but with clicks to pages on websites. (I subscribe to several
    >newspapers around the world, and look at others.)


    Is it the email that's missing the pictures, or the actual web site opened up in
    your web browser (Internet Explorer)?

    If it's the email then it's your computer protecting you from potential spam.
    The reason is the images aren't actually sent to you with the email, they're
    stored on the senders www site and a link is placed in the email they sent you
    to load the image off their www site and display it in the email you're looking
    at.

    If there is an option in whatever mail program you're using (Outlook I guess) to
    display the images then it's fine to do it from a site/sender you trust.

    If it's a spam message, the sender can put some extra numbers etc in the link to
    the image that their www server recognises as being from the message they sent
    to you, which then tells them that you actually read their email and looked at
    the images, and they'll send you more :)
    Craig Shore, Mar 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Geopelia

    Geopelia Guest

    "Craig Shore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:52:27 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:42:32 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    >>> exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>>I've just changed to XP. There is often a message on websites "Some
    >>>>pictures
    >>>>have been blocked to help prevent the sender identifying your computer".
    >>>>
    >>>>That puzzles me. How can a person sending me a message identify my
    >>>>computer?
    >>>>He might identify me if I sent a message to him, but if I am just
    >>>>looking
    >>>>at
    >>>>a picture on his website how does he know? They are regular websites,
    >>>>often
    >>>>newspaper ones, not blogs.
    >>>>
    >>>>Is it safe to look at the pictures?
    >>>>
    >>>>Computers never cease to amaze me!
    >>>
    >>> I take it you mean emails, rather than messages on websites?
    >>>
    >>> They do it by adding a tag to images stored on their server, then
    >>> recording when you download it (ie the picture isn't actually
    >>> downloaded with the email, it is a link to their site).
    >>>
    >>> They can then see that you downloaded it, and know that your email
    >>> address is "live", which makes it more valuable to the slimey slugs.

    >>
    >>No, they are on websites, including Sydney Morning Herald! That comes in
    >>by
    >>email, though, but with clicks to pages on websites. (I subscribe to
    >>several
    >>newspapers around the world, and look at others.)

    >
    > Is it the email that's missing the pictures, or the actual web site opened
    > up in
    > your web browser (Internet Explorer)?


    It's the email. It comes in as the front page, I think, of the paper. There
    are places to click the various articles, which I think are websites. It's
    an interesting paper.

    > If it's the email then it's your computer protecting you from potential
    > spam.
    > The reason is the images aren't actually sent to you with the email,
    > they're
    > stored on the senders www site and a link is placed in the email they sent
    > you
    > to load the image off their www site and display it in the email you're
    > looking
    > at.


    That would be safe enough with a reputable newspaper, I expect.

    > If there is an option in whatever mail program you're using (Outlook I
    > guess) to
    > display the images then it's fine to do it from a site/sender you trust.
    >
    > If it's a spam message, the sender can put some extra numbers etc in the
    > link to
    > the image that their www server recognises as being from the message they
    > sent
    > to you, which then tells them that you actually read their email and
    > looked at
    > the images, and they'll send you more :)
    >


    spam now comes in with spam: before the message, so I put that in Deleted
    items through Tools-Message Rules. It's working well. I don't know if it is
    XP or PC-cillin 2006 doing that. xtra removes most of the spam.

    There is a place to click if I want to, to see the pictures. I haven't yet,
    but I think the Sydney Morning Herald would be safe enough.

    I prefer my Spam in a tin!

    Thank you
    Geopelia
    Geopelia, Mar 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Geopelia

    Geopelia Guest

    "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:52:27 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >> I take it you mean emails, rather than messages on websites?
    >>>
    >>> They do it by adding a tag to images stored on their server, then
    >>> recording when you download it (ie the picture isn't actually
    >>> downloaded with the email, it is a link to their site).
    >>>
    >>> They can then see that you downloaded it, and know that your email
    >>> address is "live", which makes it more valuable to the slimey slugs.

    >>
    >>No, they are on websites, including Sydney Morning Herald! That comes in
    >>by
    >>email, though, but with clicks to pages on websites. (I subscribe to
    >>several
    >>newspapers around the world, and look at others.)

    >
    > "Websites that come in via email" are still emails - they are HTML
    > emails, and it is those that you are being protected from.
    >
    > As with most things, a few filthy spammers ruin it for everyone else.
    >
    > You can turn it off, BTW. In Outlook Express, go to:
    >
    > Tools --> Options --> Security.
    >
    > Uncheck "Block images and other external HTML content..."
    >
    > Click OK.
    >
    > While you're there, you should uncheck "Do not allow attachments that
    > could potentially contain a virus". I wont go into great details re:
    > why, except to say that this setting permanently deletes many
    > legitimate attachments. Don't worry about the virus connotations -
    > you're virus scanner will do a much better job, and will let the
    > legitimate stuff get through.
    > (snip)
    >
    >>PC-cillin and xtra do a good job in removing the spam.

    >
    > Good stuff - although I didn't think PC-cillin had an antispam?


    There is a spam filter in the 2006 update.

    Thank you, I'll save this information.

    Geopelia
    Geopelia, Mar 15, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nirenberg, David

    Pictures blocked in IE

    Nirenberg, David, Sep 17, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    8,509
    WormWood
    Sep 17, 2004
  2. Ian Roberts
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,483
  3. N Neil

    Pictures appear blocked on XP

    N Neil, Jan 26, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    379
    James West
    Jan 27, 2005
  4. Sympatico

    Blocked pictures

    Sympatico, Mar 15, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    724
    Alexander Rogge
    Mar 17, 2008
  5. Andy Petro

    Blocked pictures

    Andy Petro, Nov 2, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    986
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Nov 2, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page