Re: A programme is trying to access your address book

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by VanguardLH, May 25, 2009.

  1. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    > express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
    > pose no problem. I am running XP.
    > Should I be concerned.
    > TIA
    >
    > Tappy


    The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
    sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
    those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.

    Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
     
    VanguardLH, May 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. VanguardLH

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    > Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >
    >> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    >> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
    >> pose no problem. I am running XP.
    >> Should I be concerned.
    >> TIA
    >>
    >> Tappy

    >
    > The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
    > sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
    > those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
    >
    > Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.


    A Reply-To header is not a request for a reply by email; it's just the
    address to which emails should be sent instead of the address in the From
    header, if someone wants to start a private exchange.

    The From header is in the standard 'overview' information from the
    news-server, so is easy for spammers to collect automatically; the
    Reply-To header is not usually in the 'overview' so it only appears if the
    whole article, or the specified header from it, is downloaded. Spammers
    are less likely to collect addresses from Reply-To headers because it's
    too much bother.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, May 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    Whiskers wrote:

    > On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    >> Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >>
    >>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    >>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
    >>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
    >>> Should I be concerned.
    >>> TIA
    >>>
    >>> Tappy

    >>
    >> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
    >> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
    >> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
    >>
    >> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.

    >
    > A Reply-To header is not a request for a reply by email; it's just the
    > address to which emails should be sent instead of the address in the From
    > header, if someone wants to start a private exchange.


    The OP said, "I get this message when posting a reply". So the OP *was*
    generating a reply. The OP wasn't just looking at the article but took
    action on it. Are you saying there is no header that can be added, or a
    value for a Usenet header be used, that won't result in the default
    action for a reply resulting in composing an e-mail response (instead of
    a Usenet post)?

    It is also possible the OP clicked on the wrong button so he actually
    chose to Reply by Email instead of Reply to Newsgroup (or whatever the
    buttons are labeled).

    > The From header is in the standard 'overview' information from the
    > news-server, so is easy for spammers to collect automatically; the
    > Reply-To header is not usually in the 'overview' so it only appears if the
    > whole article, or the specified header from it, is downloaded. Spammers
    > are less likely to collect addresses from Reply-To headers because it's
    > too much bother.


    Spammers don't have to collect anything if the poster willingly sends an
    e-mail to them. Spammers have long used social engineering to get
    willing victims to expose their e-mail address. Doesn't have to be a
    spammer, either. Could be a malcontent that wants to energize spam,
    phish, or other traffic at your mailbox or to send their own hate or
    garbage mails to irritate you.

    I wasn't discussing how spambots might harvest e-mails from Usenet
    headers. Harvesting isn't involved when users willingly divulge their
    e-mail address. Since the client is sending an e-mail instead of a
    Usenet post, the e-mail address specified in their e-mail account
    defined in the client gets used instead of the munged e-mail field in
    the client's newsgroup account. While many users munge their e-mail
    address or specify a bogus one (like me) in the e-mail address in the
    account they use in their client to post to Usenet, they do not munge or
    use bogus email addresses in the e-mail accounts defined within that
    same client.
     
    VanguardLH, May 25, 2009
    #3
  4. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
    > news:gve13n$uao$-september.org...
    >> Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >>
    >>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    >>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other
    >>> contributos
    >>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
    >>> Should I be concerned.
    >>> TIA
    >>>
    >>> Tappy

    >>
    >> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
    >> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
    >> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
    >>
    >> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
    >>

    > Hi, I thought that might be the case, pointed the fact out to him
    > and low and behold I don't get the message anymore.
    > In laymeas terms, could you please explain how it would work?
    > Thank again.


    Mike Easter came up with the header and value that can be used to get
    your newsreader to initiate an email compose. Apparently using
    "FollowUp-To: poster" will send your reply to the poster via e-mail. I
    remember there was a way but never used it and Google wasn't being
    cooperative.
     
    VanguardLH, May 26, 2009
    #4
  5. VanguardLH

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    > Whiskers wrote:
    >> On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    >>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    >>>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
    >>>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
    >>>> Should I be concerned.
    >>>> TIA
    >>>>
    >>>> Tappy
    >>>
    >>> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
    >>> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
    >>> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
    >>>
    >>> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.

    >>
    >> A Reply-To header is not a request for a reply by email; it's just the
    >> address to which emails should be sent instead of the address in the From
    >> header, if someone wants to start a private exchange.

    >
    > The OP said, "I get this message when posting a reply". So the OP *was*
    > generating a reply. The OP wasn't just looking at the article but took
    > action on it.


    So it would seem. No argument from me about that. It hadn't occurred to
    me that any other interpretation maight be made.

    > Are you saying there is no header that can be added, or a
    > value for a Usenet header be used, that won't result in the default
    > action for a reply resulting in composing an e-mail response (instead of
    > a Usenet post)?


    Not at all. I am saying what I wrote - that a Reply-To header is not (as
    you suggested) a request for a response by email.

    My posts all have a Reply-To header in them. Did your newsreader program
    try to send an email to that address when you posted your response? I
    certainly don't seem to have received such an email - from you, or from
    anyone else who responds to my newsgroup posts (unless they choose to do
    it on purpose or by mistakenly hitting 'reply privately by email' instead
    of or as well as 'post a public reply in the newsgroup' or whatever).

    ..-----<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html>
    |
    | 2.2. Optional Headers
    | 2.2.1. Reply-To
    | This line has the same format as "From". If present, mailed replies to the
    | author should be sent to the name given here. Otherwise, replies are
    | mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not prevent additional
    | copies from being sent to recipients named by the replier, or on "To" or
    | "Cc" lines.) The full name may be optionally given, in parentheses, as in
    | the "From" line.
    '-----

    or, perhaps more clearly expressed:

    ..--<http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_UsenetMessageFormatandSpecialHeaders-2.htm>
    | Reply-To:
    | It is possible to reply back to a Usenet article author using e-mail,
    | which by default goes to the address in the From: line. If this header is
    | present, the address it contains is used instead of the default From:
    | address.
    '-----

    The only 'official' usenet header that I'm aware of that can prompt an
    email being sent to anyone, is Version:

    ..-----<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html>
    | 3. Control Messages
    | 3.6. Version
    | version (no arguments)
    |
    | The name and version of the software running on the local system is to be
    | mailed back to the author of the message ("Reply-to" if present, otherwise
    | "From").
    '-----

    I don't think I've ever seen that header in use - and I wouldn't expect
    to, as it has no business being used in anything other than a 'control
    message' which should not be propagated to end users (it's only of any
    use to news-server admins) and shouldn't be recognised by normal
    newsreader programs anyway.

    > It is also possible the OP clicked on the wrong button so he actually
    > chose to Reply by Email instead of Reply to Newsgroup (or whatever the
    > buttons are labeled).


    Some combined email and newsgroup programs can be confusing, and the
    terminology isn't used consistently, so that sort of thing can happen -
    but it would normally not only happen when responding to a particular
    poster. So there may be a non-standard 'send a reply by email' request in
    the headers of that poster's messages which the OP's program is trying to
    cope with. Why that would invoke an 'address book' I don't know.

    Or the messages concerned have 'binary' content which includes some sort
    of executable, and the OP's newsreader is automatically decoding the
    binary and trying to execute it. In which case the newsreader needs to
    be re-configured to function more safely - or dumped in favour of a safer
    program.

    >> The From header is in the standard 'overview' information from the
    >> news-server, so is easy for spammers to collect automatically; the
    >> Reply-To header is not usually in the 'overview' so it only appears if the
    >> whole article, or the specified header from it, is downloaded. Spammers
    >> are less likely to collect addresses from Reply-To headers because it's
    >> too much bother.

    >
    > Spammers don't have to collect anything if the poster willingly sends an
    > e-mail to them. Spammers have long used social engineering to get
    > willing victims to expose their e-mail address. Doesn't have to be a
    > spammer, either. Could be a malcontent that wants to energize spam,
    > phish, or other traffic at your mailbox or to send their own hate or
    > garbage mails to irritate you.


    There is no standard usenet header that can trick a person reading a
    newsgroup, or the software they are using, into sending an email to
    anyone (other than the Version header mentioned above, which shouldn't
    appear in normal newsgroup posts at all - let alone get a reaction from a
    newsreader program). But there may be 'non-standard' headers that might
    have that effect on some programs.

    > I wasn't discussing how spambots might harvest e-mails from Usenet
    > headers. Harvesting isn't involved when users willingly divulge their
    > e-mail address. Since the client is sending an e-mail instead of a
    > Usenet post, the e-mail address specified in their e-mail account
    > defined in the client gets used instead of the munged e-mail field in
    > the client's newsgroup account. While many users munge their e-mail
    > address or specify a bogus one (like me) in the e-mail address in the
    > account they use in their client to post to Usenet, they do not munge or
    > use bogus email addresses in the e-mail accounts defined within that
    > same client.


    I raised the matter of spam bots gathering email addresses from usenet
    'overviews' to explain the difference between the 'Reply-To' header and
    the 'From' header, and why some people use a Reply-To header.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, May 26, 2009
    #5
  6. VanguardLH

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2009-05-26, Tappy Lappy <Tappy> wrote:
    >
    > "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
    > news:gvg4lh$hrh$-september.org...
    >> Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >>
    >>> "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:gve13n$uao$-september.org...
    >>>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    >>>>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other
    >>>>> contributos
    >>>>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
    >>>>> Should I be concerned.
    >>>>> TIA
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tappy
    >>>>
    >>>> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
    >>>> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
    >>>> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
    >>>>
    >>>> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
    >>>>
    >>> Hi, I thought that might be the case, pointed the fact out to him
    >>> and low and behold I don't get the message anymore.
    >>> In laymeas terms, could you please explain how it would work?
    >>> Thank again.

    >>
    >> Mike Easter came up with the header and value that can be used to get
    >> your newsreader to initiate an email compose. Apparently using
    >> "FollowUp-To: poster" will send your reply to the poster via e-mail. I
    >> remember there was a way but never used it and Google wasn't being
    >> cooperative.
    >>

    > Thanks for that - really appreciated.


    <chuckle> you weren't the only one to learn something new :))

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, May 26, 2009
    #6
  7. VanguardLH

    Mike Easter Guest

    Whiskers wrote:
    > Tappy Lappy


    >> Thanks for that - really appreciated.

    >
    > <chuckle> you weren't the only one to learn something new :))


    This riddle was another that would have been quicker and easier to solve
    'directly' if the OP qx were about the specific rather than a generic.

    In the beginning, the question was:

    Tappy Lappy wrote:
    Subject: A programme is trying to access your address book
    > I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
    > express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other
    > contributos pose no problem. I am running XP.


    .... but if the specifics had been stated at the outset:

    Subject: Addressbook alert
    When replying to this news message (only) http://snipr.com/irmgo I'm
    alerted that a program(me) is trying to access my addressbook. What is
    going on?

    .... or alternatively to express the inciting message by mid
    <Xns9C15B1472116Epaulgexpertcanmore@199.185.223.74> instead of the GG
    link I used,


    .... then it would not have been necessary to 'sleuth'/find the message
    thread where the problem developed. It is almost always easier to focus
    on the real issues of a problem when the actual *real* problem itself is
    named/specified, rather than some 'generically' described problem (I call
    the generic an 'imaginary' or hypothetical problem).

    OTOH, I suppose the sleuthing is half the fun of the riddle :)


    --
    Mike Easter
     
    Mike Easter, May 26, 2009
    #7
  8. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    As it turned out from other posts, its the "FollowUp-To: poster" and
    Mail-To-Copies (although not ratified and perhaps not supported in all
    newreaders) headers that tell the newsreader to compose an e-mail
    instead of a Usenet post.

    http://www.newsreaders.com/gnksa/gnksa.txt
    4) Allow users to change essential headers
    The software MUST allow the user to specify "Followup-To: poster", which
    tells readers of the article that the user prefers e-mail replies rather
    than followups to the newsgroup.

    The "poster" keyword tells the news client to compose an e-mail. You
    don't specify the e-mail address in the FollowUp-To header. Your news
    client gets the e-mail address from the one you configured in your
    client. It is unclear if the e-mail address from your news account gets
    used when composing the e-mail. After all, you are sending an e-mail so
    I suspect your client may use your e-mail address defined in the e-mail
    account in your client. If your news client doesn't do e-mail then it
    will have to pass the data to whatever is configured as your e-mail
    client, and your e-mail address gets used from that e-mail client.

    http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt
    2.2.3 FollowUp-To
    If the keyword poster is present, follow-up messages are not permitted.
    The message should be mailed to the submitter of the message via mail.

    http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html
    I think the Mail-Copies-To header was proposed but never accepted
    although some clients will honor it.
     
    VanguardLH, May 26, 2009
    #8
  9. VanguardLH

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2009-05-26, Mike Easter <> wrote:
    > Whiskers wrote:
    >> Tappy Lappy


    [...]

    > OTOH, I suppose the sleuthing is half the fun of the riddle :)


    I think so; no-one here is obliged to give any more time of effort than
    they feel like giving - and the detective work and guessing can be
    educational too :))

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, May 26, 2009
    #9
  10. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > It seems there is a difference of opinion amongst you guys but it is
    > all going over my head. Is the header change something that "just
    > happens" or does the person actually have to change it manually? Can
    > the poster get my email address if he does change it, but in this
    > case it didn't?


    The poster would have to add the FollowUp-To header *AND* specify
    "poster" for its value. Or the poster would have to add the
    Mail-To-Copies header (and either he or his client add an e-mail
    address for the value of the header). At some point, the poster
    decided they wanted to get an e-mail reply to their post.

    If you don't send the e-mail then how would the recipient know your
    e-mail address from an e-mail that they never got?
     
    VanguardLH, May 27, 2009
    #10
  11. VanguardLH

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2009-05-27, Tappy Lappy <Tappy> wrote:
    > "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
    > news:gvho2k$51a$-september.org...


    [...]

    > I see your co-poster Mike Easter has entered the argument and is saying that
    > the other guy
    > could not have got my email address.


    If you didn't actually send an email to him, then he would only see what
    everyone can see in a newsgroup.

    > The above, like I say does not mean a lot to me as I am not a techie but am
    > I right in saying
    > that it was a deliberate act on his part to try and obtain my details, it
    > just didn't work.


    The other person would have had to make a deliberate setting in his
    newsreader. Why he might have done that is anyone's guess - ignorance is
    as likely as anything.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, May 27, 2009
    #11
  12. VanguardLH

    Mike Easter Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. If the posters return
    > id was a valid one, eg a bonafide email address
    > instead of a nom de plume, I take it he would have gotten hold of my
    > bona fide email address if I had allowed outlook
    > to access my address book?


    If you email someone's good address and your mail agent puts your good
    address on your mail to them, which is the normal mailagent
    configuration, then the mail recipient will have that good address you
    sent from.

    If you try to email someone's bogus invalid address, then they won't get
    your mail and they won't have your good address.

    My remarks^1 in your .uk football group were about your analysis of
    Paul's *intentions*.

    When someone configures an email address in their newsagent, they know
    whether it is a good address or not, which it is almost always _not_ a
    good address Paul could not have _intended_ to receive an email from
    *anyone* with his newsagent f/up to poster. It was a screwup temporary
    configuration, probably intended to get a 4 group crosspost thread to
    followup to one group or 'place'.

    The other possibility, that he actually intended to receive email
    responses to his news post, but he neglected to realize that his
    newsgroup configured email address was no good might be considered as a
    remotely possible 'dumb idea' rather than a nefarious one.


    ^1 http://snipr.com/ivayq Message-ID:
    <>


    --
    Mike Easter
     
    Mike Easter, May 27, 2009
    #12
  13. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    > Then could you post this on the other NG? There is no doubt that he denies
    > any alterations if you read all the posts,
    > yet again you say that he must have done, as do other posters..
    > I tend to agree with your last comment, but when actually denies doing
    > anything then surely he must be doubted
    > in any other statements that he makes regarding the posts.


    You want others to join into a flame thread in which an unidentified
    "he" is involved, especially considering YOU started the flame?

    "Don't know what is the most depressing, the fact that we have gone
    down, or the prospect of you still being around. :-]"

    You started it or, at a minimum, you chose to participate in it (since
    I'm not interested in researching the history and tenor of the posters
    involved in that discussion so your reaction may have been based on how
    they have posted before). Do your own battle, or learn to ignore posts
    you haven't killfiled. Don't play the innocent here.
     
    VanguardLH, May 27, 2009
    #13
  14. VanguardLH

    Mike Easter Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > I asked for advice on a particular subject and was grateful for it.
    > What I didn't expect or ask for was for people to play Sherlock >
    > Holmes and fight my battles.


    You were making incorrect assumptions about the information you were
    given and using your misinterpretation to act in a belligerent
    confrontational manner. I suggested that you not interpret the header
    issue that way nor act the way you were acting based on that
    interpretation. I'm not interested in being on either side of a battle
    you shouldn't even be fighting.


    "What is this?"

    "That's a cream pie."

    "Aha! I knew it! This other person was making a cream pie to throw in
    my face."

    <back at .uk>

    "I found out that you were making a cream pie to throw in my face."

    "Huh? I had no intention of throwing a cream pie in your face."

    "The experts in 24hshd told me this was a cream pie that you made."



    --
    Mike Easter
     
    Mike Easter, May 27, 2009
    #14
  15. VanguardLH

    Mike Easter Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:
    > "Mike Easter"


    >> I'm not interested in being on either side of a battle
    >> you shouldn't even be fighting.

    >
    > I only asked for advice, not for you to ferrret out where the argument
    > was taking place,


    Ferreting out the argument was the key to giving the answer to the
    question you asked.

    > or to post your opinions there.


    I don't have to be asked to give my opinion about anything.

    > By doing so, and
    > posting your assumptions, you did take sides.


    I posted a neutral 'analysis'. So, in your world, "If you aren't for me,
    you are against me." Is that it? Let me see, what was that article I
    was just reading about embitterment and belligerence? I think someone
    wants to give it a diagnostic code.

    > I think we should leave it at this.


    Well, if there's anything else you want to discuss about this, just fire
    away.



    --
    Mike Easter
     
    Mike Easter, May 28, 2009
    #15
  16. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > "Mike Easter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Tappy Lappy wrote:
    >>> "Mike Easter"

    >>
    >>>> I'm not interested in being on either side of a battle
    >>>> you shouldn't even be fighting.
    >>>
    >>> I only asked for advice, not for you to ferrret out where the argument
    >>> was taking place,

    >>
    >> Ferreting out the argument was the key to giving the answer to the
    >> question you asked.

    >
    > No it wasn't,. Other people just as qualified as you I am sure, were able to
    > give me the
    > info without doing so. I fit feeds your ego to show your peers "look what I
    > can do" then
    > who am I to argue.
    >
    >>> or to post your opinions there.

    >>
    >> I don't have to be asked to give my opinion about anything.

    >
    > Yes that would be true when one is as self-opiniated as you seem to be.
    > I noticed you left out the para where I point out that there are people who
    > disagree with you
    > on this NG - I wonder why.
    >
    >>> By doing so, and
    >>> posting your assumptions, you did take sides.

    >>
    >> I posted a neutral 'analysis'. So, in your world, "If you aren't for me,
    >> you are against me." Is that it? Let me see, what was that article I
    >> was just reading about embitterment and belligerence? I think someone
    >> wants to give it a diagnostic code.

    >
    > No you didn't:
    >
    > "he can't get any mail as a result of the followuptoposter header in
    > question, he couldn't have been 'intending' to get anyone's address. He
    > must surely have 'intentionally' created that f/up to poster header in
    > his newsagent, but not for the intention of getting mail"
    >
    > "He probably intended for replies "
    >
    > You would either have to know him personally or be a mind reader to know
    > what he
    > was thinking, so you based your whole argument on assumptions. You assume he
    > knows what he is
    > doing, but if he did then why do it if it aint going to work?
    > Would those articles be in the same magazine that covered, the inflated ego
    > ,
    > and also the idiots guide to mind reading?
    >
    >>> I think we should leave it at this.

    >>

    > Well, if there's anything else you want to discuss about this, just fire
    >> away.

    >
    > No, I am in the wrong newsgroup. If I want any more advice at the level you
    > seem to
    > be operating I think alt.clairvoyant.uk would be more appropriate. I f I
    > want to discuss
    > anything then being lectured by you, doesn't really come in to that
    > category.


    Forget it Mike. He just wants to bring his flame post to this thread.
    He gives no actual example in his original post (because he was hoping
    nobody would find what was his actual participation over there). It
    would have been very simple to look at the headers to see what was used
    that got him all scared. He'll be back here later when someone
    imposters him wondering again how to look at the headers.
     
    VanguardLH, May 28, 2009
    #16
  17. VanguardLH wrote:

    > .. It would have been very simple to look at the headers to see what
    > was used that got him all scared.


    Exactly. <g> I asked him that shortly after his original post: "Can
    you post the Message-ID of one of his/her posts?"

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 28, 2009
    #17
  18. VanguardLH

    Mike Easter Guest

    I don't know why I'm bothering with this, because my replies seem to
    aggravate you -- I'm not trying to put you down or fight with you.
    Preface everything which I say which follows with IMO inmyopinion
    wherever necessary. Everything I say is my opinion, not someone else's.

    Tappy Lappy wrote:

    > On second thoughts, I thought I would put you right.


    But, you are the one who isn't (exactly) right ( - remember IMO).

    > I came on this NG looking for advice, but I wasn't aware that
    > I had to specify what that advice would be used for. There is no
    > criteria as to what info the poster needs to supply, otherwise I would
    > have supplied it. I had nothing to hide, all you needed to do was ask.

    I
    > can't read your mind.


    As it turns out, it would have been best to post some kind of link to the
    actual conversation where the problem occurred, either with a
    googlegroups link or a messageid because the clue was in the headers
    there.

    > I had not nor have any intention now of involving anyone here
    > in my didpute on the other NG.
    > Mike Easter took it on HIMSELF to get involved in the dispute by

    posting
    > on the original one where, I was involved with Paul.


    That is because, in order to figure out what was going on, it was
    necessary for me to look at the headers of the message which caused the
    effect you observed. In order to do that, I had to find the conversation
    between you and Paul which triggered the effect. As a consequence of
    finding the conversation, I observed the friction which developed between
    you and Paul because of the effect which his message caused on your
    feelings toward him.

    > I took YOUR advice and acted on it.
    >
    > The headers mean nothing to me, as I pointed out - we are not all
    > experts. Thats
    > why places like this exist, so we can ask for advice from those who
    > are..
    >
    > I did appreciate the help given, and was thankul for it.


    It is also interesting to work on problems and we all learn from them.
    Several of us had not encountered that particular header, and I for one
    didn't realize that it could be easily created in Outlook Express. The
    business about what happens in mailuser agents such as Outlook OL and
    Outlook Express OE was determined by searching.


    --
    Mike Easter
     
    Mike Easter, May 28, 2009
    #18
    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. Frank  ess

    Your own photos in your own book

    Frank ess, Dec 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    419
    Phil Stripling
    Dec 9, 2004
  2. Ed
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    447
    Frosty
    Feb 24, 2007
  3. BF
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    791
  4. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: A programme is trying to access your address book

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 25, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    419
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    May 25, 2009
  5. Mike Easter

    Re: A programme is trying to access your address book

    Mike Easter, May 25, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    753
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    May 26, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page