f



"error while performing unknown task for <<Dominant>>"

I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 
on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I 
am able to send and receive mail without problem.

I just found others with the same problem on 
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=performing+unknown+task

The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode 
(as I do).

Has anyone else experienced this problem?
0
kam
1/4/2008 9:34:49 PM
comp.mail.eudora.mac 2042 articles. 0 followers. dcohenspam (237) is leader. Post Follow

34 Replies
384 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 20

On Jan 4, 9:34 pm, kam <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4
> on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I
> am able to send and receive mail without problem.
>
> I just found others with the same problem onhttp://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=perform...
>
> The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode
> (as I do).
>
> Has anyone else experienced this problem?

Yes, is happened to me, out of the blue; that is, with nothing I was
doing that could apparently trigger it. I am on OS 10.4.11, with
Eudora 6.2.4. I tried everything I could think of, even down to
installing a brand new version of Eudora, but to no effect. This
problem has apparently been around for at least 18months, judging by
other postings - it is now Jan 2008.

I happen to have control of the server too on my network, and this
showed that Eudora opened and then forcibly closed the read mail
connection, and then complained of the lack of response after two
minutes (or at least something from my Mac forcibly closed the
connection.)

Fortunately, the problem now appears to have gone away by itself, just
as mysteriously as it appeared.
0
john
1/5/2008 12:05:23 AM
john@disoln.com wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:34 pm, kam <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> 
>>I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4
>>on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I
>>am able to send and receive mail without problem.
>>
>>I just found others with the same problem onhttp://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=perform...
>>
>>The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode
>>(as I do).
>>
>>Has anyone else experienced this problem?
> 
> 
> Yes, is happened to me, out of the blue; that is, with nothing I was
> doing that could apparently trigger it. I am on OS 10.4.11, with
> Eudora 6.2.4. I tried everything I could think of, even down to
> installing a brand new version of Eudora, but to no effect. This
> problem has apparently been around for at least 18months, judging by
> other postings - it is now Jan 2008.
> 
> I happen to have control of the server too on my network, and this
> showed that Eudora opened and then forcibly closed the read mail
> connection, and then complained of the lack of response after two
> minutes (or at least something from my Mac forcibly closed the
> connection.)
> 
> Fortunately, the problem now appears to have gone away by itself, just
> as mysteriously as it appeared.

The link to a thread that I gave in my first message recently had a post 
by someone who  checked his log files, and found that Eudora was trying 
to contact adserver.eudora.com. Seems like it's trying to get ads, but 
there are none to get. Or something like that.

Hope mine goes away as yours did - it's annoying! Thanks for the reply, 
John.
0
kam
1/5/2008 5:22:11 AM
kam <kam@invalid.net> wrote:

> I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4
> on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I
> am able to send and receive mail without problem.
> 
> I just found others with the same problem on 
>
>http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=performin
g+unknown+task
> 
> The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode
> (as I do).
> 
> Has anyone else experienced this problem?

I have run into the same problem starting Jan 3. I am on 10.4.11 with a
new iMac. I had recently installed various updates (Security Update,
Java, etc.). It is good to know that these aren't the cause.

I am a registered user with sponsored mode.

I have just tried enabling logging as suggested. So far, perhaps because
I have had too few messages or the like, I can't see why that message
should come up.

Connection to the adserver was achieved (the log said "connected") but
perhaps the problem is at that point.

There was an odd line in the log

Rcvd: "Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown)\r\n"

I know my router is at 192.168.1.1, but there should not be anything at
192.168.1.104.


BEWARE!! This particular form of logging gives the clear text of the
Eudora password, which could be an issue if anyone else has access to
the log.

-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read
0
danspam
1/5/2008 8:15:45 AM
On Jan 5, 8:15 am, dans...@f2s.com (Daniel Cohen) wrote:
> kam <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4
> > on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I
> > am able to send and receive mail without problem.
>
> > I just found others with the same problem on
>
> >http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=performin
> g+unknown+task
>
> > The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode
> > (as I do).
>
> > Has anyone else experienced this problem?
>
> I have run into the same problem starting Jan 3. I am on 10.4.11 with a
> new iMac. I had recently installed various updates (Security Update,
> Java, etc.). It is good to know that these aren't the cause.
>
> I am a registered user with sponsored mode.
>
> I have just tried enabling logging as suggested. So far, perhaps because
> I have had too few messages or the like, I can't see why that message
> should come up.
>
> Connection to the adserver was achieved (the log said "connected") but
> perhaps the problem is at that point.
>
> There was an odd line in the log
>
> Rcvd: "Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown)\r\n"
>
> I know my router is at 192.168.1.1, but there should not be anything at
> 192.168.1.104.
>
> BEWARE!! This particular form of logging gives the clear text of the
> Eudora password, which could be an issue if anyone else has access to
> the log.
>
> --http://www.decohen.com
> Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
> mail to the From address is never read

From a search of all the forums, this problem appears to have affected
multitudes of users all at the same time. It all started recently on 4
Jan 2008, and has intermittently come and gone since then. However, it
has been around in the past at various times as far back as years ago,
but has come and disappeared.

The consensus is that it is something to do with Eudora trying but
failing to get an advert, even though there are no longer any adverts
to be had. Perhaps the IP address being used has been taken down, or
can't be contacted. The problem does not appear to affect those with a
"paid mode" version.

Since Eudora is no longer being supported by Calcomm, in any mode,
maybe they tried to dispose of the ad server. Unfortunately, I
installed Eudora on my very recently purchased Intel Mac, so I don't
have the option of going to "paid mode".

I also keep getting a message reminding me to register every so often,
and I tried to do this, but Calcomm are no longer accepting
registrations. Hence I have to suffer this irritating message every so
often.

I understand that is is possible to obtain a valid registration number
for "paid mode" from the net, although I have not yet found a source.
Using this might cure the problem. It can't really be violating any
license agreement since the product officially no longer exists and is
no longer being supported.

I think Calcomm have a moral duty to sort all this out. It is
unreasonable to declare the product no longer supported, and wash
their hands of an unstable product, and then let users suffer the
consequences. One more release of a free "paid mode" version might
solve the problem.

On the Mac, it might also be helpful if they fixed the bug that
results in the Filter Report Window not always being launched and
updated when the "notify user in report" button is checked. This is
extremely irritating and makes the feature near unusable.


0
john
1/7/2008 1:58:55 PM
<john@disoln.com> wrote:

> The consensus is that it is something to do with Eudora trying but
> failing to get an advert, even though there are no longer any adverts
> to be had. Perhaps the IP address being used has been taken down, or
> can't be contacted. The problem does not appear to affect those with a
> "paid mode" version.

For what it's worth, I've always used Eudora in Light mode, with a
number of different mail providers, using multiple settings files. No
problems of any kind.

My email needs are fairly simple; I'm still using Eudora 6.1.1 with OS
10.3.9 and at present see not a single valid reason to upgrade either.
-- 
Peter
0
peter
1/7/2008 2:17:36 PM
Peter Ceresole <peter@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> For what it's worth, I've always used Eudora in Light mode, with a
> number of different mail providers, using multiple settings files. No
> problems of any kind.

FWIW, I see the mentioned error in 6.2.3/Light Mode since yesterday.
Haven't tcpdump(1)ed the connection yet, though.

        hauke

-- 
Now without signature.
0
dont
1/7/2008 4:49:46 PM
Hi

If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems
to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora
can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been
running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas
previously it was every couple of minutes).

I used "little snitch" to block Eudora (actually just change the allow
Eudora port 80 rule to a deny Eudora port 80 rule.

You should also be able to do the same (or similar anyway) with the
IPFW firewall. You can configure that using the terminal or a GUI like
WaterRoof.

As IPFW is not app specific and you don't want to block port 80 for
other programs you'll want a rule like:

Deny TCP and UDP from me to 192.190.109.20:80
0
apr400
1/7/2008 6:30:52 PM
On Jan 7, 10:30=A0am, apr400 <apr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems
> to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora
> can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been
> running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas
> previously it was every couple of minutes).
>
> I used "little snitch" to block Eudora (actually just change the allow
> Eudora port 80 rule to a deny Eudora port 80 rule.
>
> You should also be able to do the same (or similar anyway) with the
> IPFW firewall. You can configure that using the terminal or a GUI like
> WaterRoof.
>
> As IPFW is not app specific and you don't want to block port 80 for
> other programs you'll want a rule like:
>
> Deny TCP and UDP from me to 192.190.109.20:80

This doesn't seem to work:
ipfw enable firewall
ipfw add 12190 deny tcp from me to 192.190.109.20:80
12190 deny tcp from me to 0.0.0.16:0.0.0.80

Why does it change 192.190.109.20:80 to 0.0.0.16:0.0.0.80???

Neither does:
ipfw add 12190 deny tcp and udp from 127.0.0.0/8 to 192.190.109.20:80

Thanks for any help.
0
paintedjazz
1/7/2008 8:59:11 PM
Hey, all ... you might want to try just hiding the background
processes (settings > getting attention > uncheck "show task
progress...").

It looks like it's an issue with sponsored-mode Eudora looking to the
web for new ads. It seems like there may not be anymore ads, hence no
ad server.

Thoughts?


On Jan 7, 3:59 pm, paintedj...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 7, 10:30 am, apr400 <apr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi
>
> > If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems
> > to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora
> > can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been
> > running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas
> > previously it was every couple of minutes).
>
> > I used "little snitch" to block Eudora (actually just change the allow
> > Eudora port 80 rule to a deny Eudora port 80 rule.
>
> > You should also be able to do the same (or similar anyway) with the
> > IPFW firewall. You can configure that using the terminal or a GUI like
> > WaterRoof.
>
> > As IPFW is not app specific and you don't want to block port 80 for
> > other programs you'll want a rule like:
>
> > Deny TCP and UDP from me to 192.190.109.20:80
>
> This doesn't seem to work:
> ipfw enable firewall
> ipfw add 12190 deny tcp from me to 192.190.109.20:80
> 12190 deny tcp from me to 0.0.0.16:0.0.0.80
>
> Why does it change 192.190.109.20:80 to 0.0.0.16:0.0.0.80???
>
> Neither does:
> ipfw add 12190 deny tcp and udp from 127.0.0.0/8 to 192.190.109.20:80
>
> Thanks for any help.
0
None
1/7/2008 9:42:23 PM
I was getting the same error. As a quick-n-dirty patch, I put an entry
in my Mac's /etc/hosts file for "adserver.eudora.com" with an IP
number that belongs to one of our local web servers and restarted
Eudora. I haven't received the error since then. The access log on the
web server shows that my Mac is requesting:

"POST /adjoin/playlists HTTP/1.0" 404 285

The web server is obviously replying with a 404 error, but at least
Eudora doesn't timeout now.
0
bing
1/7/2008 10:05:37 PM
<john@disoln.com> wrote:

> On Jan 5, 8:15 am, dans...@f2s.com (Daniel Cohen) wrote:
> > kam <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4
> > > on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I
> > > am able to send and receive mail without problem.
> >
> > > I just found others with the same problem on
> >
> > >http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=performin
> > g+unknown+task
> >
> > > The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode
> > > (as I do).
> >
> > > Has anyone else experienced this problem?
> >
> > I have run into the same problem starting Jan 3. I am on 10.4.11 with a
> > new iMac. I had recently installed various updates (Security Update,
> > Java, etc.). It is good to know that these aren't the cause.
> >
> > I am a registered user with sponsored mode.
> >
> > I have just tried enabling logging as suggested. So far, perhaps because
> > I have had too few messages or the like, I can't see why that message
> > should come up.
> >
> > Connection to the adserver was achieved (the log said "connected") but
> > perhaps the problem is at that point.
> >
> > There was an odd line in the log
> >
> > Rcvd: "Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown)\r\n"
> >
> > I know my router is at 192.168.1.1, but there should not be anything at
> > 192.168.1.104.
> >
> > BEWARE!! This particular form of logging gives the clear text of the
> > Eudora password, which could be an issue if anyone else has access to
> > the log.
> >
> > --http://www.decohen.com
> > Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
> > mail to the From address is never read
> 
> From a search of all the forums, this problem appears to have affected
> multitudes of users all at the same time. It all started recently on 4
> Jan 2008, and has intermittently come and gone since then. However, it
> has been around in the past at various times as far back as years ago,
> but has come and disappeared.

It's much older than that, I've seen it for at least half a year. 
Maybe even back to when they stopped sending out ads. 
Now that would make sense, wouldn't it?

-- 
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines 
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour
0
andekl_no
1/7/2008 10:18:41 PM
In article 
<5a5c5c62-15c2-4877-9327-7cd7768bfed5@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
 bing <bing@runbox.com> wrote:

> I was getting the same error. As a quick-n-dirty patch, I put an entry
> in my Mac's /etc/hosts file for "adserver.eudora.com" with an IP
> number that belongs to one of our local web servers and restarted
> Eudora.

If you have Apache running locally, you could redirect it to 127.0.0.1. 
That way you wouldn't be dependant on some other machine always being 
available. Useful on laptops. (If this would the single reason to have 
Apache running, you should probably make sure your firewall blocks all 
access to it.)

> I haven't received the error since then. The access log on the
> web server shows that my Mac is requesting:
> 
> "POST /adjoin/playlists HTTP/1.0" 404 285
> 
> The web server is obviously replying with a 404 error, but at least
> Eudora doesn't timeout now.

<x-eudora-setting:13711> Timeout for pinging the ad server.

Possibly setting this to a very high value helps? Or who knows, zero 
might mean no time-out. (I'm using Paid Mode myself, so I don't see the 
problem here.)

-- 
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!"
PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"
0
Sander
1/8/2008 12:33:44 AM
 You could try:

sudo ipfw add 099 deny ip from any to 192.190.109.20
0
apr400
1/8/2008 2:03:25 AM
 x-eudora-setting:13711 Timeout for pinging the ad server.

 Possibly setting this to a very high value helps? Or who knows, zero
 might mean no time-out. (I'm using Paid Mode myself, so I don't see
the
 problem here.)


That setting didn't seem to make any difference regardless of the value
0
apr400
1/8/2008 2:05:46 AM
Because two different computers had the same issue on the network I guessed it 
couldn't be a Eudora problem at all.

I was about to do a reset on the Airport when the symptoms stopped.  Telepathy 
perhaps?  In any case I appreciate the conversation and learned how little I 
know about ports even though I live right on Narragansett Bay.

Thanks

In article 
<182851a0-e868-4ee7-aa0c-219e7e97a765@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
 apr400 <apr400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>  x-eudora-setting:13711 Timeout for pinging the ad server.
> 
>  Possibly setting this to a very high value helps? Or who knows, zero
>  might mean no time-out. (I'm using Paid Mode myself, so I don't see
> the
>  problem here.)
> 
> 
> That setting didn't seem to make any difference regardless of the value



-- 
Harvey Waxman
remove spam to email
http://righttax.org/
0
Harvey
1/8/2008 2:50:53 AM
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:15:45 -0600:

> Connection to the adserver was achieved (the log said "connected")
> but perhaps the problem is at that point.

Experimenting with Windows version 6.2.5.6,
I am still seeing "playlists" downloading from the ad server
(for a "pseudo ad" recommending upgrading to the "final" version,
which was being served to all non-final versions in "sponsored" mode)

Directory of C:\user\EUv6b\EudPriv\Ads

12/26/2007  07:34 PM             5,940 1161709645.mfs
12/26/2007  07:34 PM             3,140 1180419112.mfs
01/07/2008  08:55 PM             3,140 1188976880.mfs [playlists]
01/05/2008  11:27 PM    <DIR>          AdCache
01/07/2008  08:55 PM             1,288 CInfo.dat
01/07/2008  08:55 PM             1,020 Eudora.idx
               5 File(s)         14,528 bytes

DNS resolutions point to the same server
for both "playlists" and "ad" images
(although the server itself
could be discriminating as to whether it replies
to each HTTP request):

# nslookup adserver.eudora.com
adserver.eudora.com     canonical name =3D pipes-vip.qualcomm.com.
Name:   pipes-vip.qualcomm.com
Address: 192.190.109.20

# nslookup ads.eudora.com
ads.eudora.com  canonical name =3D pipes-vip.qualcomm.com.
Name:   pipes-vip.qualcomm.com
Address: 192.190.109.20

The various posted observations seem to suggest
not that the "ad" server is down,
but that it is returning a "404" (not found) error,
which indicates that it's very much "alive,"
just not supplying the expected "ad"

The most recent "ad" image in my "AdCache" (above)
is dated Dec 21, but that might be normal,
if there was no change in what's being "played"

At any rate, the "final" Eudora versions of October 2006
(both Windows and Mac) were supposed to have been adjusted
to stop "nagging" about registering, profiling, or failing to contact
any "ad" server in Sponsored mode, but they do still keep downloading
"playlists" anyway, and for some reason (seemingly to keep urging
sponsored users of non-final versions to update, using an "ad" to do thi=
s),
Qualcomm has kept its Eudora "ad" and web servers running all this while=
,
anyway (except for registration).

The DNS lookups for the Eudora servers are still as was posted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.eudora.mac/msg/68350ba1b292371f=


-- =
0
John
1/8/2008 3:38:16 AM
Update.   It's back.  I'm getting the feeling that since so many others have 
the same problem, that it could be a Qualcom issue.

In article <spamhwaxman-AB3C96.21505007012008@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
 Harvey Waxman <spamhwaxman@cox.net> wrote:

> Because two different computers had the same issue on the network I guessed 
> it 
> couldn't be a Eudora problem at all.
> 
> I was about to do a reset on the Airport when the symptoms stopped.  
> Telepathy 
> perhaps? 
Harvey Waxman
remove spam to email
http://righttax.org/
0
Harvey
1/8/2008 12:02:30 PM
In article 
<spamhwaxman-B269B0.07023008012008@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
 Harvey Waxman <spamhwaxman@cox.net> wrote:

> Update.   It's back.

And it's back for me again too. Maybe it takes (west coast) afternoons and 
evenings off, but it's morning again here.

David

-- 
David Ryeburn
ryeburn@sfu.caz
To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz".
0
David
1/8/2008 6:16:38 PM
None <mikezulla@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems like there may not be anymore ads, hence no
> ad server.

There aren't any more ads. But I think the ad server still exists.

When I looked at my log (since deleted, so I am not exactly sure) it
showed Connecting.. and then Connected to the ad server address. Since
it connected, the server must have been there.
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read
0
danspam
1/8/2008 9:11:30 PM
In article 
<44c47ac7-ffb9-4888-9cc2-4e2f11ef9759@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 apr400 <apr400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems
> to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora
> can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been
> running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas
> previously it was every couple of minutes).

Doesn't it eventually switch to "Lite" mode if it is unable to download 
ads for some long interval?
0
Matt
1/8/2008 9:35:41 PM
Does anyone have a Paid Mode Registration Code they'd be willing to 
share? Since Eudora is not selling the product anymore I doubt there is 
any piracy violation. I imagine this would solve the problem since Paid 
Mode does not connect to the ad server.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
0
ampersand
1/8/2008 9:58:15 PM
On Jan 8, 9:35 pm, Matt Simpson <net-new...@jmatt.net> wrote:
> In article
> <44c47ac7-ffb9-4888-9cc2-4e2f11ef9...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  apr400 <apr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems
> > to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora
> > can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been
> > running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas
> > previously it was every couple of minutes).
>
> Doesn't it eventually switch to "Lite" mode if it is unable to download
> ads for some long interval?

I imagine I recall that that was what the 6.2.4 update addressed - ie
it allowed for not getting ads. I haven't reverted to light mode yet,
but I would concede that it's a possiblity. Still if the adserver is
down (and it's not responding to pings, or to Eudora) presumably that
will happen if it's going to anyway.

You could interpret this page:
http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html
as saying that the revert to light won't happen with 6.2.4
0
apr400
1/8/2008 10:01:24 PM
On Jan 9, 10:58=A0am, ampersand <nob...@here.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a Paid Mode Registration Code they'd be willing to
> share? Since Eudora is not selling the product anymore I doubt there is
> any piracy violation. I imagine this would solve the problem since Paid
> Mode does not connect to the ad server.
>
> ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet=
 News=3D=3D----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World=
! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----=3D East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =
=3D----

ampersand,

If anyone can show me a way to update, I'd be happy to see it, but
AFAICT there is no way to upgrade to Paid mode from Sponsored mode;
even with a registration code, attempting to update to Paid mode takes
you to a web page saying they don't take paid registrations anymore.
It seems truly bizzare to me. As far as I can make out (and its clear
as mud to me at present), they are moving people Lite mode, forcing
people to drop features. Surely a more logical thing to do would have
been to make the last release allow users to click on 'Paid Mode' and
get it without further ado or set to the software work permanently in
Paid mode???

I need (not want) some of these features and ripping them off me while
the software is still functional isn't going to generate any warm
fuzzy feeling for Qualcomm from me! ;-)

There is a registration code at http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.=
html
(Qualcomm's Eudora website, note).
0
grant
1/8/2008 11:29:45 PM
In article <b3cf5936-4c0c-4f7b-a2c9-cc91a83bfc8d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
None  <mikezulla@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey, all ... you might want to try just hiding the background
>processes (settings > getting attention > uncheck "show task
>progress...").

I can't speak for other people, but I like seeing the Task Progress
window, especially when I'm sending or receiving large documents.

Thanks to everyone here and on the Eudora bulletin board on Qualcomm's
website for the advice about modifying the Mac OS X firewall settings.
That has been working fine for me. I am, however, interested to see
the postings about the adserver coming and going, so will stay tuned
for updates on that.


Patty

0
Patty
1/9/2008 6:12:28 PM
On Jan 7, 2:05=A0pm, bing <b...@runbox.com> wrote:
> I was getting the same error. As a quick-n-dirty patch, I put an entry
> in my Mac's /etc/hosts file for "adserver.eudora.com" with an IP
> number that belongs to one of our local web servers and restarted
> Eudora. I haven't received the error since then. The access log on the
> web server shows that my Mac is requesting:
>
> "POST /adjoin/playlists HTTP/1.0" 404 285
>
> The web server is obviously replying with a 404 error, but at least
> Eudora doesn't timeout now.

Thanks!  This solved the problem.  Don't know why I didn't think of it
myself.
0
paintedjazz
1/9/2008 7:03:47 PM
<grant.jacobs@clear.net.nz> wrote:

> There is a registration code at
http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html

But that code is for Eudora 5.2 under Windows 98 or SE.

And the reference says 

Eudora stopped pushing ads to Sponsored Mode Users. If you are running
Windows Eudora 7.1 or Macintosh Eudora 6.2.4 you do not have to make any
changes to the Eudora program.
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read
0
danspam
1/9/2008 10:15:16 PM
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:35:41 -0600, Matt Simpson wrote:

> Doesn't it eventually switch to "Lite" mode
> if it is unable to download ads for some long interval?

In "Sponsored" mode, older versions did,
but "final" versions (6.2.4 Mac, 7.1.0.9 Windows)
are not supposed to, which is the very reason
that Qualcomm has been trying to convince all "Sponsored" users
to replace any older version with a "final" version.

Here it was spelled out clearly, on October 11, 2006
http://www.eudora.com/faq/#Sponsored

The current error seems to be caused by the "live" ad server
sending wrong data in a "playlist," rather than
by the ad server going dead, as evidenced by the fact
that people say they can shut up the error message
by _blocking_ connection to the ad server,
just as if it had actually "gone dead"

-- 
0
John
1/10/2008 1:04:42 AM
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:15:16 -0600:

>> There is a registration code at
>> http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html

> But that code is for Eudora 5.2 under Windows 98 or SE.

That code should work in any Eudora version 4.3.x thru 5.2.x,
Windows or Mac, under any OS version, because there is
one common system to all Eudora registration.

The same is true for any similar info whose code
contains a later registration month, which will be accepted
by correspondingly later versions (and by all older versions,
each license being good for all prior versions,
as well as for "future" versions at least one year beyond).

-- 
0
John
1/10/2008 1:21:54 AM
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:58:15 -0600, ampersand wrote:

> Does anyone have a Paid Mode Registration Code
> they'd be willing to share?

Perhaps Matt Dudziak:
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=3D12832

Or perhaps "Froggie the Gremlin"
(someone who posts anonymously in the Windows newsgroup),
but it might be objectionable (and even harmful) to Qualcomm
to do this in public, for reasons outlined above by Matt.

I will copy what I recently posted in a Eudora mailing list
(with minor additions):

> Is it legal for someone who paid for 6.2.4
> to give a copy of the installer and his registration key
> to someone else?

Since anyone can even now freely download all the installers they want,
directly from Qualcomm, the installer itself is already a
"give-away" item, just as it has always been.

My installed "license" file (apparently with reference to "paid" mode)
says (this is from the final Windows' version):

"LICENSE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License Agreement, QUALCOMM hereby grants you a
nonexclusive license to install and use the Software in
machine-readable form solely for testing and evaluation
purposes on a single personal computer, provided that if
you are an individual, on one or more personal computers
in your household or home office owned or controlled by
you for use by yourself and immediate family members
residing in the same household only. You may copy the
Software only for backup purposes, provided that you
reproduce all copyright and other proprietary notices that
are on the original copy of the Software."

Qualcomm's intent regarding discontinuation of the product
is not explicit, but there is an interesting section in a legal document=

filed by Qualcomm about the payment and registration system,
in a U.S. Patent application (look up patent #7103643, issued Sept 2006)=
,
in which Qualcomm declares that if they ever decide to retire the system=
,
they could publish a permanant registration code
(presumably as paid), to enable everyone to use it thereafter.

Patent lookup:
http://www.google.com/search?q=3Dqualcomm+patent+7103643

Qualcomm has in fact actually published a paid registration code already=
,
good for any Mac or Windows version up to 5.2.1; here it is:
http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html

Here is a statement by someone still working at Qualcomm,
explaining that there is an obstacle to releasing a later version as pai=
d
(particularly version 7 for Windows), because of an obligation of Qualco=
mm
to pay a royalty to third parties whose software may be included:
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=3D12832

All of the above does not authorize anyone explicitly to do anything the=
mselves,
but it certainly casts the matter in a different light than when the pro=
duct
was still being sold, as it indicates an original intention
not to "bury" the product after its discontinuation,
but to make it universally available instead,
now moderated by the complication of a royalty agreement with other vend=
ors.

I believe it's irrelevant that not all of the original source code
can be given to the "open source" project, because the installable produ=
ct
does not contain source code, and was never restricted from distribution=

(you can continue downloading it all you want, as mentioned earlier);
the only restriction on the executable is that you may not reverse engin=
eer it
to derive the source code, but you can use the compiled code all you wan=
t,
just as everyone has been doing all these years,
and by continuing to offer it, and even to encourage "sponsored" users
of older versions to catch up and download the latest version,
Qualcomm is certainly indicating that you are more than welcome to it.

Since there is no longer any place to buy a registration,
there is no means by which one can complete a purchase
or compensate Qualcomm, no matter how willing and conscientious
one may be; by the same token, Qualcomm can not suffer a loss of revenue=

by anyone pre-empting a sale that can not now take place anyway.

However, due to sensitive third-party agreements,
Qualcomm could still be harmed by inappropriate action
that might cause those parties to have any claim against Qualcomm.

It reminds me of a wholesale flower market area in New York City,
where it's well known that every weekend, boxes of unsold flowers
will be left on the street for carting away by the Sanitation department=
..

Other people also come and help themselves to what wasn't sold;
perhaps the flowers and growers would even rather have them
end up being used and appreciated by someone, rather than being trashed.=


It is a hazy issue, in the hands of private personal judgement,
and due to the complete evaporation of all commercial value
by the product being taken off the market,
there is no one who will demand satisfaction but your own self;
do make sure, however, not to embarrass Qualcomm in the process.

-- =
0
John
1/10/2008 1:51:12 AM
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:29:45 -0600:

> If anyone can show me a way to update, I'd be happy to see it, but
> AFAICT there is no way to upgrade to Paid mode from Sponsored mode;
> even with a registration code, attempting to update to Paid mode takes
> you to a web page saying they don't take paid registrations anymore.

The product has been retired, hence
you can not purchase a new registration,
which is what clicking "Paid mode" attempts to do,
if no code has yet been stored in the past.

However, if you have registration information
which has not yet been stored in Eudora,
open "Help" > "Payment & Registration"
then click "Enter your Code" instead.

Entry of acceptable registration information
then immediately switches into the mode
specified in the registration code.

> It seems truly bizzare to me. As far as I can make out
> (and it's clear as mud to me at present),
> they are moving people Lite mode,
> forcing people to drop features.

Qualcomm has made every possible attempt to inform
and encourage non-paid users to obtain a perpetual,
non-expiring "Sponsored" mode version:
http://www.eudora.com/faq/#Sponsored

The only feature of Mac "Paid" mode
that seems not to be enabled in "Sponsored" mode
would be the "SpamWatch" feature
(correct me if I'm wrong, as I tend to use only Windows :)

The Mac "Sponsored" mode also does not seem
to be able to completely hide the small gray square
in which ads used to appear (whereas Windows versions
can even make that totally disappear);
this seems rather minor to me,
but is a big deal to some people.

The "Light" mode will also stop looking for ads,
and will erase the gray square;
for those who don't need extra "Personalities"
and who can spell correctly without a checker, etc.,
the "Light" mode may be perfect enough, anyway.

> Surely a more logical thing to do would have been
> to make the last release allow users to click on 'Paid Mode' and
> get it without further ado or set to the software work permanently
> in Paid mode???

When "Final" versions 6.2.4 (Mac) and 7.1.0.9 (Windows)
were released in October 2006, licenses were still sold,
and continued to be sold for the next six months,
support contracts continued for up to one year later,
and "Sponsored" mode was also still fetching commercial ads,
so the above was not an option at all.

As the product fades into history, people who were willing
to have paid, even during the final months of sale,
will become less offended by having others not having paid
but getting the same thing; since feelings (and customer relations)
are important, these non-technical considerations can not be dismissed,
so one could hardly expect Qualcomm to ignore that side
(which is the side of its paying customers, after all).

Qualcomm seems to have bent over backwards to give away
all that it could, without unfairness to existing paying customers,
and also without incurring financial responsibility in regard
to third-party agreements and obligations (no other company
whose software may be bundled into Eudora
is likely to have offered to suspend its rights to royalties
for distributed products enabling those features, for example).

What more can you expect, then?

> I need (not want) some of these features
> and ripping them off me while the software is still functional
> isn't going to generate any warm fuzzy feeling for Qualcomm from me! ;-)

And how fuzzy do you want Qualcomm to be towards people
who didn't purchase even the final version for 60% off,
at the expense of relations with people who did?

I don't understand -- what feature not in 6.2.4 "Sponsored" mode
can't you live without? ("SpamWatch" is the only one I'm aware of)

Has anyone had 6.2.4 "downgrade to light" (and not be willing
to be set back to "Sponsored") for any cause?

If so, it would be instructive to know what happened,
or if no such thing ever happened, it would be reassuring to know that.

Meanwhile, although publication is a sensitive matter,
it is clear that anyone can privately obtain info for running as "Paid,"
if they feel it acceptable and suitable in their own judgment.

-- 
0
John
1/10/2008 2:56:09 AM
You're confusing my reference to Paid mode with those wanted service,
something I didn't ask for, nor mentioned. After I wrote it I worried
that some people might read that into it, but I let it go on the hope
the people here seem more moderate.

So, if you don't mind you're reading far too much into my post and
reading a different tone into it too. I included in the wink in an
attempt to show I was writing with a "light heart". Likewise the
question marks are because I'm asking a question, not ranting. But
never mind.

Thanks for your long posts explaining some of this; I'll read them in
full later when I have more time.

Multiple personalities are essential for some people, e.g. if your
business mail is forwarded to your private account and you're working
both from the same ISP, etc., etc. Also, when I tried the first step
of moving to Lite mode I was presented with a long list of features
I'd loose. I haven't time to review this list right now, but there was
more that just multiple personalities too lose. I can't remember all
of it, but there were a number of other things I use regularly on the
list.


On Jan 10, 3:56=A0pm, "John H Meyers" <jhmey...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:29:45 -0600:
>
> > If anyone can show me a way to update, I'd be happy to see it, but
> > AFAICT there is no way to upgrade to Paid mode from Sponsored mode;
> > even with a registration code, attempting to update to Paid mode takes
> > you to a web page saying they don't take paid registrations anymore.
>
> The product has been retired, hence
> you can not purchase a new registration,
> which is what clicking "Paid mode" attempts to do,
> if no code has yet been stored in the past.
>
> However, if you have registration information
> which has not yet been stored in Eudora,
> open "Help" > "Payment & Registration"
> then click "Enter your Code" instead.
>
> Entry of acceptable registration information
> then immediately switches into the mode
> specified in the registration code.
>
> > It seems truly bizzare to me. As far as I can make out
> > (and it's clear as mud to me at present),
> > they are moving people Lite mode,
> > forcing people to drop features.
>
> Qualcomm has made every possible attempt to inform
> and encourage non-paid users to obtain a perpetual,
> non-expiring "Sponsored" mode version:http://www.eudora.com/faq/#Sponsored=

>
> The only feature of Mac "Paid" mode
> that seems not to be enabled in "Sponsored" mode
> would be the "SpamWatch" feature
> (correct me if I'm wrong, as I tend to use only Windows :)
>
> The Mac "Sponsored" mode also does not seem
> to be able to completely hide the small gray square
> in which ads used to appear (whereas Windows versions
> can even make that totally disappear);
> this seems rather minor to me,
> but is a big deal to some people.
>
> The "Light" mode will also stop looking for ads,
> and will erase the gray square;
> for those who don't need extra "Personalities"
> and who can spell correctly without a checker, etc.,
> the "Light" mode may be perfect enough, anyway.
>
> > Surely a more logical thing to do would have been
> > to make the last release allow users to click on 'Paid Mode' and
> > get it without further ado or set to the software work permanently
> > in Paid mode???
>
> When "Final" versions 6.2.4 (Mac) and 7.1.0.9 (Windows)
> were released in October 2006, licenses were still sold,
> and continued to be sold for the next six months,
> support contracts continued for up to one year later,
> and "Sponsored" mode was also still fetching commercial ads,
> so the above was not an option at all.
>
> As the product fades into history, people who were willing
> to have paid, even during the final months of sale,
> will become less offended by having others not having paid
> but getting the same thing; since feelings (and customer relations)
> are important, these non-technical considerations can not be dismissed,
> so one could hardly expect Qualcomm to ignore that side
> (which is the side of its paying customers, after all).
>
> Qualcomm seems to have bent over backwards to give away
> all that it could, without unfairness to existing paying customers,
> and also without incurring financial responsibility in regard
> to third-party agreements and obligations (no other company
> whose software may be bundled into Eudora
> is likely to have offered to suspend its rights to royalties
> for distributed products enabling those features, for example).
>
> What more can you expect, then?
>
> > I need (not want) some of these features
> > and ripping them off me while the software is still functional
> > isn't going to generate any warm fuzzy feeling for Qualcomm from me! ;-)=

>
> And how fuzzy do you want Qualcomm to be towards people
> who didn't purchase even the final version for 60% off,
> at the expense of relations with people who did?
>
> I don't understand -- what feature not in 6.2.4 "Sponsored" mode
> can't you live without? ("SpamWatch" is the only one I'm aware of)
>
> Has anyone had 6.2.4 "downgrade to light" (and not be willing
> to be set back to "Sponsored") for any cause?
>
> If so, it would be instructive to know what happened,
> or if no such thing ever happened, it would be reassuring to know that.
>
> Meanwhile, although publication is a sensitive matter,
> it is clear that anyone can privately obtain info for running as "Paid,"
> if they feel it acceptable and suitable in their own judgment.
>
> --

0
grant
1/10/2008 3:51:31 AM
Qualcomm has posted on the Eudora forum thread on this problem that
they are aware and working on it

see here:
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&page=5&pp=10
0
apr400
1/10/2008 9:19:43 AM
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:51:31 -0600, grant.jacobs wrote:

> Multiple personalities are essential for some people.

It won Joanne Woodward three "best actress" awards, too :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Faces_of_Eve (1958)
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Faces-Eve-Joanne-Woodward/dp/B0002B15ZG
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051077/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051077/awards
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0940946/

Probably just as fine now, on its 50th anniversary.

> Also, when I tried the first step of moving to Lite mode
> I was presented with a long list of features I'd lose.

I gather now that what you meant was
that you were trying to bypass the "Ad server" problem
by switching to "Light" mode, but got spooked away
by the fact that this would (temporarily) disable
some features that you need.

So switch to "Paid" mode instead :)

Once you "Enter your code" with valid info,
it will then be possible to switch in and out of Paid mode at will
(and the "Paid" feature - SpamWatch - should continue working anyway,
in other modes, merely by the continuing stored presence
of the previously entered "Paid" mode registration info).

Eudora sends one off to a web page for registration
only if there is no stored "Paid" mode registration
at the time one presses the "Paid" button,
otherwise it does just switch into "Paid" mode
(isn't there also preliminary pop-up which tells you
exactly where you will be transferred, and why?)

It pretty much has to work exactly this way,
because the program has to refuse to change to "Paid" mode
if it doesn't find a valid registration already stored;
a less useful way it could do that would be simply
to pop up an error message saying "sorry, you aren't registered,"
but a far more intelligent option is to go just one step further,
and direct the user to the web page where (s)he could have registered,
as of when the program was originally released.

Today, this web page is no longer functional,
but it was a very smooth and easy way to register
for all the time that the product was still sold.

By the way, the web registration system not only immediately displayed
your registration information for printing or copying,
but it also sent a special attachment to your email address,
which, when received by Eudora, would automatically
store your registration code for you,
in case you had not already manually entered it.

All of this ingenuity is practically enough
to convince me of the truth of "intelligent design," after all :)

-- 
0
John
1/10/2008 11:09:57 AM
You still haven't quite got it, but never mind as the solution seems
to be wait for Quallcomm to fix it. I'm quite aware of how
registration normally works, btw. I'm still getting the message every
time I check mail, so I guess I get to wait patiently...

Grant

On Jan 11, 12:09=A0am, "John H Meyers" <jhmey...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:51:31 -0600, grant.jacobs wrote:
> > Multiple personalities are essential for some people.
>
0
grant
1/10/2008 12:50:35 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Re: "error while performing unknown task for <<Dominant>>"
I was getting these messages earlier today, on two different computers (my wife's G5 iMac 2nd generation and my Digital Audio G4, both running Mac OS 10.4.11 and both using Eudora 6.2.4). They were enough of an annoyance on the Digital Audio G4 that instead of leaving Eudora running, I quit it and fired it up only when I wanted to use it. Then I shut the computer down for a number of hours. Here are slightly edited portions of the Digital Audio G4's Eudora Log. Eudora has been running since 18:49:30 without any more complaints. Mon Jan 07 13:27:16 2008 26225664 8:60....

Hello "<<<<<<<<<<<<<" HELP ME PLEASE ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please Help me Quickly :------------------- Generate a 100x100 pixel images with the following colors and show a figure for each of them. Colors requested: Green, Cyan, "RERE " <randalfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message <ic33ck$7cm$1@fred.mathworks.com>... > Please Help me Quickly :------------------- > Generate a 100x100 pixel images with the following colors and show a figure for each of them. Colors requested: Green, Cyan, YESSIR! We will drop everything and do your homework for you. Right now however, the backlog is up to 7 weeks before we can start yo...

"const <anonymous>**" and "<unknown type>" errors while compiling
Hi, I am trying to compile these set of C++ files and trying out class inheritence and function pointers. Can anybody shed some light why my compiler is not compiling them and where I am going wrong? I am using g++ (GCC) 3.3.5 on a Debian Sarge system. The compiler complains: //**************************** //**************************** Compiler output starts *********** cd /home/red/tmp/testprogs/ time make g++ -gstabs -ansi -Wall -c -I./ hstestprog.cc -o hstestprog.o derivedclass2.h: In constructor ` DerivedClass2<FLOAT>::DerivedClass2(hsOperation<FLOAT>&) [with FL...

<<<<<<<<<<<<<The Real A.I PROBLEMS">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The unvierse is like a ballon with black holes and white holes picture two on each side left two right on upside down the speed and the amout of matter consumed is a direct relations ship two the size of the ballon as the ballon get bigger the gravitaion forces of the black holes increase two self balance the universe it's self fixing but as time go's on and matter moves at diffrent speed's in diffrent dementions and at diffrent rates the demnetions become unstable becasue of misplaced matter ( magnetic plasma hint hint" oppset of black matter. ( sun spots ) why is the...

"new" [<TypeArguments>] <ClassOrInterfaceType> "(" [<ArgumentList>] ")"
According to http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/expressions.html#15.9 the following production holds <ClassInstanceCreationExpression> ::= "new" [<TypeArguments>] <ClassOrInterfaceType> "(" [<ArgumentList>] ")" What would be an example for a class instance creation expression with type arguments? Here's a reminder about those: <TypeArguments> ::= "<" <TypeArgument> {"," <TypeArgument>} ">" What I would understand would be: <ClassInstanceCre...

<<<<< URGENT
In matlab, by comparing these two, are they samething? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% function grav = gravity global x y z grav = x+y+z; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% and %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% function gravity global x y z grav = x+y+z; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Thank you Look carefully at them and tell us what you think. Dan On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 02:46:52 +0000, Ysjung wrote: > In matlab, > by comparing these two, are they samething? > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > function grav = gravity > > global x y z > > grav = x+y+z; > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ...

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> <head> <title>jsSHA
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http:// www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang=3D"en"> <head> <title>jsSHA (http://jssha.sourceforge.net/) - Test</title> <script type=3D"text/javascript" src=3D"../src/sha.js"></script> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html;charset=3Dutf-8" /= > <style type=3D"text/css"> label { width: 235px; dis...

"<<previous<< 2 3 4 5 >>next>>" scheme
hi all, I am creating a web project with php/mysql. one of qeury result is too high. it returs several thousand rows. But I can't show them in one page. So I wanna create more than one pages then I shall use "<<previous<< 2 3 4 5 >>next>>" scheme. but i don't have any idea. If user clicks 3rd page. I shall show the 3rd page. How should I do this ? should I again query the whole or a portion ? what is the function related to this. Thank in advance Also sprach hSiplu: > I am creating a web project with php/mysql. > one of qeury result is too hig...

VIM: "map! <ESC> <ESC>:wq<ENTER>" turns my arrows keys into <ESC>
Anyone know why this map map! <ESC> <ESC>:wq<ENTER> makes my arrow keys behave like the escape key? After this map whenever I touch any of my arrow keys it writes the file and quits vim - as if I'd hit the <ESC> key with that map. Even the <ESC> key itself doesn't work as advertised because I have to hit it twice to get it to execute the map, whereas the arrow keys kick in the map at first touch. Ian Ian Gil <i@NOSPAMALLOWED.com> wrote: > >Anyone know why this map > > map! <ESC> <ESC>:wq<ENTE...

<colgroup><col class="behold"></colgroup>
The only browser I have encountered that supports <colgroup><col class="behold"></colgroup> to apply a CSS style to a whole column, is Microsoft Internet Explorer. I have been told it SHOULD NOT do so, since this is not part of the specification. How then to you apply styles to entire columns? Surely you don't have to write <td class="behold"> on every row item. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com Roedy Green wrote: > The only browser I have encountered that supports > <col...

<person> <profession value= "csee"/> </person>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SandHillEC/ ...

Returning Control from a "loop" prematurely >>>Newbie Question<<<
Hi. Let's say I had a function g, which takes an integer as an argument and will either return a positive integer if it has some special property, otherwise it will return 0. Most of the time, for arbitrary inputs, g is going to return 0. Now, suppose I want to set up a loop, and call g with successive arguments (g 1), (g 2), (g 3), and so on... This loop is going to terminate when the loop counter gets to some sentinel value or ,perhaps sooner , if that that special property is found. In C the code might look something like int f (int n) { int result = 0; f (int i = 0;...

JComponent HTML: <html><img src="???"></html>
I can get this to work: <html><img src=\"file:icons/xbar.png\"></html>" but understandably this fails after jar-ing up. This is for JTable header cells. Custom rendering is the alternative, but if I can just get this HTML to work it will be much simpler. -- Mike W "VisionSet" <spam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:feXBc.84$VG3.9@newsfe2-win... > I can get this to work: > > <html><img src=\"file:icons/xbar.png\"></html>" > > but understandably this fails after jar-ing up. > > This ...

Linking error LNK2001
Hi All, I am facing a very unique problem while compling my project in "Release" build. The project is building in DEBUG mode but giving linking error on Release build. Here is the error: Creating library Release/fnimqcmd.lib and object Release/fnimqcmd.exp CoIMQCmd.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport) private: void __thiscall std::basic_string<char,struct std::char_traits<char>,class std::allocator<char> >::_Tidy(unsigned short)" (__imp_?_Tidy@?$basic_string@DU?$char_ traits@D@std@@V?$allocator@D@2@@std@@AAEXG@Z) CoIM...

Web resources about - "error while performing unknown task for <<Dominant>>" - comp.mail.eudora.mac

Resources last updated: 1/31/2016 7:36:51 PM