Outlook Express and IMAP problems (0x800CCC0F) - IMAP

Robert Aldwinckle wrote:
> A surprise for me is that both Google Groups and
> the web interface seem to have no trouble with Sam's replies.

Hints from headers?...

X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
<snip>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-11676-1141905612-0004";
--
~PA Bear

PA Bear writes:

> Robert Aldwinckle wrote:
>> A surprise for me is that both Google Groups and
>> the web interface seem to have no trouble with Sam's replies.
>
> Hints from headers?...
>
> X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
> <snip>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
> boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-11676-1141905612-0004";

Further clue: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2015.html

Category: Standards Track, October 1996

A ten-year old Internet standard.

For the clue impaired: as a rule, Internet standards are fully backwards
compatible. A compliant mail client is not required to have any encryption
or digital signature-verification capabilities in order to show
digitally-signed messages. For example: Mozilla Thunderbird, out of the
box, displays digitally-signed messages perfectly fine, and no differently
than non-signed mail. This is because it's a MIME formatted message, and
any E-mail client that properly implements MIME will parse digitally-signed
messages as ordinary multipart MIME messages, perhaps with a tiny
attachment. Mozilla Thunderbird even has a tiny bit of additional logic of
suppressing the attachment that holds the digital signature. Even though
Thunderbird needs a PGP plugin to handle MIME-PGP mail, without the plugin,
and because Thunderbird properly implements MIME, unlike Outlook, it
displays the contents of signed messages without making a big fuss.

Where Microsoft screwed up, and has been incapable of fixing, for the last
ten years, is explained by section 7.2.6 of RFC 1521 (RFC 2046 eventually
superceded RFC 1521, but RFC 1521 was in effect at the time):

7.2.6. Other Multipart subtypes

Other multipart subtypes are expected in the future. MIME
implementations must in general treat unrecognized subtypes of
multipart as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed".

Of course, complying with Internet standards is not a top priority for
Microsoft. If Microsoft's virus distribution software was correctly
designed, in accordance with Internet standards, even if it chooses not
implement digitally-signed messages, which use multipart/signed, it should
treat them exactly as "multipart/mixed" messages, which are ordinary
messages, with ordinary attachments.

Interestingly enough, Microsoft's bugware has extensive support for
multipart/related MIME type (RFC 2387), which was introduced in 1998, two
years after multipart/signed.

So, for the last ten years, clueless MS cheerleaders have been constantly
whining because Outlook Express vomits all over itself when it sees a signed
message. They always blame everyone else when the real problem is the buggy
crapware they're using to occasionally read E-mail (when it's not otherwise
busy sending viruses and trojans to all E-mail addresses pulled from the
address book).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBEEMNOx9p3GYHlUOIRAkLZAJoDfkDVBkbyiNv5QSdAmfIzhTPGywCeLIg2
LHvukJ95Qgka9Pt3ZffpWc0=
=bdmX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<yawn>

"Sam" <sam@email-scan.com> wrote in message
news:cone.1141949262.377179.18405.500@commodore.email-scan.com...

Absolutely none of your diabtribe explains to anyone why you insist on
sending digitally signed messages. Feeling insecure in a world where you
can't trust anyone? Life must be full of problems for you when you have to
uncover all sorts of rocks to find problems where none exist.

And FWIW, I use Outlook Express and do not have a problem reading your
"replies" or "original posts." But that wouldn't fit in with your Microsoft
is evil and Mozilla is great, would it?
--
Jim Pickering, MVP, Outlook Express
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pr...8-1171988A62D6



"Sam" <sam@email-scan.com> wrote in message
news:cone.1141949262.377179.18405.500@commodore.email-scan.com...

Jim Pickering writes:

> Absolutely none of your diabtribe explains to anyone why you insist on
> sending digitally signed messages.

Because I can.

> And FWIW, I use Outlook Express and do not have a problem reading your
> "replies" or "original posts." But that wouldn't fit in with your Microsoft
> is evil and Mozilla is great, would it?

Unfortunately, there's more than one version of Outlook Express out there.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBEENMgx9p3GYHlUOIRAizZAJ9vtaJg/OIHyNFgVWim0FZbKZF1pgCeIuX8
W4iy20yMY9OWFdHCTIP3yaM=
=y4vD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:59:10 -0800, "Jim Pickering"
<jim.pickering@gmail.com> wrote:

>Often, the problem is caused by having an antivirus program settings to scan
>incoming email. Disabling the option does not leave you unprotected and it
>should be disabled. If that does not solve the problem then review the info
>in this KB article for some other ideas:
>
>813514 - OL: Error 0x800ccc0d or 0x800ccc0f When Receiving and Sending
>E-Mail:
>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=813514

Update: By no means cured :-)

Fiddling with the timeout settings as Q813514 suggests does not
help. (And that comes to no surprise at all: the default timeout
is already a full minute. While total sync requires less than a
minute, normally.)

Next thing I tried: on a PC with only SP2's firewall: create an
exception for port 143. That should solve firewall related
problems, I suppose. But it doesn't.
Yet, totally switching off the firewall on that same PC allows me
to sync without any errors :-)

Now, for testing purposes, running a PC without a personal
firewall is OK. But for an office PC, that wouldn't be a real
option, would it ?

On a hunch, that XP Home's 5 connection limit might be
responsible, I installed XP Prof, on the very same machine.
Oddly enough, things don't get better. Far from it!
Even without any firewall or virusscanner I cannot even
synchronize an individual account without frequent errors.
So, having more connections available definitely make things
worse. Does that make any sense ?

May I tap once more on your knowledgable opinions?

>"Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote

>> Situation: 10 mailboxes on a Courier IMAP server.
>> Multiple users on multiple locations, all sharing all mailboxes.

>> Synchronize accounts produces loads of 0x800CCC0F errors.
>> Once I try to sync all accounts at once, loads of errors are
>> reported, on random mailboxes and even when I just finished an
>> individual sync.

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok

"Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:44118973.17209329@News.Individual.NET...
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:59:10 -0800, "Jim Pickering"
> <jim.pickering@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Often, the problem is caused by having an antivirus program settings to
>>scan
>>incoming email. Disabling the option does not leave you unprotected and
>>it
>>should be disabled. If that does not solve the problem then review the
>>info
>>in this KB article for some other ideas:
>>
>>813514 - OL: Error 0x800ccc0d or 0x800ccc0f When Receiving and Sending
>>E-Mail:
>>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=813514
>
> Update: By no means cured :-)
>
> Fiddling with the timeout settings as Q813514 suggests does not
> help. (And that comes to no surprise at all: the default timeout
> is already a full minute. While total sync requires less than a
> minute, normally.)
>
> Next thing I tried: on a PC with only SP2's firewall: create an
> exception for port 143. That should solve firewall related
> problems, I suppose. But it doesn't.
> Yet, totally switching off the firewall on that same PC allows me
> to sync without any errors :-)
>
> Now, for testing purposes, running a PC without a personal
> firewall is OK. But for an office PC, that wouldn't be a real
> option, would it ?
>
> On a hunch, that XP Home's 5 connection limit might be
> responsible, I installed XP Prof, on the very same machine.
> Oddly enough, things don't get better. Far from it!
> Even without any firewall or virusscanner I cannot even
> synchronize an individual account without frequent errors.
> So, having more connections available definitely make things
> worse. Does that make any sense ?
>
> May I tap once more on your knowledgable opinions?
>
>>"Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote
>
>>> Situation: 10 mailboxes on a Courier IMAP server.
>>> Multiple users on multiple locations, all sharing all mailboxes.
>
>>> Synchronize accounts produces loads of 0x800CCC0F errors.
>>> Once I try to sync all accounts at once, loads of errors are
>>> reported, on random mailboxes and even when I just finished an
>>> individual sync.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Gerard Bok

Tools, Accounts, Mail tab, Properties, Advanced tab, ...
Are you sending and receiving on port 143?
--
Ron Sommer

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:55:17 -0600, "Ron Sommer"
<rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote:

>>>"Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote
>>
>>>> Situation: 10 mailboxes on a Courier IMAP server.
>>>> Multiple users on multiple locations, all sharing all mailboxes.
>>
>>>> Synchronize accounts produces loads of 0x800CCC0F errors.
>>>> Once I try to sync all accounts at once, loads of errors are
>>>> reported, on random mailboxes and even when I just finished an
>>>> individual sync.

>Tools, Accounts, Mail tab, Properties, Advanced tab, ...
>Are you sending and receiving on port 143?

Yes.

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:55:17 -0600, "Ron Sommer"
<rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote:

>>>"Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote
>>
>>>> Situation: 10 mailboxes on a Courier IMAP server.
>>>> Multiple users on multiple locations, all sharing all mailboxes.
>>
>>>> Synchronize accounts produces loads of 0x800CCC0F errors.
>>>> Once I try to sync all accounts at once, loads of errors are
>>>> reported, on random mailboxes and even when I just finished an
>>>> individual sync.

>Tools, Accounts, Mail tab, Properties, Advanced tab, ...
>Are you sending and receiving on port 143?

Yes.

Or, to be more precise: IMAP communicates on port 143.

(SMTP still uses port 25. But there is never any mail in the
outbox. So that cannot cause any of the errors.)

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok