Eudora and Windows 7

[Ken Dibble]

I've been looking at the list for a while but am not seeing a clear
answer to my questions.

I've been trying to install Eudora 6.2.x on Windows 7 32 bit. I do
this by installing the software to C:\Email\Eudora. Later, as I set up
restricted domain user profiles on the machine, I put the data into
C:\Users\Public\Whatever Email Acount.

On about 95% of installations, this works just fine.

On 5% of installations--same exact OS, same exact hardware, same exact
version of Eudora and installation procedure--this will work for a few
days, and then suddenly Eudora starts complaining that it can't access
or modify random files in the user's folder such as descmap.pce,
linkhistory.dat, or sometimes even in.mbx. It says the files are
either "locked" or "access denied".

In self-defense, I modified my Eudora account creation process to
include:

After installing the software, when I'm ready to create the account, I
elevate the domain user to a local administrator, log into the
computer under the elevated domain user account, take ownership of the
email account folder (C:\Users\Public\Whatever Account), and also
explicitly apply Full access permissions to the folder and all of its
contents. I then demote the user back to restricted domain user.

This doesn't seem to prevent the problem from occurring on the 5% of
crazed machines. Re-doing it will fix the problem for a day or two but
it will always recur once it has occurred. It is eerily as though
Windows has acquired an allergic reaction to Eudora and just keeps
attacking it.

The reason I use C:\Users\Public is because unlike ..\Application
Data, this is not a hidden folder. Users need to back up their email
data and most can't cope with unhiding/hiding hidden stuff. And in Win
7, unlike earlier OSes, when you unhide hidden stuff, you get two
annoying desktop.ini files on your desktop. Ugly, and stupid (why
two??) So it's not an option to leave hidden files unhidden.

*sigh*

Please don't tell me to use a later version of Eudora. The later
versions of Eudora are just Thunderbird with Eudora graphics. I have
Thunderbird, I can install Thunderbird, Thunderbird works just fine.
Thunderbird is what I end up having to install when this problem
happens on 5% of computers (and the OLD Thunderbird, that still
defaults to POP; I can't even figure out how to find the allegedly
still-available POP option in new Thunderbird). But I don't like
Thunderbird.

I like the original Eudora because you can turn off the unsafe Message
Preview window and because it automatically decodes attachments and
stores them in a reasonable location, and because it has separate
mailboxes and index files instead of storing everything in one huge
file that, if it gets corrupted, completely wipes out the user's
entire email.

So:

If anyone has encountered this specific problem: Installing an earlier
version of Eudora that still behaves like original Eudora on Windows 7
while having the user's data be in a non-hidden location, and having
it work without problems -- please respond.

Thank you very much for reading this long post.

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

[John H Meyers]

Post by Ken Dibble
I've been trying to install Eudora 6.2.x on Windows 7 32 bit. I do
this by installing the software to C:\Email\Eudora. Later, as I set up
restricted domain user profiles on the machine, I put the data into
C:\Users\Public\Whatever Email Acount.
On about 95% of installations, this works just fine.
On 5% of installations--same exact OS, same exact hardware, same exact
version of Eudora and installation procedure--this will work for a few
days, and then suddenly Eudora starts complaining that it can't access
or modify random files in the user's folder such as descmap.pce,
linkhistory.dat, or sometimes even in.mbx. It says the files are
either "locked" or "access denied".

Is there a Eudora.ini file in the same directory as Eudora.exe?

Post by Ken Dibble
The reason I use C:\Users\Public is because unlike ..\Application
Data, this is not a hidden folder. Users need to back up their email
data and most can't cope with unhiding/hiding hidden stuff. And in Win
7, unlike earlier OSes, when you unhide hidden stuff, you get two
annoying desktop.ini files on your desktop. Ugly, and stupid (why
two??) So it's not an option to leave hidden files unhidden.

If you are going to store Eudora data on the same drive as Windows,
there is no better (or safer) location for the program files
than where the installer suggests putting them,
no better (or safer) location for a single "Data"
(mail & settings etc.) folder than "User's Aplication Data,"
and there is no problem whatsoever in creating a plainly visible
"shortcut" to go directly to that "Data" default location,
by specifying the "location" field in the shortcut
as exactly this: %AppData%\Qualcomm\Eudora
(this works for Windows 2000 and later, try it on Windows 8
to add one more current observation to all those previously verified).

The second question asked when creating a new shortcut
is the name to give the shortcut itself,
my own unimaginative choice being "Eudora Data" :)

Users of version 7.1 can also simply click the "Data" path
in the window popped up by "Help" > "About Eudora"
to open that folder just as any shortcut would,
and has the advantage that any launched instance of Eudora
always knows what folder it is using as its "Data,"
hence it becomes impossible to make the mistake
of thinking that current "live" data is at location "A"
while Eudora is actually looking at location "B"

If you create more data folders (e.g. Eudora2, Eudora3) right under
"Qualcomm," you can create shortcuts for those quite similarly,
or you can create a shortcut on your desktop (or anywhere else),
for any object, using other simple and standard means in Windows,
all of which persuades me that all fussing over "hidden" objects
comes from simply lacking some basic Windows knowledge,
which I hope that this begins to reveal.

Post by Ken Dibble
*sigh*
Please don't tell me to use a later version of Eudora. The later
versions of Eudora are just Thunderbird with Eudora graphics.

Untrue. The latest versions of "classic" _original_ Eudora
are as found right here: <http://www.eudora.com/download/>

Version 7.1 is later than any 6.2.x (including 6.2.5.6),
and a reading of all the "Release Notes" over Eudora's history will
fill in a much better picture of why later versions are in fact better,
as they are in many a detail not always immediately apparent,
although 7.1 is even better than those Release Notes reveal,
being even more stable against crashes than all previous versions,
according to Katrina Knight, who seems to have quite a bit of
what we might call "inside information," perhaps from the original developers
(she used to post here, but went off to a more orderly place
than "usenet" to continue offering help).

There was only _one_ non-"beta" actual released version of
what was finally called "Eudora OSE," which is actually
Thunderbird 3.0 with Eudora trimmings -- not only just graphics,
but some collection of Eudora-style features grafted onto Thunderbird,
unfortunately not enough to make up for vastly more
that was never achieved. Thunderbird has meanwhile undergone
massive change since buggy 3.0, but the OSE project apparently
ran out of something -- patience and money from Qualcomm, interest and
cooperation from Mozilla, or whatever, but all participants vanished
as completely as the Mayans, and have never again been heard from :)

Post by Ken Dibble
I can install Thunderbird, Thunderbird works just fine.
Thunderbird is what I end up having to install when this problem
happens on 5% of computers (and the OLD Thunderbird, that still
defaults to POP; I can't even figure out how to find the allegedly
still-available POP option in new Thunderbird). But I don't like
Thunderbird.

It's rather easy to overrule most all versions of the TB account
creation Wizard, to choose POP over IMAP before actually letting
the account be created, but easiest of all in the latest versions.

This is a Eudora forum, however,
while newsgroup mozilla.support.thunderbird takes care of TB,
so you can always go to the latter for direct support for TB,
which you apparently choose to use even though you don't like it ;-)

Post by Ken Dibble
I like the original Eudora because you can turn off the unsafe Message
Preview window and because it automatically decodes attachments and
stores them in a reasonable location, and because it has separate
mailboxes and index files instead of storing everything in one huge
file that, if it gets corrupted, completely wipes out the user's
entire email.

Skipping over two other superficial (and inaccurate) claims,
because it takes too long to fully probe into them,
TB does not "store everything in one huge file," but in fact
uses mailboxes structured similarly to classic Eudora's,
along with separate indexes in a style of its own.

You have probably instead stumbled upon TB's global indexer file
and jumped to another incorrect conclusion, just as in all the
other instances pointed out above, and this habit of leaping
to and pronouncing one false conclusion after another, instead of
asking to learn from people who know what they're talking about
is not the best way to become an expert yourself, unless disinformation
is your specialty, in which case there are numerous positions available
in a field called "politics."

Post by Ken Dibble
Thank you very much for reading this long post.

And thank you, whoever has followed this long answer.

Merry Christmas, and a more enlightened New Year to everyone.

--

[Ken Dibble]

Thanks for your reply. Responses in line below:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:40:22 -0600, John H Meyers

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
I've been trying to install Eudora 6.2.x on Windows 7 32 bit. I do
this by installing the software to C:\Email\Eudora. Later, as I set up
restricted domain user profiles on the machine, I put the data into
C:\Users\Public\Whatever Email Acount.
On about 95% of installations, this works just fine.
On 5% of installations--same exact OS, same exact hardware, same exact
version of Eudora and installation procedure--this will work for a few
days, and then suddenly Eudora starts complaining that it can't access
or modify random files in the user's folder such as descmap.pce,
linkhistory.dat, or sometimes even in.mbx. It says the files are
either "locked" or "access denied".

Is there a Eudora.ini file in the same directory as Eudora.exe?

Post by Ken Dibble
The reason I use C:\Users\Public is because unlike ..\Application
Data, this is not a hidden folder. Users need to back up their email
data and most can't cope with unhiding/hiding hidden stuff. And in Win
7, unlike earlier OSes, when you unhide hidden stuff, you get two
annoying desktop.ini files on your desktop. Ugly, and stupid (why
two??) So it's not an option to leave hidden files unhidden.

If you are going to store Eudora data on the same drive as Windows,
there is no better (or safer) location for the program files
than where the installer suggests putting them,
no better (or safer) location for a single "Data"
(mail & settings etc.) folder than "User's Aplication Data,"
and there is no problem whatsoever in creating a plainly visible
"shortcut" to go directly to that "Data" default location,
by specifying the "location" field in the shortcut
as exactly this: %AppData%\Qualcomm\Eudora
(this works for Windows 2000 and later, try it on Windows 8
to add one more current observation to all those previously verified).
The second question asked when creating a new shortcut
is the name to give the shortcut itself,
my own unimaginative choice being "Eudora Data" :)
Users of version 7.1 can also simply click the "Data" path
in the window popped up by "Help" > "About Eudora"
to open that folder just as any shortcut would,
and has the advantage that any launched instance of Eudora
always knows what folder it is using as its "Data,"
hence it becomes impossible to make the mistake
of thinking that current "live" data is at location "A"
while Eudora is actually looking at location "B"

It did not occur to me that you could create a visible shortcut to a
hidden folder. Wonder of wonders. Kind of defeats the purpose of
hiding the folder though, doesn't it? Wouldn't it have been smarter
simply either not to hide it, or not to force desktop.ini to be
visible? Ah well, thank you for that piece of information.

Post by John H Meyers
If you create more data folders (e.g. Eudora2, Eudora3) right under
"Qualcomm," you can create shortcuts for those quite similarly,
or you can create a shortcut on your desktop (or anywhere else),
for any object, using other simple and standard means in Windows,
all of which persuades me that all fussing over "hidden" objects
comes from simply lacking some basic Windows knowledge,
which I hope that this begins to reveal.

Post by Ken Dibble
*sigh*
Please don't tell me to use a later version of Eudora. The later
versions of Eudora are just Thunderbird with Eudora graphics.

Untrue. The latest versions of "classic" _original_ Eudora
are as found right here: <http://www.eudora.com/download/>
Version 7.1 is later than any 6.2.x (including 6.2.5.6),
and a reading of all the "Release Notes" over Eudora's history will
fill in a much better picture of why later versions are in fact better,
as they are in many a detail not always immediately apparent,
although 7.1 is even better than those Release Notes reveal,
being even more stable against crashes than all previous versions,
according to Katrina Knight, who seems to have quite a bit of
what we might call "inside information," perhaps from the original developers
(she used to post here, but went off to a more orderly place
than "usenet" to continue offering help).

Okay. I could download and test 7.1. But are you saying that this
version:

1. Automatically downloads and decodes attachments?
2. Does not require use of a preview window?

Post by John H Meyers
There was only _one_ non-"beta" actual released version of
what was finally called "Eudora OSE," which is actually
Thunderbird 3.0 with Eudora trimmings -- not only just graphics,
but some collection of Eudora-style features grafted onto Thunderbird,
unfortunately not enough to make up for vastly more
that was never achieved. Thunderbird has meanwhile undergone
massive change since buggy 3.0, but the OSE project apparently
ran out of something -- patience and money from Qualcomm, interest and
cooperation from Mozilla, or whatever, but all participants vanished
as completely as the Mayans, and have never again been heard from :)

Post by Ken Dibble
I can install Thunderbird, Thunderbird works just fine.
Thunderbird is what I end up having to install when this problem
happens on 5% of computers (and the OLD Thunderbird, that still
defaults to POP; I can't even figure out how to find the allegedly
still-available POP option in new Thunderbird). But I don't like
Thunderbird.

It's rather easy to overrule most all versions of the TB account
creation Wizard, to choose POP over IMAP before actually letting
the account be created, but easiest of all in the latest versions.
This is a Eudora forum, however,
while newsgroup mozilla.support.thunderbird takes care of TB,
so you can always go to the latter for direct support for TB,
which you apparently choose to use even though you don't like it ;-)

Post by Ken Dibble
I like the original Eudora because you can turn off the unsafe Message
Preview window and because it automatically decodes attachments and
stores them in a reasonable location, and because it has separate
mailboxes and index files instead of storing everything in one huge
file that, if it gets corrupted, completely wipes out the user's
entire email.

Skipping over two other superficial (and inaccurate) claims,
because it takes too long to fully probe into them,
TB does not "store everything in one huge file," but in fact
uses mailboxes structured similarly to classic Eudora's,
along with separate indexes in a style of its own.
You have probably instead stumbled upon TB's global indexer file
and jumped to another incorrect conclusion, just as in all the
other instances pointed out above, and this habit of leaping
to and pronouncing one false conclusion after another, instead of
asking to learn from people who know what they're talking about
is not the best way to become an expert yourself, unless disinformation
is your specialty, in which case there are numerous positions available
in a field called "politics."

Thank you for pointing out my error regarding separate mailboxes.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Thank you very much for reading this long post.

And thank you, whoever has followed this long answer.
Merry Christmas, and a more enlightened New Year to everyone.

Thank you again for your responses.

I realize that it has become common in internet communication for
people to question the personal motives, knowledge, and intelligence
of posters along with providing answers to questions, even in the
first response to someone who has been polite and courteous.

Although this mode of expression is ubiquitous today on the internet,
it is still inappropriate, and I personally object to it. Although you
have been helpful, being helpful does not entitle you to also be
insulting. I hope you will consider that the next time you help
someone.

[Juergen]

Post by Ken Dibble
Although you
have been helpful, being helpful does not entitle you to also be
insulting.

if YOU are looking for help, YOU should search little more for similar
answers here in the group or elsewhere before asking... If YOU would
read questions for help and give answers for a long time, always same or
similar questions and so... always same answers, what would YOU do?
Perhaps no more answering at all...?

Have you ever given help to a personally not known users free of charge
in newsgroups? All over the years you have only asked for help... right?

Please, remember, YOU are looking for help in public, YOU cannot force
anyone to help or answer, not even via Facebook & Co. ;-) So be happy
that John have had help for YOU ;-) If John had not written an answer,
your (only?) choice would have been to read all the other answers from
the last months and years ;-))) The newsgroup is no private installer help

John's answers are for ALL users READING (no special need for writing)
this newsgroup and looking for helpful hints, even via Google-search.

Anyway, next year is another year, hopefully peaceful.

Juergen

[Ken Dibble]

Post by Juergen

Post by Ken Dibble
Although you
have been helpful, being helpful does not entitle you to also be
insulting.

if YOU are looking for help, YOU should search little more for similar
answers here in the group or elsewhere before asking... If YOU would
read questions for help and give answers for a long time, always same or
similar questions and so... always same answers, what would YOU do?
Perhaps no more answering at all...?
Have you ever given help to a personally not known users free of charge
in newsgroups? All over the years you have only asked for help... right?
Please, remember, YOU are looking for help in public, YOU cannot force
anyone to help or answer, not even via Facebook & Co. ;-) So be happy
that John have had help for YOU ;-) If John had not written an answer,
your (only?) choice would have been to read all the other answers from
the last months and years ;-))) The newsgroup is no private installer help
John's answers are for ALL users READING (no special need for writing)
this newsgroup and looking for helpful hints, even via Google-search.

You're doing the same thing. You're impugning my knowledge and
motivations without knowing anything about me.

I've been a denizen of Usenet since 1996 and have frequently helped
people in topic areas where I have expertise.

I did search this group to try to find an answer before I posted, as I
said in my original post. I use the Agent newsreader; its search
capabilities are very limited. As best I can tell, I can only search
on a literal string. Given the complexity of my problem, it was
unlikely that any string I could use to narrow down the search would
be found. All I could search for was "Windows 7" or "Eudora 6". After
about an hour of perusing messages and not finding anything that
responded to my specific case, I gave up and posted.

Although as a programmer I have my own tendency to want to tell people
to RTFM, I recognize that tendency as fundamentally unproductive as
well as rude. So I suppress it in myself and I think that's the
appropriate thing for people to do.

Post by Juergen
Anyway, next year is another year, hopefully peaceful.

Happy New Year to you.

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:50:48 -0500, Ken Dibble

Post by Ken Dibble
I did search this group to try to find an answer before I posted, as I
said in my original post. I use the Agent newsreader; its search
capabilities are very limited. As best I can tell, I can only search
on a literal string. Given the complexity of my problem, it was
unlikely that any string I could use to narrow down the search would
be found. All I could search for was "Windows 7" or "Eudora 6". After
about an hour of perusing messages and not finding anything that
responded to my specific case, I gave up and posted.

Which search function?

Edit/Find Global

... just pressing the help button would show that it accepts a form of
regular expression.

But I think it only searches messages you have downloaded and kept
in the group on your own machine. I haven't spotted any function that
will scan the newsgroup on the server looking for candidates (and that
is the weak part of Agent -- Usenet filters can only operate on Subject
or Author; Email filters can work on any message header)

[Juergen]

Post by Dennis Lee Bieber
Which search function?

Hmm, good question ;-)

I for my part use Thunderbird for _reading_ newsgroups, but... when
searching I use Google... i.e. with search phrases like

comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows Eudora 6.2.x on Windows 7 32 bit

I don't like to tell Ken Dibble how to use Google ;-)
Perhaps at any time he will be able to see, that most windows showing
tool bars and a help menu like you mentioned ;-) Of course, I have
experienced that nowadays most people don't know how to click and don't
know a button or bar "help", cause it's faster (or simpler...) to ask
"the other ones", for free of course ;-)

In a few years, when email and news are words of the past, everything
will be saved in a "cloud". I wonder what people will do when their
cloud will change, i.e. from sunny or rainy cloud to frozen cloud or
vice versa?

Juergen

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:20:44 -0500, Ken Dibble

Post by Ken Dibble
Okay. I could download and test 7.1. But are you saying that this
1. Automatically downloads and decodes attachments?
2. Does not require use of a preview window?

What's a preview window? <G>

I've NEVER had a preview window configured in Eudora... I also never
configured it to "use M$ Viewer" (aka; internet explorer/outlook
rendering engine with all its propensity to run embedded code when
previewing or viewing mail).

And attachments have to be "downloaded" -- they are part of the body
of the message as transferred by SMTP; I know of no proper email client
that reads only up to the second MIME content block and then aborts
transferring the rest of that message. And Eudora has always split
off/decoded those attachments before saving the text portion in the
mailbox.

[John H Meyers]

I've NEVER had a preview window ["pane"] configured in Eudora... I also never
configured it to "use M$ Viewer" (aka; internet explorer/outlook
rendering engine with all its propensity to run embedded code
when previewing or viewing mail).

I've heard (from Katrina, whom I regard as an "oracle" for Eudora :)
that it's pretty safe in Eudora,
particularly if you leave the "warnings" settings turned on.

Much of today's email is undisplayable by the internal viewer anyway,
and the fact that Microsoft built the IE rendering engine right into
Windows happens to make possible the magic of seamless display
of all HTML messages, with Windows and IE updates
automatically taking care of the evolution of more complex HTML/XML/whatever,
despite Eudora's own development remaining frozen.

And attachments have to be "downloaded" -- they are part of the body
of the message as transferred by SMTP; I know of no proper email client
that reads only up to the second MIME content block and then aborts
transferring the rest of that message. And Eudora has always split
off/decoded those attachments before saving the text [or HTML] portion
in the mailbox.

Other clients download and save
the verbatim original SMTP "payload,"
also known as the "original source," and they postpone
parsing that payload until the message needs to be displayed,
also re-parsing every time it is to be re-displayed.

Except in the case of simple plain text messages,
Eudora can not even show you the true and complete
original "source" of messages as they arrived from servers,
because of its entirely different architecture of completely
parsing, decoding and separating before even appending to "In";
Eudora was thereby not slowed down when re-displaying messages,
even on earlier, slower computers, but the design parameters of today
are completely changed, and IMO no longer favor that approach.

I have elsewhere used the analogy of other programs
keeping all delivered Christmas packages completely intact,
vs. Eudora's immediately tearing off and discarding
the wrapping paper and all other packing material,
in such a way that you could never return a package
to a store (or even forward it, for that matter)
in its "original, re-salable condition."

The first version of Eudora might even have pre-dated MIME,
which might in part account for why this happened,
but after dealing with email for so many years,
the perspective from which I now view everything
is one in which I would have to recommend doing what
everyone else has done, rather than what Eudora did,
because saving the "original source" lets you do anything else
later (e.g. remove attachments, or even transfer all mail
to another system, all of which understand that original source),
whereas Eudora irrevocably and immediately spoils that,
also introducing many other common problems that arise
from situations and needs unanticipated at the "birth time" of Eudora.

I seem to be somewhat alone, in Eudora forums,
in having completely changed my views on this,
and can only hope that "older" and "wiser"
have both marched in the same direction :)

--

[John H Meyers]

Post by John H Meyers
I've heard (from Katrina, whom I regard as an "oracle" for Eudora :)
that it's pretty safe in Eudora,
particularly if you leave the "warnings" settings turned on.

And "allow executables" turned off!

--

[Han]

Post by John H Meyers

I've NEVER had a preview window ["pane"] configured in Eudora... I
also never configured it to "use M$ Viewer" (aka; internet
explorer/outlook rendering engine with all its propensity to run
embedded code when previewing or viewing mail).

I've heard (from Katrina, whom I regard as an "oracle" for Eudora :)
that it's pretty safe in Eudora,
particularly if you leave the "warnings" settings turned on.
Much of today's email is undisplayable by the internal viewer anyway,
and the fact that Microsoft built the IE rendering engine right into
Windows happens to make possible the magic of seamless display
of all HTML messages, with Windows and IE updates
automatically taking care of the evolution of more complex
HTML/XML/whatever, despite Eudora's own development remaining frozen.

And attachments have to be "downloaded" -- they are part of the body
of the message as transferred by SMTP; I know of no proper email
client that reads only up to the second MIME content block and then
aborts transferring the rest of that message. And Eudora has always
split off/decoded those attachments before saving the text [or HTML]
portion in the mailbox.

Other clients download and save
the verbatim original SMTP "payload,"
also known as the "original source," and they postpone
parsing that payload until the message needs to be displayed,
also re-parsing every time it is to be re-displayed.
Except in the case of simple plain text messages,
Eudora can not even show you the true and complete
original "source" of messages as they arrived from servers,
because of its entirely different architecture of completely
parsing, decoding and separating before even appending to "In";
Eudora was thereby not slowed down when re-displaying messages,
even on earlier, slower computers, but the design parameters of today
are completely changed, and IMO no longer favor that approach.
I have elsewhere used the analogy of other programs
keeping all delivered Christmas packages completely intact,
vs. Eudora's immediately tearing off and discarding
the wrapping paper and all other packing material,
in such a way that you could never return a package
to a store (or even forward it, for that matter)
in its "original, re-salable condition."
The first version of Eudora might even have pre-dated MIME,
which might in part account for why this happened,
but after dealing with email for so many years,
the perspective from which I now view everything
is one in which I would have to recommend doing what
everyone else has done, rather than what Eudora did,
because saving the "original source" lets you do anything else
later (e.g. remove attachments, or even transfer all mail
to another system, all of which understand that original source),
whereas Eudora irrevocably and immediately spoils that,
also introducing many other common problems that arise
from situations and needs unanticipated at the "birth time" of Eudora.
I seem to be somewhat alone, in Eudora forums,
in having completely changed my views on this,
and can only hope that "older" and "wiser"
have both marched in the same direction :)

I am using Windows 7 these days. I love Eudora for all the great and
easy things it does. But malware of different types can be very
bothersome. This is why I take different approaches now. My gmail
account has become my mainstay email account, in large part because of
its great spam filtering. I view it from my Firefox webbrowser, kept
very well up to date. My gmail also picks up my yahoo and verizon mail.
Especially verizon is notorious for the large amounts of spam it
attracts, but which gmail almost always correctly identifies. Moreover,
gmail (as I set it up) will add a customized label into and before the
subject line, so I know immediately via which account the email ended up
in gmail. I need to add a couple of other accounts to this setup.

Unfortunately, the security people at my employer (I am retired, but
still have an account at Cornell Medical College) have made it impossible
to access my email via an external email program, so I have to get it
through something in a webbrowser called Outlook Web Access (owa). It
works, but it is still spammy as it always was. I can forward that mail,
but only manually, not automagically.

Since I know I cannot 100% trust to always be able to access my mail in
the cloud, I still use Eudora for safekeeping important mail. So, then
comes my main filtering system prior to Eudora. I bought Mailwasher
years ago, and still use it (now it is subscription ware, via Firetrust).
The nice thing is that it shows ASCII text without doing anything like
downloading pictures or rendering html. It hides that all from view, but
it also has a source view. Plus I use it to delete crappy email off the
server with 1 click (after marking all the bad stuff). It has an undo
for this as well. There is also some kind of a learning system to better
identify crap that comes in from sources marked before as suspicious.

After that step, It is much easier and faster to download good email into
Eudora and handle it from there.

[Juergen]

Post by Han
My gmail also picks up my yahoo and verizon mail

you are giving away your yahoo- and verizon-passwords for free and by
your own choice to Google? wow ;-)

see
http://email.about.com/od/gmailtips/qt/Forward_Gmail_Email_to_Another_Email_Address_Automatically.htm

perhaps it's really possible to forward emails from gmail to other
mailaddress. Don't know cause no gmail-account ;-)

Why not using Mail Plus with Yahoo? I think "nothing" has to be for free
and Mail Plus is not very expensive...

Post by Han
security people at my employer

Why not looking for a cheap own (one and only?) internet-account with
mailbox(es) where you can download your all your emails with Eudora
functionality? Perhaps there are other possibilities for a plan with
phone incl. internet?

Next you could look for other free or cheap accounts (at least
email-only) giving you the chance to forward all your emails AFTER their
spam-check to the "internet account" (only one!) mentioned above. My own
internet-account offers mail via pop and imap and via web-access.

I am working like described, one paid account and several free
mail-accounts with forwarding. Eudora can "forward" INCOMING mails via
filtering into different Eudora-mailboxes, if needed. And you can move
any mail from any Eudora-mailbox to any other Eudora-mailbox at least
manually...

Juergen

[Han]

Post by Juergen

Post by Han
My gmail also picks up my yahoo and verizon mail

you are giving away your yahoo- and verizon-passwords for free and by
your own choice to Google? wow ;-)
see
http://email.about.com/od/gmailtips/qt/Forward_Gmail_Email_to_Another_E
mail_Address_Automatically.htm
perhaps it's really possible to forward emails from gmail to other
mailaddress. Don't know cause no gmail-account ;-)

I believe so, but I like picking up and writing emails with google better
than with Yahoo-plus (which is what I have).

Post by Juergen
Why not using Mail Plus with Yahoo? I think "nothing" has to be for
free and Mail Plus is not very expensive...

Post by Han
security people at my employer

Why not looking for a cheap own (one and only?) internet-account with
mailbox(es) where you can download your all your emails with Eudora
functionality? Perhaps there are other possibilities for a plan with
phone incl. internet?

I have verizon triple play (internet, phone, tv) Internet is the main
reason (I have 35/35 Mbps - down/up). The other possibilities for TV are
Cablevision or over the air where I live. I don't like Cablevision (also
called Optimum here). Verizon email isn't very good, has problems
sending and receiving every so often, and attracts spam like crazy.

Post by Juergen
Next you could look for other free or cheap accounts (at least
email-only) giving you the chance to forward all your emails AFTER
their spam-check to the "internet account" (only one!) mentioned
above. My own internet-account offers mail via pop and imap and via
web-access.

That describes gmail very well. Another plus for gmail is that it sync's
my contacts between different computers and iphone.

Post by Juergen
I am working like described, one paid account and several free
mail-accounts with forwarding. Eudora can "forward" INCOMING mails via
filtering into different Eudora-mailboxes, if needed. And you can move
any mail from any Eudora-mailbox to any other Eudora-mailbox at least
manually...

Indeed!!!

Post by Juergen
Juergen

[John H Meyers]

Post by Han
My gmail also picks up my yahoo and verizon mail

see
<http://email.about.com/od/gmailtips/qt/Forward_Gmail_Email_to_Another_Email_Address_Automatically.htm >
perhaps it's really possible to forward emails from gmail to other mail address.
Don't know cause no gmail-account ;-)

Using Gmail to "Pick up" mail via POP
is in the opposite direction to "forwarding from Gmail to other addresses"

But forwarding _from_ other accounts _to_ Gmail would be useful
(and more immediate than the intermittent "picking up" process).

And yes, Gmail (in USA & Canada) has been offering free phone calling
from/to all of USA & Canada for the past several years,
and has just extended this offer for 2013:
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57560968/google-extends-free-calling-through-gmail/>

--

[John H Meyers]

Post by Han
Unfortunately, the security people at my employer (I am retired, but
still have an account at Cornell Medical College) have made it impossible
to access my email via an external email program, so I have to get it
through something in a web browser called Outlook Web Access (owa). It
works, but it is still spammy as it always was. I can forward that mail,
but only manually, not automagically.

Is your account part of this system,
which says that its members _can_ arrange to have mail _forwarded_
to any other address (which would necessarily include Gmail):
<http://www.med.cornell.edu/alumni/email-services.html>

And how about this:

"Forwarding - While in the Options menu, you can choose Forwarding
to forward your emails to alternate addresses automatically."
<http://weill.cornell.edu/its/email-calendar/email/webmail/using-webmail.html>

If you have not conversed with real administrators yet,
for whatever system you are on, it might be useful to try again,
to see what they can do for you, to achieve that specific goal.

If they as much as allow arbitrary _individual_ messages
to be forwarded (or even saved to your computer),
then they might as well allow _all_ messages to be forwarded,
as far as any thought of "security" exists in reality. Note,
as an element of humor, that the first web page listed above
even suggests you[at]aol.com as a possible forwarding address --
that ought to get a good laugh from "security experts" :)

Other leads to follow
for bridging between OWA and conventional POP/IMAP clients:

<http://davmail.sourceforge.net/>
<http://davmail.sourceforge.net/gettingstarted.html>
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Outlook_Web_Access>
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Using_webmail_with_your_email_client>
<http://www.pop2owa.com/en/>

Best wishes for the New Year.

--

[John H Meyers]

Post by Ken Dibble
I could download and test 7.1. But are you saying that this
1. Automatically downloads and decodes attachments?
2. Does not require use of a preview window?

Eudora version 7.1 is completely compatible with previous versions
of original Eudora, and has nothing to do with subsequent
Thunderbird-based "beta" versions that were sometimes called
"Eudora 8," nor with the final "formerly beta" (and renamed) product
that was finally released as "Eudora OSE"

Post by Ken Dibble
I realize that it has become common in internet communication for
people to question the personal motives, knowledge, and intelligence
of posters along with providing answers to questions, even in the
first response to someone who has been polite and courteous.
Although this mode of expression is ubiquitous today on the internet,
it is still inappropriate, and I personally object to it. Although you
have been helpful, being helpful does not entitle you to also be
insulting. I hope you will consider that the next time you help
someone.

I did not question anything that you listed above,
nor did I mean to be harsh or insulting -- what I criticized
was another common thing seen in internet communications,
which is that of overstating stating one's
personal first impressions as if they were known facts.

Every time that any politician, for example, throws out
declarations which falsely label their opponent,
whether intentionally or unintentionally,
fact-checkers commonly rise to point out the truths,
and that is truly all that I intended to do,
plus offer the suggestion
to label any personal conclusions with as accurate and complete
a description of known reliability or one's experience level
as one can put on it, to neither understate nor overstate
the certainty of statements being made.

This is, in my opinion, the fairest way to treat an audience
of readers who have a wide spectrum of different experience levels,
who should not be told things that are false about the product(s)
about which they visit here to learn, in such a manner
as to appear to be authoritative statements
by someone who should be much more certain before saying such things,
unqualified by even a hint that the writer is really unsure,
or by more details that would put things in proper perspective --
e.g. "I tried _Eudora 8_ and it turned out to be Thunderbird,"
rather than over-generalizing to claim that "all versions of Eudora
after x.x are just Thunderbird," or "I found file global-messages-db.sqlite,
and _if_ that's a single file containing all mail, then I don't like TB,"
rather than to state, as if a categorical fact,
that TB stores all mail in a single file.

I hold myself to the same guidelines, and I'll say "I think that"
or "I believe" when I'm not sure, and don't want others
to take what I'm conjecturing as authoritative.

I have certainly made some mistakes that my own re-reading
of my own writings might have caught, but I can't remember
ever uttering, in a single post, an entire bunch
of authoritative-sounding statements that were all false,
which is what bothered me about your post
that I then decided to criticize.

I'm quite sure that I deserve some criticism myself,
for even not finding a more positive, constructive and supportive way
to reply to everyone. I personally observe, looking at my own output,
that everything comes out so much better from a well rested mind,
and goes downhill whenever produced in a state of fatigue.

When I'm both tired and driving, I do insist that I go extremely slowly
and do everything possible not to end up harming anyone,
but I apologize for any occasions when I go "full speed ahead"
in ranting away in some postings :)

Thank you for your much kinder and gentler criticism of my own posting.

Best wishes for the season's good spirit to extend all through the new year.

--

[Ken Dibble]

Post by John H Meyers
I have certainly made some mistakes that my own re-reading
of my own writings might have caught, but I can't remember
ever uttering, in a single post, an entire bunch
of authoritative-sounding statements that were all false,
which is what bothered me about your post
that I then decided to criticize.
I'm quite sure that I deserve some criticism myself,
for even not finding a more positive, constructive and supportive way
to reply to everyone. I personally observe, looking at my own output,
that everything comes out so much better from a well rested mind,
and goes downhill whenever produced in a state of fatigue.
When I'm both tired and driving, I do insist that I go extremely slowly
and do everything possible not to end up harming anyone,
but I apologize for any occasions when I go "full speed ahead"
in ranting away in some postings :)
Thank you for your much kinder and gentler criticism of my own posting.
Best wishes for the season's good spirit to extend all through the new year.

Thank you for your kind response. After banging my head against this
particular, very strange (because unpredictable) problem for several
months, I was frustrated and should have slowed down myself and edited
my post more carefully before sending it.

Happy New Year to you.

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

[Ken Dibble]

Thanks for your reply. Responses in line below:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:40:22 -0600, John H Meyers

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
I've been trying to install Eudora 6.2.x on Windows 7 32 bit. I do
this by installing the software to C:\Email\Eudora. Later, as I set up
restricted domain user profiles on the machine, I put the data into
C:\Users\Public\Whatever Email Acount.
On about 95% of installations, this works just fine.
On 5% of installations--same exact OS, same exact hardware, same exact
version of Eudora and installation procedure--this will work for a few
days, and then suddenly Eudora starts complaining that it can't access
or modify random files in the user's folder such as descmap.pce,
linkhistory.dat, or sometimes even in.mbx. It says the files are
either "locked" or "access denied".

Is there a Eudora.ini file in the same directory as Eudora.exe?

Post by Ken Dibble
The reason I use C:\Users\Public is because unlike ..\Application
Data, this is not a hidden folder. Users need to back up their email
data and most can't cope with unhiding/hiding hidden stuff. And in Win
7, unlike earlier OSes, when you unhide hidden stuff, you get two
annoying desktop.ini files on your desktop. Ugly, and stupid (why
two??) So it's not an option to leave hidden files unhidden.

If you are going to store Eudora data on the same drive as Windows,
there is no better (or safer) location for the program files
than where the installer suggests putting them,
no better (or safer) location for a single "Data"
(mail & settings etc.) folder than "User's Aplication Data,"
and there is no problem whatsoever in creating a plainly visible
"shortcut" to go directly to that "Data" default location,
by specifying the "location" field in the shortcut
as exactly this: %AppData%\Qualcomm\Eudora
(this works for Windows 2000 and later, try it on Windows 8
to add one more current observation to all those previously verified).
The second question asked when creating a new shortcut
is the name to give the shortcut itself,
my own unimaginative choice being "Eudora Data" :)
Users of version 7.1 can also simply click the "Data" path
in the window popped up by "Help" > "About Eudora"
to open that folder just as any shortcut would,
and has the advantage that any launched instance of Eudora
always knows what folder it is using as its "Data,"
hence it becomes impossible to make the mistake
of thinking that current "live" data is at location "A"
while Eudora is actually looking at location "B"

It did not occur to me that you could create a visible shortcut to a
hidden folder. Wonder of wonders. Kind of defeats the purpose of
hiding the folder though, doesn't it? Wouldn't it have been smarter
simply either not to hide it, or not to force desktop.ini to be
visible? Ah well, thank you for that piece of information.

Post by John H Meyers
If you create more data folders (e.g. Eudora2, Eudora3) right under
"Qualcomm," you can create shortcuts for those quite similarly,
or you can create a shortcut on your desktop (or anywhere else),
for any object, using other simple and standard means in Windows,
all of which persuades me that all fussing over "hidden" objects
comes from simply lacking some basic Windows knowledge,
which I hope that this begins to reveal.

Post by Ken Dibble
*sigh*
Please don't tell me to use a later version of Eudora. The later
versions of Eudora are just Thunderbird with Eudora graphics.

Untrue. The latest versions of "classic" _original_ Eudora
are as found right here: <http://www.eudora.com/download/>
Version 7.1 is later than any 6.2.x (including 6.2.5.6),
and a reading of all the "Release Notes" over Eudora's history will
fill in a much better picture of why later versions are in fact better,
as they are in many a detail not always immediately apparent,
although 7.1 is even better than those Release Notes reveal,
being even more stable against crashes than all previous versions,
according to Katrina Knight, who seems to have quite a bit of
what we might call "inside information," perhaps from the original developers
(she used to post here, but went off to a more orderly place
than "usenet" to continue offering help).

Okay. I could download and test 7.1. But are you saying that this
version:

1. Automatically downloads and decodes attachments?
2. Does not require use of a preview window?

Post by John H Meyers
There was only _one_ non-"beta" actual released version of
what was finally called "Eudora OSE," which is actually
Thunderbird 3.0 with Eudora trimmings -- not only just graphics,
but some collection of Eudora-style features grafted onto Thunderbird,
unfortunately not enough to make up for vastly more
that was never achieved. Thunderbird has meanwhile undergone
massive change since buggy 3.0, but the OSE project apparently
ran out of something -- patience and money from Qualcomm, interest and
cooperation from Mozilla, or whatever, but all participants vanished
as completely as the Mayans, and have never again been heard from :)

Post by Ken Dibble
I can install Thunderbird, Thunderbird works just fine.
Thunderbird is what I end up having to install when this problem
happens on 5% of computers (and the OLD Thunderbird, that still
defaults to POP; I can't even figure out how to find the allegedly
still-available POP option in new Thunderbird). But I don't like
Thunderbird.

It's rather easy to overrule most all versions of the TB account
creation Wizard, to choose POP over IMAP before actually letting
the account be created, but easiest of all in the latest versions.
This is a Eudora forum, however,
while newsgroup mozilla.support.thunderbird takes care of TB,
so you can always go to the latter for direct support for TB,
which you apparently choose to use even though you don't like it ;-)

Post by Ken Dibble
I like the original Eudora because you can turn off the unsafe Message
Preview window and because it automatically decodes attachments and
stores them in a reasonable location, and because it has separate
mailboxes and index files instead of storing everything in one huge
file that, if it gets corrupted, completely wipes out the user's
entire email.

Skipping over two other superficial (and inaccurate) claims,
because it takes too long to fully probe into them,
TB does not "store everything in one huge file," but in fact
uses mailboxes structured similarly to classic Eudora's,
along with separate indexes in a style of its own.
You have probably instead stumbled upon TB's global indexer file
and jumped to another incorrect conclusion, just as in all the
other instances pointed out above, and this habit of leaping
to and pronouncing one false conclusion after another, instead of
asking to learn from people who know what they're talking about
is not the best way to become an expert yourself, unless disinformation
is your specialty, in which case there are numerous positions available
in a field called "politics."

Thank you for pointing out my error regarding separate mailboxes.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Thank you very much for reading this long post.

And thank you, whoever has followed this long answer.
Merry Christmas, and a more enlightened New Year to everyone.

Thank you again for your responses.

I realize that it has become common in internet communication for
people to question the personal motives, knowledge, and intelligence
of posters along with providing answers to questions, even in the
first response to someone who has been polite and courteous.

Although this mode of expression is ubiquitous today on the internet,
it is still inappropriate, and I personally object to it. Although you
have been helpful, being helpful does not entitle you to also be
insulting. I hope you will consider that the next time you help
someone.

[Ken Dibble]

This messages collects my responses to the directly on-topic responses
received to my original post.

First, thank you to all who contributed information.

We had standardized on Eudora 5.x on Win 2000 or Win XP here at my
workplace.

In testing prior to rolling out Windows 7 at my workplace I think I
became confused regarding Eudora versions. I had tested what was, at
that time, the "latest and greatest" Eudora which was, essentially,
Thunderbird in Eudora clothing. I had also tested Eudora 6.2.x and it
worked--because, as I've said, the problems I described only occur in
about 5% of installs on Windows 7. I either tested Eudora 7.x and
forgot I had done so, or overlooked its existence. In any case, I went
with 6.2.x. That was the state of my knowledge about new Eudora when I
made my initial post.

Regarding preview windows: It is my understanding that email software
preview windows that display HTML and/or embedded images and files are
at least as unsafe as a web browser that does the same thing. In both
situations malware can be executed. In Eudora I have always turned off
the preview pane (Tools>Options>Preview Pane) as well as "Microsoft's
viewer", whatever that is. In Thunderbird you can hide the preview
pane by resizing the message list pane but I don't know if that stops
the software from rendering the message content anyway--since if you
resize the pane you will immediately see the message content.

Regarding non-text email content: I am old-school; I don't think email
bodies should contain anything except plain text, and I won't
knowingly deploy an email client at my workplace that lets people
embed images or documents in emails they are sending. The place for
such things is in email attachments. People here receive emails all
the time that contain grey boxes in place of embedded items, and they
survive. Such content, in my experience, is never indispensable and is
almost always just spam or trivial decoration.

Regarding attachments: "Classic" Eudora automatically decodes
attachments into their native file format and stores them separately
in a designated folder whether you view them or not. Thunderbird and
Outlook Express (and as I understand it, just about every other
currently available email client) does not do this. You can't preserve
an attachment separately unless you not only view, but explicitly save
it. If you don't do this and your mailbox becomes corrupted, not only
do you lose all of the message bodies, you lose all of the
attachments. In a professional context, if an email contains an
attachment, that is usually the important part of the message. Losing
all of your message bodies is an annoying inconvenience; losing all of
your attachments could be a disaster. This is one reason why I believe
that the behavior of "classic" Eudora with regard to attachments is
superior to that of other email clients. Another reason is that email
encoding increases the size of each encoded item by, if I recall
correctly, one-third. Decoding saves space and time when backing up
email data.

Regarding webmail: Not everybody has super-fast internet connections.
For organizations that have a lot of computers, fast internet is very,
very expensive; much more expensive than it is for home users. My
organization currently has a 1 mbps connection. At these speeds, web
email clients are sluggish. Furthermore, their UIs are "clunky"
compared to fat-client email software. I find the refresh delays in
webmail very annoying. I would venture to say that anything that we,
at my workplace, need to do with email we can do about 20% faster in
Eudora than in any webmail system.

Regarding use of the user's AppData folder for Eudora data files:
Actually, at least with Eudora 6.2.x, \Some User\AppData\Roaming is no
more reliable than \Users\Public as a location. The same weird "access
denied" errors occur there, at least for a restricted domain user. I
have not yet tested Eudora 7.1. I will do that, but since this problem
only occurs in 5% of installs, it's not likely that I will learn
whether it performs better in this regard for quite some time.

Again, thanks for all your responses, and Happy New Year

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

[John H Meyers]

It's now 2013, during whose first days
the U.S. Congress continues living up to
what Mark Twain wrote more than 100 years ago about it,

Post by Ken Dibble
Regarding preview windows: It is my understanding that email software
preview windows that display HTML and/or embedded images and files are
at least as unsafe as a web browser that does the same thing. In both
situations malware can be executed. In Eudora I have always turned off
the preview pane (Tools>Options>Preview Pane) as well as "Microsoft's
viewer", whatever that is. In Thunderbird you can hide the preview
pane by resizing the message list pane but I don't know if that stops
the software from rendering the message content anyway--since if you
resize the pane you will immediately see the message content.

Certain things may be comparable even in classic Eudora (through 7.1.0.9)

For example, with Eudora's preview pane enabled, you can shrink the "preview pane"
down to nothing by sliding the divider. Then toggle it using function key F7,
and what you see is that "preview hidden" is just like sliding the divider
all the way to where the message pane is fully shrunken.

Now, from this "shrunken" state, turning off the "preview pane"
doesn't change anything -- it seems only to "sew the divider edge"
against the bottom of the mailbox window," so that even though
the divider is still there, and even though you can still even "grab" it
and slide it as usual, when you "let it go" it just "snaps back"
to the edge again. Although not overtly showing any message content
while this is done, it does not convincingly demonstrate that any
internal process was suppressed by "sewing the divider" to that edge, does it?

Approaching this topic from another direction, the reputation of "preview panes"
for allowing executable content to be executed comes largely from Outlook Express,
and from other software that in its entire architecture gave little consideration
to security, just as occurred throughout Microsoft, such as when Word documents
first allowed for macros and left macro interpretation turned on by default,
soon leading to the first-ever such thing as an "infected document,"
the mere opening of which could infect one's own built-in templates,
and then infect every additional document that one opened.

Windows itself also left "control ports" open and obeyed whatever commands
were piped in on those ports. The Microsoft philosophy seemed to revolve
on letting businesses "push" anything they wanted into consumers' computers,
and it took a decade or so before even the faintest security consciousness
began to even dawn over at Microsoft.

I do not know details of internal architecture within Eudora,
but we can see that there are specific defaults
to disable executable HTML content (and even more benign "web bugs")
in Eudora, and Katrina Knight has many times written that Eudora
takes much more care with this. In addition, Eudora's internal viewer
is capable of interpreting only the same simple HTML as you can compose,
and even when you enable Eudora's message windows to be displayed using
components of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, it is said that
there are still layers of such safeguards in place,
so to equate Eudora with old versions of Outlook Express
and to think that "preview" has the same implications
in each environment is, like other "stereotyping,"
quite possibly an unjustifiable prejudice,
which may have no basis in actual internal programming.

All classic versions of Eudora still contain the option
to not reveal the content of the message preview pane anyway;
therefore, even if that content is generated whether we view it or not,
and even if there is no factual basis to the fears we harbor,
born of events having no connection with the software
that we actually use, we still have options to help us
with even the appearances of things we may fear,
in that we can keep the preview pane "zipped up"
by un-checking the option which allows us to unzip it,
and we can also turn off the option which permits Eudora
to use components of Microsoft Internet Explorer
to render displays within some of its internal windows, FWIW.

We can not, however, turn off the system which displays
Eudora's internal help via ".hlp" files
(Microsoft has instead removed the displaying software from Windows
and forced vendors to stop distributing it,
under threat of not "certifying" any vendor software which includes it),
and we can not stop Windows from using any components of
Internet Explorer to display the newer ".chm" type of "help" file,
which is occurring in so much other software, including Windows itself,
but the fact that Internet Explorer rendering components are used
in so much other software is not bothering us as it is with Eudora,
because we did not previously learn to fear it, as we did with other email software,
thus not so much burdening us with previously ingrained prejudices.

Post by Ken Dibble
Regarding attachments: "Classic" Eudora automatically decodes
attachments into their native file format and stores them separately
in a designated folder whether you view them or not. Thunderbird and
Outlook Express (and as I understand it, just about every other
currently available email client) does not do this. You can't preserve
an attachment separately unless you not only view, but explicitly save
it. If you don't do this and your mailbox becomes corrupted, not only
do you lose all of the message bodies, you lose all of the
attachments. In a professional context, if an email contains an
attachment, that is usually the important part of the message. Losing
all of your message bodies is an annoying inconvenience; losing all of
your attachments could be a disaster. This is one reason why I believe
that the behavior of "classic" Eudora with regard to attachments is
superior to that of other email clients.

I think that good old (or bad old) Outlook Express (and MS Office Outlook)
are once again responsible for the entire impressions expressed above,
including that when their proprietary internal database structures
suffer some corruption, the entire content of such a database
may well become difficult to recover, except with the aid of
tools sold by companies who have cashed in on those very problems.

However, the basic email storage format of programs such as Thunderbird
is utterly simple and robust, and there is no way you can "lose all the
attachments" in a mailbox, except to lose the entire mailbox file itself.

On the other hand, classic Eudora is already well known to lose the
attachments in mailboxes, in part because when you move Eudora
to new computers, as well as when you try to combine the storage
of Eudora from different computers, you often end up with
all old messages having broken links, other files becoming
ambiguous as to which attachments came with which messages,
and finally because Eudora does nothing at all to save outgoing attachments,
thus spontaneously "losing" all attachments which don't forever remain
exactly from where they were originally copied directly into outgoing mail,
just because Eudora doesn't keep all messages in that amazingly universal format
of a standardized "internet message," complete with all "parts" and attachments,
all based on plain text files and the use of "header lines" describing each part,
in a universally standardized manner (except for Microsoft, which still likes
to use some proprietary designs in Microsoft Exchange servers and Outlook Web Access,
and can thereby shut out the use of standard email clients such as Eudora and Thunderbird).

Post by Ken Dibble
Another reason is that email encoding increases the size of each encoded
item by, if I recall correctly, one-third. Decoding saves space and time
when backing up email data.

The modest laptop I'm using at this moment contains about 250,000 times
as much disk storage (also on a much faster disk, now replaceable by an
even cheaper, smaller and more reliable SSD, such that I can put
dozens of Eudora backups of my entire email history into so small an object
that it can get lost in my pocket) as the computer on which
I first installed Eudora, and my current CPU is also about 100 times as fast,
yet all of these components of so vastly more capacity and speed
are still only a fraction of the cost of what the original computer contained.

Not only do ratios like 250000:1 in available storage completely dwarf
the things which used to concern fundamental email program design,
but when you *compress* backups, even the 4:3 ratio re "base64" text encoding
of binary data also disappears, so the considerations that you mention
have today as much significance to me as the smile on a Cheshire cat,
and have completely lost all meaning within most current environments.

Post by Ken Dibble
Regarding webmail: Not everybody has super-fast internet connections.
For organizations that have a lot of computers, fast internet is very,
very expensive; much more expensive than it is for home users.
My organization currently has a 1 mbps connection.

Lake Wobegon finally got internet? ;-)

Move here -- a whole country with free (and wireless) access for everyone:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niue#Information_technology>

One question keeps nagging at my thoughts, which is, why did your organization
start using Windows 7 in an environment which is so inappropriate for it?

Post by Ken Dibble
At these speeds, web email clients are sluggish.

Try Gmail's "basic HTML" interface:
<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=15049>
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=html&zy=h>

The remaining performance is determined solely by
the speed of the remote side's server farms and architecture,
for which it's hard to beat Google, particularly when it comes
to the most demanding tasks of all, such as searching massive archives.

Post by Ken Dibble
Actually, at least with Eudora 6.2.x, \Some User\AppData\Roaming is no
more reliable than \Users\Public as a location. The same weird "access
denied" errors occur there, at least for a restricted domain user. I
have not yet tested Eudora 7.1. I will do that, but since this problem
only occurs in 5% of installs, it's not likely that I will learn
whether it performs better in this regard for quite some time.

Local access would seem necessary to check these things out properly,
to see what's with those 5%,
as to whether it's because of "restricted domain users"
or other completely identifiable (and hopefully curable) causes.

Our sales tax exceeds 5%, so another approach could be
to donate those 5% to charity, and consider it a modest tax
(some of which you can even recover because of the "charity" angle),
much as some product manufacturers' accountants may sometimes decide
that it's cheaper to simply trash items which don't pass final testing,
rather than try to fix them.

In our exceedingly budget conscious non-profit organization, however,
in the office right next to my own, sits a relatively new employee,
who "refurbishes" numerous previously discarded computers, including some
donated by other organizations in town (some even from our police department),
and then fills a storeroom with those, all ready to hand out to anyone so poor
(e.g. faculty or staff of departments credited less with being essential)
as to not be able to afford new equipment, and as far as I can see,
those all still run XP, none use Windows 7/8,
and they are all just as usable as my XP-based laptop,
which I personally recovered from a "computer recycling" bin :)

--

[John H Meyers]

Post by John H Meyers
The modest laptop I'm using at this moment contains about 250,000 times
as much disk storage as the computer on which I first installed Eudora

Hmm.. maybe only 250 times as much, but still such a huge factor
that saving a few bytes in one place matters very little.

The "X1" (super-fast search) feature in my original Eudora version 7.1
actually creates a huge set of index files, many times larger than
all the mailbox files combined, as does any comparable feature
in other email clients (and more generalized search programs,
covering one's entire computer), but that, too,
draws only yawns when mentioned nowadays,
because storage is now very cheap and very fast.

"Cloud" services may not even be counting such index files
against user allowances, but this is a bit too difficult
for me (or anyone I've read, including Google support)
to even calculate.

On-line "Google Apps for Business" allows 25GB per account
for email (more can be purchased, for fees that
hit bottom a little while back, and now have slightly increased),
and we have no user who could even approach that limit,
including for all old email (with attachments)
that they have ever stored.

The currently pitched Google approach for business to use "the cloud"
seems to be for companies to purchase cheap (and very hard to infect)
"Chromebooks," which do little more than run Chrome (web browser),
which may save much more money than ISPs charge for adequate connection
and bandwidth. Since web applications use that bandwidth mainly
to display what's on screen, rather than to actually move any data
in the mail or files being opened, considerable overall efficiency
is possible to realize at the ultimate "bottom line"; all the "grunt work"
(such as backups) shifts to the "cloud" provider, and one's executive
management due diligence shifts to trying to make sure that the provider
can handle that job, which I suspect Google can do better
than most businesses can manage for themselves.

--

[Ken Dibble]

Responses in line.

Post by John H Meyers
Approaching this topic from another direction, the reputation of "preview panes"
for allowing executable content to be executed comes largely from Outlook Express,
and from other software that in its entire architecture gave little consideration
to security, just as occurred throughout Microsoft, such as when Word documents
first allowed for macros and left macro interpretation turned on by default,
soon leading to the first-ever such thing as an "infected document,"
the mere opening of which could infect one's own built-in templates,
and then infect every additional document that one opened.
Windows itself also left "control ports" open and obeyed whatever commands
were piped in on those ports. The Microsoft philosophy seemed to revolve
on letting businesses "push" anything they wanted into consumers' computers,
and it took a decade or so before even the faintest security consciousness
began to even dawn over at Microsoft.
I do not know details of internal architecture within Eudora,
but we can see that there are specific defaults
to disable executable HTML content (and even more benign "web bugs")
in Eudora, and Katrina Knight has many times written that Eudora
takes much more care with this. In addition, Eudora's internal viewer
is capable of interpreting only the same simple HTML as you can compose,
and even when you enable Eudora's message windows to be displayed using
components of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, it is said that
there are still layers of such safeguards in place,
so to equate Eudora with old versions of Outlook Express
and to think that "preview" has the same implications
in each environment is, like other "stereotyping,"
quite possibly an unjustifiable prejudice,
which may have no basis in actual internal programming.

Yes. And even the latest version of Firefox running on a restricted
user account (as I said, I'm old-school; I worked a lot with Win 2000
in which accounts now called simply "user" were called "restricted
user") can still allow execution of malware from infected websites
without any action taken by the user. It is better to avoid any form
of encounter with unsolicited executable material than to rely on
software to prevent it from being executed. There is no justifiable
excuse for embedding executable material in email messages; that's
what attachments are for. I think my stereotyped fears remain
justified.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Regarding attachments: "Classic" Eudora automatically decodes
attachments into their native file format and stores them separately
in a designated folder whether you view them or not. Thunderbird and
Outlook Express (and as I understand it, just about every other
currently available email client) does not do this. You can't preserve
an attachment separately unless you not only view, but explicitly save
it. If you don't do this and your mailbox becomes corrupted, not only
do you lose all of the message bodies, you lose all of the
attachments. In a professional context, if an email contains an
attachment, that is usually the important part of the message. Losing
all of your message bodies is an annoying inconvenience; losing all of
your attachments could be a disaster. This is one reason why I believe
that the behavior of "classic" Eudora with regard to attachments is
superior to that of other email clients.

I think that good old (or bad old) Outlook Express (and MS Office Outlook)
are once again responsible for the entire impressions expressed above,
including that when their proprietary internal database structures
suffer some corruption, the entire content of such a database
may well become difficult to recover, except with the aid of
tools sold by companies who have cashed in on those very problems.
However, the basic email storage format of programs such as Thunderbird
is utterly simple and robust, and there is no way you can "lose all the
attachments" in a mailbox, except to lose the entire mailbox file itself.
On the other hand, classic Eudora is already well known to lose the
attachments in mailboxes, in part because when you move Eudora
to new computers, as well as when you try to combine the storage
of Eudora from different computers, you often end up with
all old messages having broken links, other files becoming
ambiguous as to which attachments came with which messages,
and finally because Eudora does nothing at all to save outgoing attachments,
thus spontaneously "losing" all attachments which don't forever remain
exactly from where they were originally copied directly into outgoing mail,
just because Eudora doesn't keep all messages in that amazingly universal format
of a standardized "internet message," complete with all "parts" and attachments,
all based on plain text files and the use of "header lines" describing each part,
in a universally standardized manner (except for Microsoft, which still likes
to use some proprietary designs in Microsoft Exchange servers and Outlook Web Access,
and can thereby shut out the use of standard email clients such as Eudora and Thunderbird).

This is, generally, one reason why people should not use email clients
as substitutes for file systems and file managers, something that I am
constantly educating users about. (There is also no excuse for users
in a professional environment not being required to understand the
basics about where files are located and how to copy, move and delete
them using appropriate file managers.)

However, I don't lose links to attachments when I move email because I
always place the attachment folder inside the account folder where the
mailboxes are located. Not a problem for me.

As for recovery of damaged data: I would prefer that the data be
stored in such a way that the potential for damage is minimized. Yes,
I've spent multiple hours navigating huge plain text email storage
files and trying to get them relinked to a displayable list. Sure it
can be done, but it's better not to have to do it, isn't it?
Auto-decoding and storing of attachments eliminates the problem.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Another reason is that email encoding increases the size of each encoded
item by, if I recall correctly, one-third. Decoding saves space and time
when backing up email data.

The modest laptop I'm using at this moment contains about 250,000 times
as much disk storage (also on a much faster disk, now replaceable by an
even cheaper, smaller and more reliable SSD, such that I can put
dozens of Eudora backups of my entire email history into so small an object
that it can get lost in my pocket) as the computer on which
I first installed Eudora, and my current CPU is also about 100 times as fast,
yet all of these components of so vastly more capacity and speed
are still only a fraction of the cost of what the original computer contained.
Not only do ratios like 250000:1 in available storage completely dwarf
the things which used to concern fundamental email program design,
but when you *compress* backups, even the 4:3 ratio re "base64" text encoding
of binary data also disappears, so the considerations that you mention
have today as much significance to me as the smile on a Cheshire cat,
and have completely lost all meaning within most current environments.

I saw your post changing 250000 to 250. :)

Just because space can be wasted doesn't mean it should be. Again, I'm
old school. I object to the argument that "HDD space (or processor
cycles) is cheaper than programmer time, so let's just waste space and
cycles instead of writing tight code". The widespread adoption of that
principle is why we keep getting newer, faster, more powerful hardware
that doesn't actually do anything faster or more powerfully. Think of
the advances that could have been made in areas such as artificial
intelligence, language translation, expert systems, etc. if managers
had put their foot down and said, "I don't care how cheap modern HDD
space or processor cycles are, you will write the tightest, most
efficient code possible and seek to expand the capabilities of
software to handle complex tasks."

Post by John H Meyers
<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=15049>
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=html&zy=h>

Free webmail is not suitable for a professional environment. Further,
I strongly object to webmail services that read my email in order to
collect information about me and use it to generate advertising, sell
to marketers, and whatever other purposes they won't admit to. I
accept the consequences for using such services as spam drops but
absolutely refuse to use them for meaningful personal correspondence,
nor will I permit the people who work in my organization to use them
for professional purposes.

The webmail I use is that provided by my email service provider; it's
cpanel, with a few different mail reader options, all of which are
more or less clunky and slow, even when I access them from home over a
cable modem; they're much worse here on the T1 line.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Actually, at least with Eudora 6.2.x, \Some User\AppData\Roaming is no
more reliable than \Users\Public as a location. The same weird "access
denied" errors occur there, at least for a restricted domain user. I
have not yet tested Eudora 7.1. I will do that, but since this problem
only occurs in 5% of installs, it's not likely that I will learn
whether it performs better in this regard for quite some time.

Local access would seem necessary to check these things out properly,
to see what's with those 5%,
as to whether it's because of "restricted domain users"
or other completely identifiable (and hopefully curable) causes.

There is nothing that I can identify that is different about the
situations in which this occurs. I recently set up about 20 new Win 7
boxes on identical hardware. I followed the exact same Eudora software
installation procedures for all of them. In most cases I then migrated
old Eudora email data to the new machines; a few were assigned to new
employees who had no old data. That difference is not significant; the
problem will occur with old or new data. On 95% of these new boxes, it
works fine. The other 5% worked fine initially, sometimes for two or
three days or even a week, and then began exhibiting these symptoms.
In one (but only one) case, I found that Windows had mysteriously
assigned the "purpose" of some of the files in a user's Eudora data
folder to Acrobat Reader. *shrugs* Repairing that did not fix the
problem. As I said, once the problem occurs, nothing that I can think
of to do fixes it.

In earlier rounds of new Win 7 setups, the same failure percentage
rate obtained.

As for choice of OS:

I am a one-person IT department responsible for 80+ machines, some of
which are donated. I do setups, help desk, training, network
maintenance, AND programming, as well as most of the duties of a CIO.
I have enough help desk issues to deal with using mostly new machines;
I do not need the additional hardware headaches that come with
refurbished machines.

I buy new machines from a local white box vendor who assembles them to
my specifications.

If I could leave the Windows world and migrate to Linux I would do so
in a heartbeat. But we are contractually obligated to communicate with
various other entities using MS Office documents, including DOCX and
XLSX and PPTX. Although Open Office "opens" them (is that why it's
called "Open Office"? *LOL*), it won't save them, nor does it handle
anything beyond the simplest formatting correctly. Also, there is no
suitable accounting or Medicaid billing software available for
platforms other than Windows. (The fact that software that claims to
be adequate exists for those platforms does not make the software
adequate; it is not.)

Nor would I move to Apple; way too expensive.

I'm aware that I might be able to get a couple more years out of XP,
and we are still running some XP machines. But trying to hold onto XP
is pointless. I held onto Win 2000 for 12 years, until we ran up
against the wall of newer software just not working properly. That
wall will be reached for XP in, I would guess, about 4 years. Might as
well go to Win 7 now and buy another decade or so before I have to
confront whatever abortion MS is conveying in the '20s. Heck,
theoretically I could retire before that happens. *L*

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

[John H Meyers]

Post by Ken Dibble
And even the latest version of Firefox running on a restricted
user account (as I said, I'm old-school; I worked a lot with Win 2000
in which accounts now called simply "user" were called "restricted
user") can still allow execution of malware from infected websites
without any action taken by the user.

Firefox is not Eudora, and is not an email program -- it is a web browser,
which is necessarily _required_ to fully execute Javascript and Java
(and with a particular plugin it can even use Microsoft's "Active X" controls),
plus any other web components now defined via new web standards.

Every one of your "comparisons" vs. Eudora is likewise inappropriate,
it being _impossible_ for Eudora's own internal viewer to execute
Javascript or Java or to run Active X controls.

As to the parameters used when an IE library is used internally,
not until either of us learns more about how that API works
would we be able to assert more knowledge about its similarity
or difference to the use of a complete web browser,
and insisting otherwise is an over-extension of our claim to knowledge,
except for a fact I believe that we can state, which is that all
limitations we place on IE via "Internet Options" likewise set
a limit upon anything that the IE viewing control can do,
which is why, even when "using the MS viewer," people complain
that images won't appear if "Internet Options" has disabled them,
and so forth. It's all under as much control and tight security
as the computer user elects to apply.

Post by Ken Dibble
I think my stereotyped fears remain justified.

To you they will always seem so; to others they will never appear so;
apparently we'll never agree.

Post by Ken Dibble
This is, generally, one reason why people should not use email clients
as substitutes for file systems and file managers, something that I am
constantly educating users about.

By coincidence, I am continually educating users about the fact
that there is no more perfect medium for storing original email,
in an absolutely "lossless" fashion (losing none of its original
content, nor even its filing system) than the form in which it
necessarily originates, which is the "Internet Message" format,
exactly as is maintained perfectly by a client such as Thunderbird.

There is talk, however, of Thunderbird changing to other than
"mbox" and "maildir" manners of storing original messages,
which may threaten what once was TB's perfect system,
which fits the field of email as perfectly as
a certain glass slipper fit Cinderella herself :)

The tearing apart and discarding of so much of the original
material and format of Internet messages is the very reason
why classic Eudora is the most incompetent of all programs
when it comes to being even able to forward mail in a lossless manner,
as we see regularly being complained about in this newsgroup,
and in every other discussion arena focused on Eudora.

Eudora's ancient architecture was just fine for the original,
purely plain text mail,
but now that email has evolved to where it is today,
Eudora handles well only a restricted subset of what a
general email client of the 21st century needs to, unfortunately,
which may be why it is rapidly fading into obscurity.

We might even think of "text messaging" by mobile phones
as being where Eudora started, but a phone without the
additional ability to also handle "MMS" messaging
(carrying other kinds of content, such as sounds,
images, and videos) is no longer even salable
to the largest share of that market,
"and that's the way it is" (I seem to recall
this being what Walter Cronkite used to say,
at the end of every CBS prime-time news,
when he was the king of that territory :)

Post by Ken Dibble
As for recovery of damaged data: I would prefer that the data be
stored in such a way that the potential for damage is minimized. Yes,
I've spent multiple hours navigating huge plain text email storage
files and trying to get them relinked to a displayable list. Sure it
can be done, but it's better not to have to do it, isn't it?
Auto-decoding and storing of attachments eliminates the problem.

On the contrary, every email program absolutely has to be able
to handle the original "Internet message format" in which all mail
must be both originally transmitted and originally received,
hence the one absolutely universal format,
which no email program can ever be at a loss to properly process again,
exactly as it did the first time, is that exact same format,
whereas Eudora's _lack_ of that basic "original message integrity"
is from where all the problems that you just mentioned arise.

Would anyone who doesn't yet grasp this simple logic
raise their hands? Higher, please -- I can't see any hands yet :)

Post by Ken Dibble
Just because space can be wasted doesn't mean it should be. Again, I'm
old school. I object to the argument that "HDD space (or processor
cycles) is cheaper than programmer time, so let's just waste space and
cycles instead of writing tight code".

"Bean counter logic" is where accountants compare marginal cost
against marginal profit from the investment, and where the curves cross
is where they say it's time to stop spending more to gain less.

This logic doesn't account for other rewards, such as the beauty
and personal satisfaction of music, art, and even the fine
"Art of Computer Programming" (Professor Donald Knuth's
rightly famous series of books that I bet you love :)
but "art for art's sake alone" has to stop somewhere,
before companies go bankrupt or give their market shares away.

Apple's beautiful hardware is good, however,
as long as there are people willing to pay the premium prices,
which apparently suffices at present,
and of course we can't forget environmental costs,
but I think those don't apply as much to software
as to goods of a more material nature.

Post by Ken Dibble
The widespread adoption of that principle is why we keep getting
newer, faster, more powerful hardware that doesn't actually
do anything faster or more powerfully.

Do you have power steering, power brakes,
defroster, heat and A/C etc. in your car?
Without sacrificing some miles per gallon for it?

Post by Ken Dibble

Post by John H Meyers
<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=15049>
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=html&zy=h>

Free webmail is not suitable for a professional environment.

The leap you just took has no basis in what I said.

Google (as well as Microsoft) are two major suppliers
of application web services, including complete systems
(e.g. "Google Apps for Business") that are completely professional,
including the inclusion of the same Gmail interfaces
to handle business mail, using business domain names.

After two years of experimenting, during which Google has
been steadily rolling out improvements, we feel it's time
to migrate all our own email to it, because we can't compete
with Google in any area -- not in cost (free to us,
because we're an "edu" domain), not in reliability,
not in automatically handling backup, not in security, not in power,
not in abilities that we never even had before, to improve our
overall responsiveness, to better control and organize all information,
and stop buying servers, service contracts, backup systems, extra UPS
and A/C, "helpdesk" software, and an overpaid I.T. staff :)

It's a "no brainer" for us to finally give up "risking the farm"
by trying to "roll our own," and to outsource it instead,
the same as we've outsourced our Food Service
and our campus Facilities Management operation,
so that we can instead focus on our own business specialty,
which is to deliver education.

I'm afraid that this is about to make me obsolete as well,
as soon as I complete the migration, but again,
"that's the way it is."

Post by Ken Dibble
Further, I strongly object to webmail services that read my email
in order to collect information about me and use it to generate advertising

You'll be glad to learn, then, that
our Google-provided email has no advertising, on any pages,
nor does any other part of our "Google Apps" system,
so you can stop taking swings
at balls that come nowhere near your bat :)

Post by Ken Dibble
There is nothing that I can identify that is different about the
situations in which [file errors] occur. I recently set up about 20 new Win 7
boxes on identical hardware. I followed the exact same Eudora software
installation procedures for all of them. In most cases I then migrated
old Eudora email data to the new machines; a few were assigned to new
employees who had no old data. That difference is not significant; the
problem will occur with old or new data. On 95% of these new boxes, it
works fine. The other 5% worked fine initially, sometimes for two or
three days or even a week, and then began exhibiting these symptoms.
In one (but only one) case, I found that Windows had mysteriously
assigned the "purpose" of some of the files in a user's Eudora data
folder to Acrobat Reader. *shrugs* Repairing that did not fix the
problem. As I said, once the problem occurs, nothing that I can think
of to do fixes it.
In earlier rounds of new Win 7 setups, the same failure percentage
rate obtained.
I am a one-person IT department responsible for 80+ machines, some of
which are donated. I do setups, help desk, training, network
maintenance, AND programming, as well as most of the duties of a CIO.
I have enough help desk issues to deal with using mostly new machines;
I do not need the additional hardware headaches that come with
refurbished machines.
I buy new machines from a local white box vendor who assembles them to
my specifications.
If I could leave the Windows world and migrate to Linux I would do so
in a heartbeat. But we are contractually obligated to communicate with
various other entities using MS Office documents, including DOCX and
XLSX and PPTX. Although Open Office "opens" them (is that why it's
called "Open Office"? *LOL*), it won't save them, nor does it handle
anything beyond the simplest formatting correctly. Also, there is no
suitable accounting or Medicaid billing software available for
platforms other than Windows. (The fact that software that claims to
be adequate exists for those platforms does not make the software
adequate; it is not.)
Nor would I move to Apple; way too expensive.
I'm aware that I might be able to get a couple more years out of XP,
and we are still running some XP machines. But trying to hold onto XP
is pointless. I held onto Win 2000 for 12 years, until we ran up
against the wall of newer software just not working properly. That
wall will be reached for XP in, I would guess, about 4 years. Might as
well go to Win 7 now and buy another decade or so before I have to
confront whatever abortion MS is conveying in the '20s. Heck,
theoretically I could retire before that happens. *L*
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

You are over-worked :)

Possibly thanks to the original "Vista fiasco,"
XP continues to get automatic security updates until April 8, 2014,
and I believe it will neither rust nor wear out, even afterwards.

XP also runs everything faster on equal hardware, and doesn't XP
continue to support lots of hardware that has no Win7 drivers?
So why trade in a very good car while it's still in its prime?

As to software no longer compatible with XP, name something,
other than brand new "Metro style" or "Windows Store" apps
made for Win8 or RT alone,
which are based on new paradigms such as "Windows Contracts"
and other completely new "tablet PC" ideas,
thus never even originally existing for XP, Vista, or even Win7.

Your organization being a 501C3 Not-for-Profit Corporation,
have you been able to get MS Office at some good discount?
<http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoftupblog/archive/2010/06/15/microsoft-office-2010-now-available-for-nonprofits-through-our-technology-donations-program.aspx>
<http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/nonprofits/whos-eligible/>
<http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/open-license.aspx>

MS Office Outlook, by the way, for people who don't hate it as much as you may,
can be completely integrated into Google Apps:
<http://support.google.com/a/users/bin/answer.py?answer=153871>

I don't know how far Google has progressed making "Google Docs"
(now "Drive") another tool for reading and creating Office documents,
but that's also apparently an ongoing effort.

I used to have to drive through Binghampton on the way from NYC
to Ithaca -- and that was before Global Warming started :)

But now I'm in Iowa, also known for unpleasant Winters.

Best wishes.

--

[Ken Dibble]

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
I think my stereotyped fears remain justified.

To you they will always seem so; to others they will never appear so;
apparently we'll never agree.

Yes. As I said, I have never had problems with corruption with Eudora; I've had
it with Outlook Express and Thunderbird.

Nor do I care about fads and fashions in email. It remains my position that
embedded images and sounds form no important or necessary part of professional
email communication, and I am not interested in catering to them.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Just because space can be wasted doesn't mean it should be. Again, I'm
old school. I object to the argument that "HDD space (or processor
cycles) is cheaper than programmer time, so let's just waste space and
cycles instead of writing tight code".

"Bean counter logic" is where accountants compare marginal cost
against marginal profit from the investment, and where the curves cross
is where they say it's time to stop spending more to gain less.
This logic doesn't account for other rewards, such as the beauty
and personal satisfaction of music, art, and even the fine
"Art of Computer Programming" (Professor Donald Knuth's
rightly famous series of books that I bet you love :)
but "art for art's sake alone" has to stop somewhere,
before companies go bankrupt or give their market shares away.

As a customer I'm not responsible for the financial health of software
companies. I'm interested in getting my requirements met. I'm tired of being
told I must change my requirements to meet the interests and preferences of
vendors. This is supposed to be a market economy. And IT professionals are
supposed to be smart people; it continually boggles my mind that they allow
marketers to tell them what they should want, instead of telling the marketers
what they will accept.

Your point is not responsive to my argument. I am saying that compactness of
data is an absolute good. All other considerations aside, it takes a third less
time to copy a 1 MB file from one location to another than it takes to copy a
1.33 MB file. Unlike HDD space and processor cycles, high intranet transfer
speed is still quite expensive, and time is always expensive. Those are reasons
enough to keep data compact and code efficient.

I also do not support the notion of putting all of one's eggs in one basket when
it comes to data. That's why I don't put user data in profiles on a single
server, I don't make my entire agency dependent on an internet connection to
"the cloud", and I don't want all of my email data stored in a single file. I
don't care how good the technology is, stuff still breaks. The less damage
breakage can cause in one fell swoop, the better.

Post by John H Meyers
Apple's beautiful hardware is good, however,
as long as there are people willing to pay the premium prices,
which apparently suffices at present,
and of course we can't forget environmental costs,
but I think those don't apply as much to software
as to goods of a more material nature.

Post by Ken Dibble
The widespread adoption of that principle is why we keep getting
newer, faster, more powerful hardware that doesn't actually
do anything faster or more powerfully.

Do you have power steering, power brakes,
defroster, heat and A/C etc. in your car?
Without sacrificing some miles per gallon for it?

Not another vehicle=IT analogy. Will anybody who hasn't realized that these just
don't work please raise their hand?

Cars are not computers. Huge amounts of PC processing power are wasted doing the
same basic stuff with prettier pictures. We could be doing a lot more useful,
meaningful stuff with that power. But we won't as long as we continue to
outsource programming to minimally competent scripters instead of requiring high
quality standards.

Post by John H Meyers
The leap you just took has no basis in what I said.

I don't trust "the cloud". Internet connections are no more reliable than any
other wire. They break, and if all your stuff is in the "cloud" you're out of
luck.

I don't trust Google. Google will do anything for anybody who pays them,
including censoring the internet for the Chinese government. Even if I trusted
the cloud I would never do business with Google.

You work in an academic environment? Someday your students may mount a Google
divestment campaign for that very reason. At least, I hope they do. Google is
evil.

I do not trust any webmail provider that makes a living by data-mining the
contents of free email accounts--a dishonorable form of business--to honor any
claim that it will not treat paid accounts the same way. Even if I did, I would
not give money to a company that makes a living by data-mining people's email.

I intensely dislike "software as a service". Though I am forced to accept it at
times, I will never trust my data to somebody who can cancel my access to it if
I stop paying them, or if I have a dispute with them.

Again, as a customer, I am not responsible for the livelihood of software
vendors. If they can't make an honest living by offering actually valuable new
features, and can only exist parasitically by milking people on a monthly basis,
then they do not deserve to survive.

I can get MS products through TechSoup at a steep discount. But that's not the
issue with older computers and OSes.

Web browsers are a major problem. We are contractually obligated to use online
software that requires later versions of IE than IE 6. IE 7 and later will not
run on Windows 2000; that was one major reason why we had to stop using that OS.
Newer versions of Firefox, though they will run on Win 2000, won't run well on
older computers. Lots of websites won't work properly on older versions of
Firefox anymore.

The straw that broke the camel's back for Win 2000 for us was Avast!, whose
network-managed anti-virus software we use. When it came time to renew (yes, I
am forced to accept software-as-a-service when it comes to anti-virus stuff),
they told me that the new version would work on Win 2000. What they did not tell
me was that it would not work well, or completely. Hence I was forced to replace
the remaining Win 2000 boxes with new Win 7 boxes.

When I say newer software won't work properly, that's exactly what I mean. I
don't care about MS's "support" "roadmap" or "end-of-life" scenarios. But other
software manufacturers do. At some point after an MS OS reaches "end of life",
those manufacturers decide that they are free to stop ensuring backward
compatibiilty with it--and eventually the stuff stops working. The OS keeps
working just fine--but I can't get the stuff I need to work on it to keep
working. I think I will start running into those issues with XP in about four
years. That should be obvious, I would think.

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org

[John H Meyers]

Post by Ken Dibble
This is supposed to be a market economy. And IT professionals are
supposed to be smart people; it continually boggles my mind that they allow
marketers to tell them what they should want, instead of telling the marketers
what they will accept.

I.T. people here will all be out of work if the institution fails.

The customers of that institution are modern youth.

Management sees that to try marketing to them as if they were you
would sink this ship faster than a barrage of torpedoes,
so they replaced all the people like you
with modern marketers who use modern email campaigns,
and replaced the old webmaster with another modern marketer,
cognizant of how the demographic of our customers
has latched onto social networking and new forms of communication,
and just in time, too, before the class of 2016
might otherwise have become an "empty set" :)

Post by Ken Dibble
Your point is not responsive to my argument. I am saying that compactness of
data is an absolute good. All other considerations aside, it takes a third less
time to copy a 1 MB file from one location to another than it takes to copy a
1.33 MB file. Unlike HDD space and processor cycles, high intranet transfer
speed is still quite expensive, and time is always expensive. Those are reasons
enough to keep data compact and code efficient.

Well said -- I'll note it down right next to
"640K ought to be enough for anyone" :)

It's a good thing that one of our most important academic programs
is in Computer Science itself, where it seems that our graduates
have become known for their own high performance.

Post by Ken Dibble
I also do not support the notion of putting all of one's eggs in one basket when
it comes to data. That's why I don't put user data in profiles on a single
server, I don't make my entire agency dependent on an internet connection to
"the cloud", and I don't want all of my email data stored in a single file.
don't care how good the technology is, stuff still breaks. The less damage
breakage can cause in one fell swoop, the better.

Neither does Google -- it's becoming so that only a really large organization,
even mass producing its own servers and running massive server farms world-wide,
distributing data among them for this very reason,
can provide the infrastructure necessary to realistically guarantee 99.9% uptime,
and with ever improving end-user services to roll back even one's own on-line mistakes,
better and faster than we can do this in-house for ourselves.

We ourselves have multiply sourced our network connections to the world.
Since this is a forum about an email product, and since "email without
a 'cloud' to carry it" is about as useful as a local network of tin cans
tied together with strings, what do you do when your network connections
are down? Even the telephone network is now internet-based, with our
local phone company supplying all our telephone service over the same
fiber as internet service. The only way not to be somewhat dependent
upon this structure of society would be to become Amish
and use horse-drawn buggies again. There are even Amish communities
here in Iowa we could join, but curiously enough, even they seem
to have modern web sites for their dairies and other industries :)

Post by Ken Dibble
I don't trust "the cloud". Internet connections are no more reliable
than any other wire. They break, and if all your stuff is in the "cloud"
you're out of luck.

An occasional hurricane or major storm shows the same to be true of roads,
so stock some extra food and water, and have an independent electric generating
plant, capable of powering our entire campus for a while, just in case :)
[we do have this, which even helps our battery-operated laptops
to keep going during some of the heavier weather episodes]

Also download the relatively new "Gmail off-line" browser add-on;
this of course does not enable newly generated traffic to flow,
but it provides a "buffer," by means of which one has automatically
pre-downloaded some mail which can continue being handled during any outage,
and also accumulates responses which will automatically be sent
when we're connected again, just as might manually have been done
using POP-based clients like Eudora, but now is automatically managed,
giving "cloud-based" mail pretty much the same flexibility
as was its predecessor, except that it takes us much less effort
to maintain it, and its "TCO" is better for the "bottom line."

Post by Ken Dibble
Google is evil.

I think that this sums up the emotional content behind most of your logic.

No company is more up front about even supplying the means
to download all your data at any time, so by all means,
backing up your entire "cloud" data on disks,
tapes, or other hardware of your own
is well within your capability, this being, ironically enough,
somewhat the reverse of what used to be the safety net
of having "off-site storage," where now you can instead
arrange "on-site backup" of your cloud-based data :)

Finally, everything is going to become obsolete, just as people do,
death seeming to be one of the few certainties of the future;
this is no good basis of any argument not to live well now,
for those whose careers lie between infancy and its opposite,
for the ultimate goal of living, which I hold to be
in the realm of consciousness and spirit,
not to get bogged down trying to hold back the tide
of technology, which we can use well toward these ends
if we harness it well using the spiritual gift of our brains.

Happy 21st century!

--

[Ken Dibble]

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Your point is not responsive to my argument. I am saying that compactness of
data is an absolute good. All other considerations aside, it takes a third less
time to copy a 1 MB file from one location to another than it takes to copy a
1.33 MB file. Unlike HDD space and processor cycles, high intranet transfer
speed is still quite expensive, and time is always expensive. Those are reasons
enough to keep data compact and code efficient.

Well said -- I'll note it down right next to
"640K ought to be enough for anyone" :)

Huh? You can't break the laws of physics. 1.5 will always be larger
than 1, n+1 seconds will always be longer than n seconds, and the cost
of doing something for n+1 seconds will always be greater than the
cost of doing that thing for n seconds. The laws of physics are not
subject to IT fads.

Post by John H Meyers

Post by Ken Dibble
Google is evil.

I think that this sums up the emotional content behind most of your logic.

I wouldn't say "emotional", I'd say "ethical" and "moral". Censoring
political content on the internet is immoral and unethical. Helping
governments to do that is immoral and unethical. So is snooping into
people's private communications to obtain information to sell.

Of course there are many people who believe that applying moral or
ethical standards to the conduct of business is old-fashioned, or
violates some extreme libertarian view of individual "rights". Such
thinking, and its practitioners, are immoral and unethical. They
should be boycotted and driven out of business, and, where
appropriate, jailed. They will then be free to exercise their "rights"
without harming the rest of us.

Post by John H Meyers
No company is more up front about even supplying the means
to download all your data at any time, so by all means,
backing up your entire "cloud" data on disks,
tapes, or other hardware of your own
is well within your capability, this being, ironically enough,
somewhat the reverse of what used to be the safety net
of having "off-site storage," where now you can instead
arrange "on-site backup" of your cloud-based data :)

Why would I pay anybody a periodic fee to store my backups online when
I can pay a one-time cost to store my own backups myself? I can store
two HDDs in two separate places (say, my house and my boss's house)
and thus achieve everything that an online "cloud" backup service
would charge me hundreds of dollars a year, for every year from now
until eternity, to do, for a one-time (okay, once every ten years if I
use a Linux-type file system) cost of $100.

Post by John H Meyers
Finally, everything is going to become obsolete, just as people do,
death seeming to be one of the few certainties of the future;
this is no good basis of any argument not to live well now,
for those whose careers lie between infancy and its opposite,
for the ultimate goal of living, which I hold to be
in the realm of consciousness and spirit,
not to get bogged down trying to hold back the tide
of technology, which we can use well toward these ends
if we harness it well using the spiritual gift of our brains.

Morality and ethics do not become obsolete. The laws of physics do not
become obsolete.

New age speechifying about consciousness and spirit do not nullify
these facts.

Post by John H Meyers
Happy 21st century!

Happy stone-age morality!

[John H Meyers]

Post by Ken Dibble
Morality and ethics do not become obsolete.

No one ever settles the argument over what is moral,
over how to weigh contradictory values,
as to whether the "defender of my country"
was moral to massacre those on the other side
who were doing exactly the same thing for theirs,
over whether the "conscientious objector"
was really "just a coward who won't stand up and fight,"
over whether euthanizing the dog was right,
or was it just murder of a helpless animal who had a right to live?

But plenty a sport is made of fighting over these things,
all the same, each side declaring themselves
the sole possessor of as total an ability to judge
as if they had the only direct line to God.

Post by Ken Dibble
The laws of physics do not become obsolete.

Decisions about what to "spend" on what parts
of an overall system, to get a "bottom line"
that is most efficient overall,
regardless of lesser observations
on the efficiency of various smaller parts,
have nothing to do with physics.

Cryptographers vie all the time,
not to find "the most perfectly unbreakable code,"
(already known to be the theoretical "one time pad"),
but to find what is most practical to use,
balancing very many different qualities,
the "one time pad" being a system which needs
as much "pad" as the sum total length
of everything to ever need encoding,
needing also a means of securely transporting the pad,
which presents the exact same problem as was the original task
of securely transporting the data to be encrypted,
thus paradoxically getting not an iota closer to the goal.

But as to physics, the "laws" do change,
inasmuch as they are, at any time,
only the current understandings of some people,
living at a certain time in history,
which manage to change over time --
Newton's "laws" yielding to "relativity,"
various "Grand Unification" theories continually jockeying
for explaining existing observations better than others,
the idea that no "information" can travel faster than light
bumping against demonstrations of "quantum entanglement,"
an eternal unfolding of the humbling fact
that what we think we "know" turns out to depend as much
on how we interpret things or even simply imagine things
as we wish them to be, even to be comprehensible,
which is by no means guaranteed, and how those interpretations
change over time, as does anything else
(if we even can explain what "time" means :)

Can we derive "morality" from physics?
Can we derive "morality" from mathematics?
If not, where does it come from?
How can we "know" it?
What does "knowing" even mean?
What is "life"? What are "feelings,"
what makes some of those "good" or "bad,"
and how do we know what others feel,
or what others are, or whether there even exist
any "others" than something so well hidden,
deep within our own "self," that it is
the common source of all the "selves" that exist,
and is experienced only in a state of total inward silence?

I think that, like the paradox of the one-time-pad,
these things can not be answered by logic, by physical experiment,
or by words, here or anywhere else, but by sometimes settling into
a state of full wakefulness accompanying total silence,
we may come closer to spontaneously acting more rightly in activity,
which is to say more morally, without the confusion of thought
to interfere with a more spontaneous instinct,
which we simply can not explain at all,
which comes from a deeper layer of just "being."

Post by Ken Dibble
Happy stone-age morality!

It is possible that at the time of the so-called "stone age,"
human civilization as a whole may have been more "moral"
than at the present time. The next fellow I quote
seems to also think that less vocal animals
may be more moral than the human kind:

"In studying the traits and dispositions of the so-called lower animals,
and contrasting them with man's, I find the result humiliating to me."
-- Mark Twain

http://www.louisdorfman.com/quote.html

--

[v***@earthlink.net]

Hi John,

Sorry to come into your thread off topic, but I can't find another way to reach you. You posted a wonderfully helpful fix for mail-checking delays in Eudora on Windows 7, but unfortunately the links on the qualcomm server no longer work. If you would be willing to help me by getting the zip file and information to me some other way than the Eudora BB, I would be SO appreciative, as it's driving me nuts, thanks! I'm copying one of your posts below so you can see the Eudora issue I'm referring to.

Dino Valaoritis

<http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=14440&page=2>

Note that a zip file (with replacement file for Eudora version 7.1.0.9)
is already attached to the following post:
<http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showpost.php?p=46361>

The post includes a command you can run to compare that file
with the original, to verify that only one byte has been changed.

[John H Meyers]

On 1/24/2013 8:22 PM, Dino Valaoritis wrote:

[more about the "slow first SSL fix"
hiding in the currently crippled Qualcomm EudoraBB]

Okay, we've just "been there and done that"
in your continuation of another old thread -- enjoy!

--

[p***@gmail.com]

I did not understand how to use eudora and ms8 from ken dribbles response. Do I need to reload the eudora software and files in the application file structure? I loaded it in program files/Qualcomm/eudora mail....please if you can give me a step by step I would be forever indebted to you...I cannot get my attachments at this time! Not sure where they are, if they are even coming onto my computer.

[Juergen]

Post by p***@gmail.com
.I cannot get my attachments at this time!

But... you can see your emails?

Eudora saves the name of attachments at the end of each email, incl.
pathname

in my opinion there are two "simple" solution to find attachments...
(based on my Win7-knowledge)

1) if an attachment-name is shown at the bottom of any mail
- on-mouse-over the pathname will be shown bottom-down
- _select_ complete pathname of any attachment (don't double-click)
- go to Editor or Notepad or Word
- paste and you have the pathname of this and other document(s)

2) perhaps Win8 will give you the chance to search PC-wide
- _select_ complete name of any attachment (don't double-click)
- select FIND in Win
- paste and let Win search for you
perhaps it will need a bit time

HTH
Juergen

[j***@gmail.com]

I am a long time Eudora user, now running on Windows 7. A couple of years ago, I lost the automatic spell check function, an inconvenience.

More recently I sometimes get this message when I try to delete posts:

Could not open the file trash.mbx for writing. Cause access permission denied. File may be marked as read only or locked.

The problem ends as suddenly as it began.

Sometimes I will be denied permission to send or transfer a file for the same reason.

This may not be the right place to ask such a question, but I can't find the user group. Does it still exist?

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I am a long time Eudora user, now running on Windows 7. A couple of years ago, I lost the automatic spell check function, an inconvenience.
Could not open the file trash.mbx for writing. Cause access permission denied. File may be marked as read only or locked.
The problem ends as suddenly as it began.
Sometimes I will be denied permission to send or transfer a file for the same reason.
This may not be the right place to ask such a question, but I can't find the user group. Does it still exist?

If you mean the Qualcomm forums, there may be archives, but no
activity.

You didn't specify which version of Eudora, and -- more importantly
-- where you put the user data files!

Win7 firmly enforces that user accounts do not get modification
access to the program install location. Users that started with W9x
tended to leave their mailboxes and preferences in the program install
directory. WinXP started to enforce the separation, but was very lax in
restricting one from having a "user writable" install directory -- so
many users upgrading OS tended to copy their old configuration over.

In Win7, user programs trying to modify installation directory files
will either pop up a request asking for admin privileges OR will create
user-specific hidden shadow files which get modified behind the scenes.

If you didn't set-up your mailboxes/etc. (no pun intended) to be in
your account's data area your best solution is to reconfigure your
installation... A search of the newsgroup should find a slew of messages
about how to do that.

[John H Meyers]

If you mean the Qualcomm forums, there may be archives, but no activity.

Qualcomm forums (eudorabb.qualcomm.com) are on a server
that's been left to be administered
by someone who has misconfigured it.

The reason for "no activity" is that the ("vBulletin") software and server
are now practically unusable, and so is any ability to search it,
which means that "archives" in that system are also nearly as useless
as any attempt to log in and post something.

Qualcomm has meanwhile reorganized itself,
and now appears to me to be a patent-leasing company
(or at least one half of it is), with anyone who cared for Eudora
no longer able to influence the maintenance of that old server.

As to internet ("usenet") newsgroups for Eudora,
this is the Windows group and there's also a Mac group.

If you'd like to read or post on a mailing list instead,
to yet another kind of audience (including someone named Katrina FWIW),
Google one word "listmoms" and you'll find the Eudora-Win mailing list,
with instructions for joining.

--

[i***@gmail.com]

Eudora hasn't been developed or supported for several years now. Back in 2013 or thereabouts, users were advised to migrate to Mozilla Thunderbird. Research I've done indicates that Eudora does indeed allow for the use of IMAP, but I've never tried it myself.

Visit at ; https://www.tooltoconvert.com/mboxtopst.html

[Sid Elbow]

Post by i***@gmail.com
Eudora hasn't been developed or supported for several years now. Back in 2013 or thereabouts, users were advised to migrate to Mozilla Thunderbird. Research I've done indicates that Eudora does indeed allow for the use of IMAP, but I've never tried it myself.

Eudora hasn't been developed/supported since 2006. The "current" version
(7.1.0.9) does however work mostly fine on every version of Windows
through Win-10. It does indeed support IMAP.

When support ended, the original Thunderbird (called Penelope and later
Eudora OSE) was slated to replace it. It was a dog from day one and few
true Eudora users took that option. Eudora OSE was discontinued in 2013
and replaced by Thunderbird (a different client altogether) which has
developed into what is currently offered.

[Jim H]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 20:37:09 -0500, in

Post by Sid Elbow

Post by i***@gmail.com
Eudora hasn't been developed or supported for several years now. Back in 2013 or thereabouts, users were advised to migrate to Mozilla Thunderbird. Research I've done indicates that Eudora does indeed allow for the use of IMAP, but I've never tried it myself.

Eudora hasn't been developed/supported since 2006. The "current" version
(7.1.0.9) does however work mostly fine on every version of Windows
through Win-10. It does indeed support IMAP.
When support ended, the original Thunderbird (called Penelope and later
Eudora OSE) was slated to replace it. It was a dog from day one and few
true Eudora users took that option. Eudora OSE was discontinued in 2013
and replaced by Thunderbird (a different client altogether) which has
developed into what is currently offered.

Yes. And there's an effort going on somewhere to take the now public
Eudora source code (minus certain licensed libraries), polish the
whole thing up and then continue development of Eudora under a new
name. Past adding decent UTF8/Unicode support I can't quickly come up
with anything that would make me consider abandoning Eudora until all
the existing features of Eudora were included, complete with all the
things that go on so seamlessly in the background that make it such a
pleasure to use... and whose absence (and more) doomed the Eudora OSE
effort.

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

Post by Jim H
Yes. And there's an effort going on somewhere to take the now public
Eudora source code (minus certain licensed libraries), polish the
whole thing up and then continue development of Eudora under a new
name. Past adding decent UTF8/Unicode support I can't quickly come up
with anything that would make me consider abandoning Eudora until all
the existing features of Eudora were included, complete with all the
things that go on so seamlessly in the background that make it such a
pleasure to use... and whose absence (and more) doomed the Eudora OSE
effort.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/hermesmail/

... though I've been running Pandora
http://www.drivehq.com/web/brana/pandora.htm since April. Still a bit
clunky in some features (I don't know how well the junk scoring is at
present) and -- strangely for a UTF8 compatible client -- I get some emails
that won't display at all. I've been running Eudora about once every two
weeks (often when I get one of those problem emails -- I'm configured to
leave message on server for 2-3 days, so the other client can snag it),
just to clean thing up...

[Sid Elbow]

Post by Jim H
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 20:37:09 -0500, in

Post by Sid Elbow
When support ended, the original Thunderbird (called Penelope and later
Eudora OSE) was slated to replace it. It was a dog from day one and few
true Eudora users took that option. Eudora OSE was discontinued in 2013
and replaced by Thunderbird (a different client altogether) which has
developed into what is currently offered.

Yes. And there's an effort going on somewhere to take the now public
Eudora source code (minus certain licensed libraries), polish the
whole thing up and then continue development of Eudora under a new
name.

That would be Hermes, which is in progress. The Hermes team has,
however, pre-released an updated copy of qcssl.dll which fixes the main
problem with Eudora in that it doesn't recognise current security
certificates.

This isn't much of a problem for most sites since you can always accept
the certificate manually when it changes - maybe yearly for most sites -
but gmail has taken to changing them every couple of weeks or worse
which has been a thorn in Eudora's side and a significant nuisance for
its users. The new qcssl.dll fixes that.