Re: .DBX files in XP
![PA Bear [MS MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXsf05hH-R8XChS3fXPPzfoO8FYYxAKhT86KfPnIELr3QJ9tQ=s40-c)
PA Bear [MS MVP]
A1. See http://www.insideoe.com/files/store.htm#storemain
A2. When you delete a message from Deleted Items folder, the message
essentially vanishes.
A3. In WindowsXP, the OE user files (DBX and WAB) are marked as hidden by
default. To view these files in Windows Explorer, you must enable Show
Hidden Files and Folders via Start | Control Panel | Folder Options | View
(cf. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial62.html).
General OE Caveats:
- Don't use Inbox or Sent Items to archive messages. Move them to local
folders created for this purpose.
- Empty Deleted Items folder daily.
- Frequently perform a manual compact of all OE folders while "working
offline". More at http://www.insideoe.com/files/maintain.htm
- Do not cancel Automatic Compacting, should it occur, and do not attempt to
close OE via Task Manager or shutdown your machine if Automatic Compacting
is taking place.
- Disable email scanning by your anti-virus application. It can cause
corruption (i.e., loss of messages) and provides no additional protection:
Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
--
OE-specific newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
dennis wrote:
> Just wondering where dbx files are kept in xp???
>
> For instance, when I delete sometrhing from the mail room (o/e) then empty
> the deleted folder in mail room, where do the deleted files end up? I did
> a
> search for .DBX's, but it seems xp doesnt have them whereas win98 does.
jack
Is the said folder for the mail room under the 'windows' hierachy? In 98 it is and comes under
the first heading of 'application data', then you have to drill down to the last folder in the
hierachy to access where all dbx's are kept. (was bill trying to specifically hide something by
doing this?)
Pabear, do you know the exact name of the folder where these files are kept in xp?
Even after allowing all folders and files to be shown, not even a search of '*.dbx' brings up
anything at all..... so just where is this mysterious folder? and why is it treasured so
much that it needs to be hidden from the average user? Personally, once i have deleted a swag of
stuff from the mail room, (say, after about a month) i used to go into 'windows/appdata/' and blah
blah, and simply shred the 'deleted items' dbx file as I knew it got rebuilt next time i went into
o/e.
Sure would like to know where this is stashed now, especially as a 'search files and folders' doesnt
reveal a single dbx on xp even after all advice from links below were administered?
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:um0JIZc3...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Ron Sommer
right click, Paste.
Start, Run, right click, Paste.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Application
Data\Identities\{9754006D-2A61-47BF-8B5D-097A0A6CA84C}\Microsoft\Outlook
Express
--
Ron Sommer
"jack" <in...@box.com> wrote in message
news:u#Xuzzf3J...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
PA Bear [MS MVP]
points out, the location of your current identity's message store (your
"mail room") is revealed via pressing OE Tools | Options | Maintenance |
Store folder <=this button.
In WinXP, the default location is...
C:\Documents and Settings\<User>\Local Settings\Application
Data\Identities\{GUID}\Microsoft\Outlook Express <=this folder
In Win98, the default location is...
C:\Windows\Application Data\Outlook Express\{GUID} <=this folder
...where {GUID} = Global Unique IDentifier (technical jargon for a unique
long series of numbers & letters) used to specify an Identity.
NB: In Win98 (not Win98 SE) with IE4.x installed, OE's message store will
contain MBX and IDX files, not DBX files.
Meanwhile, you should never need to go into your message store and delete
DELETED ITEMS.DBX (or any other DBX file). Simply (a) empty Deleted Items
folder (as well as Sent Items, ideally), then (b) compact all OE folders
(ALT+F+F+F). Doing so will remove all the "wasted space" in DELETED
ITEMS.DBX and reset it back to its default size (~59 KB).
jack wrote:
> I tried that too,, but either way, it doesnt show the dbx folder/file..
> dont know why.
>
> Is the said folder for the mail room under the 'windows' hierachy? In
> 98
> it is and comes under the first heading of 'application data', then you
> have to drill down to the last folder in the hierachy to access where all
> dbx's are kept. (was bill trying to specifically hide something by doing
> this?)
>
> Pabear, do you know the exact name of the folder where these files are
> kept in xp?
>
> Even after allowing all folders and files to be shown, not even a search
> of
> '*.dbx' brings up anything at all..... so just where is this
> mysterious
> folder? and why is it treasured so much that it needs to be hidden
> from
> the average user? Personally, once i have deleted a swag of stuff from
> the mail room, (say, after about a month) i used to go into
> 'windows/appdata/' and blah blah, and simply shred the 'deleted items' dbx
> file as I knew it got rebuilt next time i went into o/e.
> Sure would like to know where this is stashed now, especially as a 'search
> files and folders' doesnt reveal a single dbx on xp even after all advice
> from links below were administered?
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote"
jack
I dont see any post from 'Ron', but if he had input too, then I thank you Ron,, (just cant see any
post)
Now, even though I have the info for finding the 'hidden folder', ( I havent yet gone looking, am
answering post first ) I first want to know why you think simply emptying the delete folder in o/e
makes all things go away,, only by shredding do things go away.
Security the way it is nowadays dictates having something that shreds, not just goes to another file
in another folder.
In a normal case, for instance, if a person gets an email from someone else, then after reading it
decides to delete it, then a week later
decides to empty the delete folder in 0/e, they could or should be confident that said file does not
now exist on their computer,,
but as we both know,, said file is still in a dbx file within 'X' folder,, the one that is
relatively easy to find in 98/98se, but in XP, it
has become like a quest to find for 'proper' deletion.. yes?
Guess thats just the way it is in Big Business,,,, people want to be confident that 'delete'
means 'deleted'? Again, we both know that
isnt so... but I am greatful to you for pointing out where this nasty little file lives.
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ORfCr2g3...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
"defragging" in the OS's filesystem. In the OS deleting only removes
protection from the location the data resides in - and then the
defragging process most likely writes different data there obliterating
the "deleted" data. The "compacting" is similarly important in OE's
store.
"jack" <in...@box.com> wrote in message
news:uWYu3l5...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
PA Bear [MS MVP]
> you think simply emptying the delete folder in o/e makes all things go
> away,, only by shredding do things go away.
Emptying Deleted Items folder deletes its contents, at least as far as your
eyes are concerned. Compacting the corresponding DBX file (i.e., Deleted
Items.dbx) is the equivalent of "shredding" the data it previously
contained. (Until the DBX file is compacted, the deleted data is still
recoverable using one of many "extraction" utilities.)
Here's a link to Ron's reply of the 26th (the 27th on your end):
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/b1bbbd62b67d6d1e
jack wrote:
> Thanks for the info pabear..
> I dont see any post from 'Ron', but if he had input too, then I thank you
> Ron,, (just cant see any post)
>
> Now, even though I have the info for finding the 'hidden folder', ( I
> havent yet gone looking, am answering post first ) I first want to know
> why
> you think simply emptying the delete folder in o/e makes all things go
> away,, only by shredding do things go away.
<snip>
> ...but I am greatful to you for pointing out where this nasty
> little file lives.
Twayne
>> ...I first want to know why
>> you think simply emptying the delete folder in o/e makes all things
>> go away,, only by shredding do things go away.
>
> Emptying Deleted Items folder deletes its contents, at least as far
> as your eyes are concerned. Compacting the corresponding DBX file
> (i.e., Deleted Items.dbx) is the equivalent of "shredding" the data
> it previously contained. (Until the DBX file is compacted, the
> deleted data is still recoverable using one of many "extraction"
> utilities.)
It is not quite the same as "shredding". It is simply replacing the
leading character on the file name; the file and its info all remain
unless/until it's partially or fully overwritten eventually. Shredding
is considered the act of removing the complete data of the deleted file,
not just changing the title to flag it as available space for writing.
Compacting a database simply removes all index references to any
deleted entries and rearranges the entries contiguously; that's goign to
end up on new sectors on the disk and doesn't overwrite the existing,
now available for writing, sectors. Compact sort of means to remove all
wasted space and it's done by copying only data, not empty space, into a
new file and renameing the files accordingly to the new location and
"deleting" the old file.
Twayne`
Tim Meddick
did you happen to say:
> Disable email scanning by your anti-virus application. It can cause
> corruption (i.e., loss of messages) and provides no additional
> protection:
???
I just wondered because my email scanner (an in-built component of AVG Free)
has removed 5 viral attachments from incoming emails over the past two
months. It has never had a negative effect on any other 'legitimate'
emails.
It may be that some email scanners do as you say, but I thought it was a bit
of a sweeping statement to make is all...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejf7Ob63...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Ron Sommer
Even if tried to open them, AVG would have caught them.
It is just a matter of time before you lose a message and you may never know
it.
--
Ron Sommer
"Tim Meddick" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:OaHPV283...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
only removed the attachment (before I even opened the massage) and left the
message for me to read (with the subject line appended with ***VIRUS
FOUND***).
Why do you say something like "It is just a matter of time before you lose a
message "? It's just totally unqualified thing to say!
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Ron Sommer" <rso...@nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message
news:OKI1WA93...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Bruce Hagen
enabled.
If you use Outlook Express, Windows Mail, or Windows Live Mail, you do not
want to use e-mail scanning.
With some anti-virus programs, you can just disable it. With AVG, just
unchecking it in the AVG Security Center usually causes a conflict with the
Windows Security Center. Reinstall AVG and choose Custom Mode. Uncheck
E-mail Scanning when you see that option.
Why don't you need / want it?
Turning off e-mail scanning is safe. See:
Viral Irony: The Most Common Cause of Corruption:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/community/columns/filecorruption.mspx#EOAAC
Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email:
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
Turn off email scanning in your antivirus software:
http://www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3
And this is from Symantec, but applies to all anti-virus programs.
Is my computer still protected against viruses if I disable Email Scanning?
Disabling Email Scanning does not leave you unprotected against viruses that
are distributed as email attachments. Norton AntiVirus Auto-Protect scans
incoming files as they are saved to your hard drive, including email and
email attachments. Email Scanning is just another layer on top of this. To
make sure that Auto-Protect is providing the maximum protection, keep
Auto-Protect enabled and run LiveUpdate regularly to ensure that you have
the most recent virus definitions.
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA
"Tim Meddick" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:OaHPV283...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Tom Willett
:I don't think that I will lose any messages with AVG - up to date, it has
: only removed the attachment (before I even opened the massage) and left
the
: message for me to read (with the subject line appended with ***VIRUS
: FOUND***).
:
: Why do you say something like "It is just a matter of time before you lose
a
: message "? It's just totally unqualified thing to say!
Tell that to the thousands of people it's happened to. This newsgroup is
full of them over the years.
Those that give you the advice know what they're talking about.
I have a boss who said the same as you. Then, after a couple of years of
running it with AVG, he lost everything he had. He's now a believer.
PA Bear [MS MVP]
cf. The Other E-Mail Threat: File Corruption in Outlook Express [dates from
2004 but just as relevant today]
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/community/columns/filecorruption.mspx
--
Tim Meddick
I have just spent the last half-hour testing out what you have said
about AVG catching viruses without the 'Email Scanner' component being
switched on. It does not!
I tried sending a harmless EICAR test virus through webmail to the email
account that my Outlook Express has as it's main mail account.
Firstly with both resident shield AND email scanner turned OFF - the email
and it's attachment got through as if nothing were wrong.
Secondly with resident shield turned on but email scanner still turned OFF -
the email got through just the same!
Lastly, with both resident shield AND email scanner turned ON - the virus
was IDENTIFIED and thrown into the virus vault and the email was marked with
***VIRUS FOUND***
So what two people have said about email scanners not working is obviously
incorrect, so far as AVG goes at any rate.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Ron Sommer" <rso...@nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message
news:OKI1WA93...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Tom Willett
: Ron,
: >>
: >>
:
:
Tim Meddick
You being like cryptic because everyone really knows what you mean - it
being so obvious and all.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Tom Willett" <t...@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote in message
news:%237n2k19...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Ron Sommer
I did not say that the virus email would be stopped. I said the virus would
have been caught when it tried to run.
You can't test the last part of my post, because you would have to run the
same messages through two setups, one scanning email and one not scanning
email.
There are two things things that you should do:
do not open file attachments that you weren't expecting.
show file extensions for all files.
Recently, I received emails with files named .......pdf.exe .
If was not showing file extensions, I would not have known that the
attachment was an exe file.
--
Ron Sommer
"Tim Meddick" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:ufUIyu93...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
before I got them and I have seen no evidence of that happening at all.
Also, even if YOU did not say that AVG Email Scanner was unnecessary, 'P. A.
Bear' has, and I was addressing him in the post that was replied to in the
first place.
AVG Email Scanner does work, I tested it. Yes, I agree, if it had not, then
it's resident shield would have done. But I still disagree that there's any
[real] evidence to say that all email scanners are erroneous when I have one
that works well!
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Ron Sommer" <rso...@nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message
news:OM6L3s%233JH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
> Ron,
> I have just spent the last half-hour testing out what you have
> said about AVG catching viruses without the 'Email Scanner' component
> being switched on. It does not!
>
> I tried sending a harmless EICAR test virus through webmail to the
> email account that my Outlook Express has as it's main mail account.
>
> Firstly with both resident shield AND email scanner turned OFF - the
> email and it's attachment got through as if nothing were wrong.
Did you execute it?
> Secondly with resident shield turned on but email scanner still turned
> OFF - the email got through just the same!
Did you detach and execute it?
> Lastly, with both resident shield AND email scanner turned ON - the
> virus was IDENTIFIED and thrown into the virus vault and the email was
> marked with ***VIRUS FOUND***
>
> So what two people have said about email scanners not working is
> obviously incorrect, so far as AVG goes at any rate.
Not really, if you were able to execute EICAR.COM that would be
different.
Meebers
"FromTheRafters" <erratic @nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:eWvXSQ$3JHA...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
So....are you saying with the email scan turned off, the virus will download
on your computer but will be caught when you try to execute it? conversely,
with the email scanner turned on, the virus will be detected and placed in
the virus vault without any option of being executed. ?
>
>
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
news:uGRN1X$3JHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Yes. The AV will have done its job in both cases. As to whether the
virus vault was used is configurable I believe.
Twayne
> Were you planning on opening the viral attachments?
> Even if tried to open them, AVG would have caught them.
> It is just a matter of time before you lose a message and you may
> never know it.
Actually I have never heard of nor experienced loss of any incoming
messages. It's easy enough to tell when i go in to clean up my webmail
whether there are any there that weren't delivered.
Are you aware of any actual loss of an incoming e-mail? Other than
assumptions, I mean; I'm not saying it doesn't happen but rather that
I'd like to see something supporting it that's all; thought you might
have something based on your comment.
I do know you can have outgoing e-mails go to your Sent Folder as though
they were sent when they never actually left your machine though. That
mechanism, unlike the outgoing process, is easy to understand and is
pretty well documented how it happens. But I've never seen anything
similar about incoming e-mails that explains the reality of the loss.
It's just One of those "things" that sticks in my mind<g>.
I don't allow outgoing to be checked, but I do allow incoming to be
scanned. I realize it's a "second layer of protection" as many like to
call it, but so far I adhere to the "sooner the better" when it's
grabbing malware. No reason it should have to hit the disk to be
discoved later when it can be stopped from even getting onto the disk
and doing who knows what else before it triggers something. There are a
lot of different schools of thought on the subjects, I know.
Cheers,
Twayne`
Twayne
> I don't think that I will lose any messages with AVG - up to date, it
> has only removed the attachment (before I even opened the massage)
> and left the message for me to read (with the subject line appended
> with ***VIRUS FOUND***).
>
> Why do you say something like "It is just a matter of time before you
> lose a message "? It's just totally unqualified thing to say!
I pretty much agree with that, at least in the outgoing direction. As
soon as the mail leaves OE, for example, and gets a nack, it puts the
mail in the Sent Folder. The only trouble is, the message may still be
in the AV queue being scanned when the ack is sent to put it into the
Sent folder. So if the AV takes long enough, things can time out and
when the AV tries to send the message out, the channels have closed and
the message fails to go. Norton will tell you when that happens, but
not all AV does apparently, or the users don't bother to read the
messages; whatever. I only know NOrton for sure.
The other side of that coin is whether your machine can bottle-neck
at the particular time the AV is scanning the message long enough for
the timeouts to happen and the message to go into the ether once the
EHLO part has timed out. On some machines, that happens a lot; on
others, not at all. So in a way it's machine dependent, or more
accurately, machine busy-ness dependent and whether or not it keeps the
connection "alive" while the AV is scanning something. A large graphic
for instance can take a long time to scan. It shows as Sent when the AV
gets it, but may not have anywhere to go to by the time the AV gets to
pass it on to the no longer open but timed out connection.
So as you can see there are quite a few dependencies and
interactions. It's not very common anymore due to design improvements
at least in Norton (I never tested anything else). If you load your cpu
up to near 100% and try to send a large file, it's possible to make it
happen on purpose. I've played with it quite a bit, sending myself
mails.
OTOH, incoming emails, as far as I can tell, do not suffer from the
same problems. Once it's gotten to your memory, the connection means
nothing any longer and timing is a lot less important. I haven't yet
surmised, or experienced, or know of a legitimate experience, where
incoming mail was lost. Once it's into your RAM there isn't much that
can go wrong that you could blame AV for. AFAIK anyway. Thus my
questions in the previous post.
Anyway, that's my 2 �,
Twayne`
Twayne
I don't see any connection possbility at all between "lost everything he
had" and AV issues. Can you clarify that, or give some references of
some kind for backup? I suspect there is a stong bit of fantasy in this
one. Also, that does not add any kind of qualification to the issue; it
merely adds hearsay, and pretty soft hearsay at that.
Twayne`
Twayne
Was that 2004 dated article supposed to support that it's still the same
today? Maybe it is; I don't know. Nor do I care, really, but the point
is, a 2004 dated article says nothing for its relevance today.
I suspect you may be right, I don't know. And I won't be finding out
because I allow the compacts to do their job. My sandbox OTOH has never
had anything moved from the Inbox. It's at 2,4xx messages and counting
in each of two accounts, each reading the same mails. I let it compact
when it wants to, but I keep right on working while it compacts.
I'm waiting for it to crash so I can see whether everything is
actually in the Recycle Bin as they claim it will be for recovery. So
far it won't crash for me!
Stuff happens. Or not.
Twayne`
Twayne`
Twayne
> You did not test what I said.
> I did not say that the virus email would be stopped. I said the
> virus would have been caught when it tried to run.
> You can't test the last part of my post, because you would have to
> run the same messages through two setups, one scanning email and one
> not scanning email.
>
> There are two things things that you should do:
> do not open file attachments that you weren't expecting.
> show file extensions for all files.
>
> Recently, I received emails with files named .......pdf.exe .
> If was not showing file extensions, I would not have known that the
> attachment was an exe file.
You shouldn't be touching attachments unless they are planned and
exptected anyway. And then you scan them with your AV first even if it's
from your best friend. He/she could still be infected and not know it,
and be passing it on to you.
Rule of thumb: Ignore any attachment you don't expect and don't know
what is suppoesed to be in it by pre-planning. Or at least ask the
sender if they sent it, if you know who they are. Never touch any
attachment from anhyone you don't know. Even if you send an attachment
to yourself, you still need to scan it before you open it. You could be
infected covertly like anyone else. Actually that's a good way to test
that very premise.
Twayne`
Ron Sommer
Due to the way data is stored in a dbx file, any corruption can cause the
whole file or just parts of the file to be lost. Why increase the chance of
corrupting a dbx file by scanning incoming email?
--
Ron Sommer
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OvywsPA4...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Doug W.
allowed incoming scanning for the last dozen years or so with NO
corruption. There is more danger of corruption with .dbx files
while adding and deletion of data or compacting while initiating
or completing other computer procedures or functions IMHO.
I was told that .dbx files are similar to the old RELATIVE files
used twenty or thirty years ago which were definitely prone to
corruption.
Doug W.
======
"Ron Sommer" <rso...@nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message
news:OQu3F4A4...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Bruce Hagen
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/community/columns/filecorruption.mspx#EOAAC
Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email:
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA
"Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote in message
news:eIOc7pH4...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Twayne
> I don't see where I mentioned losing an incoming message.
> Due to the way data is stored in a dbx file, any corruption can cause
> the whole file or just parts of the file to be lost. Why increase
> the chance of corrupting a dbx file by scanning incoming email?
I'd say asking if someone were going to open attachments pretty much
related to incoming mail, right?
I can 't dispute the implication of your question and you're certainly
welcome to your own opinion. Where I'm coming from is I have never had
incoming AV scans create any problems with incoming and haven't found
any verifiable evidence of it having happened, or a method by which it
could happen. Outgoing mail is another story - that mechanism is fairly
well understood.
Twayne`
Twayne
nothing in those links about the actual methods of how it happens, just
references to it happening. There is little there that hasn't already
been discussed here. I suspect Tom Koch knows less about it than the
people here discussing it.
Twayne`
Bruce Hagen wrote:
> Viral Irony: The Most Common Cause of Corruption:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/community/columns/filecorruption.mspx#EOAAC
>
> Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email:
> http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
>
Twayne
incoming mail; I am after the mechanism by which damage could be caused.
Incoming AV scans do the work on the files/attachments BEFORE they reach
the .dbx, not while they're in the .dbx. AVware places itself between
the client's reader and the internet ports. So, all they're feeding
in is a cleaned version of the original e-mail. Removing an attachment,
which is only one aspect of the overall picture, does nothing that could
harm a .dbx file. It sends a stream of data, not commands, to a
database file. Which, by the way, when the structure is known, is
pretty easy to read, in contrast to the article's claims which are
really for the guy on the street.
If you have anything better, I'd love to see the URL, regardless of
which way it goes; the way I think it does, or the way you think it
does. There are a lot about outgoing scans but none I can find yet
about the mechs of incoming scans.
Twayne`
Bruce Hagen wrote:
> Viral Irony: The Most Common Cause of Corruption:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/community/columns/filecorruption.mspx#EOAAC
>
> Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email:
> http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
>
Tim Meddick
everything in the article IS still relevant today as it is
discussing OE 6 although, all of the points covered are still true for OE 5.
One thing Mark does not make a point of saying. That with all of this
'worry' over any 'tiny' corruption making your .DBX folders unfunctionable -
an obvious measure, it seems to me, would be to BACKUP all your .dbx folder
files to another location. Thus, if there were such a corruption stopping
OE from opening a folder or folders, then, simply close OE, restore the .dbx
files to the 'root store folder' and finally re-open OE again - fixed!
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uq7dkbA4...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
saying was that the 'second' level of protection that the email scanner[s]
provide is erroneous as you AV[G] would catch the viral attachment on
opening it (via the resident portion of an AV) and so asking the question -
"so what was the point of email scanners?"
I am finding it quite hard to verbalise what I feel to be true about
this. My [AVG] email scanner caught the virus on arrival to my inbox, and
duly quarantined them.
I feel, for whatever reason, that this is a better situation than
allowing viral attachments to sit there, unmarked, still as attachments,
still on my computer. If for no other reason, I am made aware of a
potential attack, at the time it arrived, so I can investigate the source
of it, as I sometimes like to do (such as imposter emails from, supposedly,
'Microsoft').
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:etiAGWA...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
Saying exactly that!
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Meebers" <Jus...@Idontknow.com> wrote in message
news:uGRN1X$3JHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
Tim Meddick
Yes, configurable.
'Virus Vault' or 'Quarantine' can stand for any of the user-defined
options as to what is done with the infected file when one is detected.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"FromTheRafters" <erratic @nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:OpYY1l$3JHA...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Doug W.
==========
"Bruce Hagen" <Nos...@mymail.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23e3VIrH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Bruce Hagen
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA
"Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote in message
news:eghBcLL4...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Twayne
> Twayne,
> everything in the article IS still relevant today as it is
> discussing OE 6 although, all of the points covered are still true
> for OE 5. One thing Mark does not make a point of saying. That
> with all of this 'worry' over any 'tiny' corruption making your .DBX
> folders unfunctionable - an obvious measure, it seems to me, would be
> to BACKUP all your .dbx folder files to another location. Thus, if
> there were such a corruption stopping OE from opening a folder or
> folders, then, simply close OE, restore the .dbx files to the 'root
> store folder' and finally re-open OE again - fixed!
> ==
>
> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
True enough. My nightly incrementals always catch the last of it, plus I
run OEBackup on a schdule, along with other things like System State,
Office Settings, etc., just because they're more convenient to get at
that way if they're needed for restoration. I've restored the System
State a time or two but fortunately never needed any of the rest of it.
The combo of IE8 and DOTnet recently gave me the "opportunity" to
restore a drive image<g>. They came up in the updates & I thought I'd
give them a try; it was a mistake<g>.
It's actually handiest to back up to a DVD for the "specials", IMO.
I use ten RWs and just keep rotating them as time goes on. It takes
just about a DVD/month most of the time.
For special, almost realtime backups, I use XXCopy.exe from
xxcopy.com on my dev projects, etc., where I might make two or three
backups a day at times of those processes. Lots faster & cleaner than
running another incremental for just a few important files. I like
XXCopy because it's easy to not copy unchanged files, doesn't depend on
Archive bits, plus adds date/time to the ones that do get copied.
I'm also setting up two externals for some redundancy; lost an
external awhile back and did lose some archives it took a long time to
find & replace them all. Also once a month a Full goes to DVDs and then
into the firesafe. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives.
It's all a matter of how paranoid one wants to be.
TWayne`
Richard
news:u%23Xuzzf3...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I tried that too,, but either way, it doesnt show the dbx folder/file..
>dont know why.
To whom it may concern:
To see hidden files while browsing through folders:
Start> Settings> Control Panel> Folder Options> View>
(or from within a folder:) Tools> Folder Options> View>
Check-mark: * Show hidden files and folders
To -SEARCH- for hidden files, whether shown or hidden:
Hold windows logo key and press F
or
Start> Search> For Files or Folders
or
(while in any folder) press F3 key
In Search Companion, In Advanced Options
Check-mark: * Search hidden files and folders
After you find your hidden "Local Settings" folder:
Documents and Settings\[YourUserName]\Local Settings
Within Local Settings, right-click the hidden folder "Application Data"
Click: Create Shortcut
(You may want to right-click and Rename it with a shorter name.)
(For the "Next" thing to work, you may need to Right-click Start, choose
Properties, choose Customize, and in Advanced Start Menu Items, Check-mark:
*Enable dragging and dropping, and click OK, OK.)
Next:
Left mouse button click and drag that new shortcut to your Start button,
hold it there and wait, the Start Menu will appear, then while still holding
your mouse button, move to (All) Programs, pick a place between links on the
next panel, or hold over any subfolder item until the next panel opens, and
"drop" it where you want it. (Note, while "drag" hovering over the menu, a
horizontal line will appear in BETWEEN the 2 nearest menu locations - THAT
is where it will appear when you drop it. Note also that if you move to the
top of a panel, the horizontal line moves above the top item. It doesn't
matter which sub menu you put it in as long as you can remember where it is.
Note further that after you start to drag something, you can press ESC key
to cancel the drag. You can delete the shortcut you made in your Local
Settings folder, or leave it as a way to access the hidden folder when it is
hidden. It's harder to accidently delete hidden files and folders. :)
Now you can uncheck the Advanced Options> "Search hidden files and folders"
option, and if you need to access or search for stuff in your Application
Data folder, simply click that new shortcut on the Start Menu, and when the
folder opens, you can click down through sub folders, or press F3 key to
activate search from within that hidden folder, and find things like "*.dbx"
without the "Search hidden..." option turned on.
You're welcome. --Richard
Richard
(search system folders and search subfolders,) then to find hidden files,
you may need to click Advanced Options and put a check mark in the "Search
hidden files and folders" option. See other messages in this thread for
other reasons why you might not find any DBX files.
--Richard
"jack" <in...@box.com> wrote in message
news:u%23Xuzzf3...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I tried that too,, but either way, it doesnt show the dbx folder/file..
>dont know why.
>
> Is the said folder for the mail room under the 'windows' hierachy? In
> 98 it is and comes under
> the first heading of 'application data', then you have to drill down to
> the last folder in the
> hierachy to access where all dbx's are kept. (was bill trying to
> specifically hide something by
> doing this?)
>
> Pabear, do you know the exact name of the folder where these files are
> kept in xp?
>
> Even after allowing all folders and files to be shown, not even a search
> of '*.dbx' brings up
> anything at all..... so just where is this mysterious folder? and
> why is it treasured so
> much that it needs to be hidden from the average user? Personally, once
> i have deleted a swag of
> stuff from the mail room, (say, after about a month) i used to go into
> 'windows/appdata/' and blah
> blah, and simply shred the 'deleted items' dbx file as I knew it got
> rebuilt next time i went into
> o/e.
> Sure would like to know where this is stashed now, especially as a 'search
> files and folders' doesnt
> reveal a single dbx on xp even after all advice from links below were
> administered?
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:um0JIZc3...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> [Crosspost to OE General]
>>
>> A1. See http://www.insideoe.com/files/store.htm#storemain
>>
>> A2. When you delete a message from Deleted Items folder, the message
>> essentially vanishes.
>>
>> A3. In WindowsXP, the OE user files (DBX and WAB) are marked as hidden by
>> default. To view these files in Windows Explorer, you must enable Show
>> Hidden Files and Folders via Start | Control Panel | Folder Options |
>> View
[end]
Panic
on the Store Folder button. Highlight and Copy the location there. Now, on
your desktop, click on Start...Run... Paste that location there and click
OK.
It will take you to those DBX files. Make sure you have Explorer set to
show hidden files.
"Richard" <ric...@avbtab.org> wrote in message
news:eVTagcN5...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...