Duplicate Messages when attaching pictures

[Dave]

I am using Windows XP Home SP3

Whenever I send a photo by Email, I Right Click on the file and select Send
To | Mail Recipient.

The recipient of this is receiving duplicate copies of the email message
containing the attached picture. I tried sending one to myself to see if I
got the same results and I did. One message sent . . . two duplicate
messages received.

I also send pictures from Picasa with the same results.

I would appreciate any suggestions for correcting this.

I tried the Windows XP Newsgroup but they thought it would be better to post
the question here.

--
Dave

[Bruce Hagen]

1: Tools | Accounts | Mail | Properties | Advanced. Uncheck: "Break apart
messages........".

2: Turn off e-mail scanning in your anti-virus program. It is a redundant
layer of protection that eats up CPUs, slows down sending and receiving, and
causes a multitude of problems such as time-outs, account setting changes
and has even been responsible for loss of messages. Your up-to-date A/V
program will continue to protect you sufficiently. For more, see:
http://www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3

Note that for some AV programs, it may be necessary to uninstall the program
and reinstall in Custom Mode and uncheck e-mail scanning when the option
arises.

3: If the problem remains:

Create a new Outbox, and Sent Items folder.

Do the following for the Outbox, and Sent Items after you move any messages
you wish to save to a local folder you create.

Tools | Options | Maintenance | Store Folder will reveal the location of
your Outlook Express files. Write the location down and navigate to it in
Windows Explorer or, copy and paste it into Start | Run.

In WinXP, Win2K & Win2K3, the OE user files (DBX and WAB) are by default
marked as hidden. To view these files in Windows Explorer, you must enable
Show Hidden Files and Folders under Start | Control Panel | Folder Options
Icon | View, or in Windows Explorer | Tools | Folder Options | View.

With OE closed, find the Outbox.dbx and Sent Items.dbx file and delete them.
New files will be created automatically when you open OE.

To help prevent this in the future:

Do not archive mail in the Inbox or Sent Items. Create your own user defined
folders and move the messages you wish to save to them. Empty Deleted Items
folder daily. Although dbx files have a theoretical capacity of 2GB, I
recommend about a 300MB max for less chance of corruption.

Information about the maximum file size of the .dbx files that are used by
Outlook Express:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=903095

After you are done, follow up by compacting your folders manually while
working *offline* and do it often.

Click on Outlook Express at the top of the folder tree so no folders are
open. Then: File | Work Offline (or double click Working Online in the
Status Bar). File | Folder | Compact all folders. Don't touch anything until
the compacting is completed.

Turn off e-mail scanning in your anti-virus program. It is a redundant layer
of protection that eats up CPUs and causes a multitude of problems such as
time-outs and account setting changes. Your up-to-date A/V program will
continue to protect you sufficiently. For more, see:
http://www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3

In Tools | Options | Maintenance: Uncheck Compact messages in background and
leave it unchecked. {N/A if running XP/SP2 or SP3}.
--

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA

"Dave" <leedav...@myispotelco.net> wrote in message
news:ONTNXdT6...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Dave]

Thanks Bruce . . . but, still no joy. I've tried all three suggestions and
still get duplicate email messages when I send pictures.

By the way, I never archive mail in the Inbox or Sent Box . . . I clear
those out every day. And, my Delete folder is set to be emptied
automatically when I go off line. Also, I compact my folders at least three
times per week. And, I restarted my system after making the suggested
changes.

I thought my AV program might have re-set itself to scan emails but it had
not.

I will keep trying to find a solution but this seems to be another of those
problems which are completely beyond my understanding. It's tough to get
old. ;o) (That is, if you consider 81 to be old)

Thanks again.

Dave

"Bruce Hagen" <Nos...@mymail.invalid> wrote in message
news:OiPNPkT6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Bruce Hagen]

Just out of curiosity, open a new message window and on the Menu Bar: Insert
| File Attachment and send it to yourself. Do you see the same behavior as
when you right click on the picture and Send To | Mail Recipient?

If you do not, try your method in a new identity.
--

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA

"Dave" <leedav...@myispotelco.net> wrote in message

news:uMo2xTU6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Dave]

When inserted as a file attachment the message is delivered only once.
However, the picture is so large you have to scroll back and forth to be
able to see it. Or, save it and open with another utility.

I tried a new identity but could not get it to connect to the internet.

That's enough frustration for one day . . . maybe I'll get back to this
another day.

Thanks for your help. It is appreciated.

Dave

"Bruce Hagen" <Nos...@mymail.invalid> wrote in message

news:OY0SxXU6...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Gerry]

Dave

http://snurl.com/jsjnh [www_google_co_uk]

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dave" <leedav...@myispotelco.net> wrote in message

news:%23JJXktU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

If (1) "Break apart messages larger than..." is not enabled, (2) you've
disabled outgoing (and incoming) email scanning and (3) the recipients still
see this behavior, the problem is not on your end.

Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002

[Dave]

"the problem is not on your end"

Do you mean this is a problem with my ISP or a problem with the recipient's
computer?

Dave

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23HP$TcW6JH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> If (1) "Break apart messages larger than..." is not enabled, (2) you've
> disabled outgoing (and incoming) email scanning and (3) the recipients

> still see this behavior, .the problem is not on your end

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

I dunno but it has nothing to do with OE or your computer (unless Conditions
#1 and #2 do not apply)...or if you don't see duplicates when you send
yourself such a message.

[Gerry]

Bear

You have not read the whole thread. Your statement does not reconcile to
this statement by Dave in his original post?

"I tried sending one to myself to see if I
got the same results and I did. "

A Google search suggest a Blackberry might be involved.
http://snurl.com/jsjnh [www_google_co_uk]

This has similarities to the problems that used to be common with
Hotmail.
http://email.about.com/od/outlookexpresstroubles/qt/et_duplicates.htm

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

But we don't know if he'd disabled incoming & outgoing email scanning when
he posted that.

Gerry wrote:
> Bear
>
> You have not read the whole thread. Your statement does not reconcile to
> this statement by Dave in his original post?
>
> "I tried sending one to myself to see if I
> got the same results and I did. "
>
> A Google search suggest a Blackberry might be involved.
> http://snurl.com/jsjnh [www_google_co_uk]
>
> This has similarities to the problems that used to be common with
> Hotmail.
> http://email.about.com/od/outlookexpresstroubles/qt/et_duplicates.htm
>
>
>

[Dave]

Yes, I had disabled email scanning prior to that.

I have asked my ISP to check into this to see if there might be a problem at
their end. When I sent one message it goes up on their webmail site as two
messages.

What would I do if I didn't have these little problems to keep me busy?
;o)

Dave

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:uZsUWcf6...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Gerry]

Bear

You know I do not share your views about scanning incoming mail. My own
experience using AVG Free over many years has never supported your
claims.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gerry]

Dave

How are the pictures being produced? Are they being imported from a
conventional digital camera or from a mobile phone. Are you sending
using Outlook Express and using a POP3, an IMAP or other type of
account?

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

What AV app & version is installed, Dave?

Was a Norton or McAfee app ever installed on the computer (e.g., a
free-trial that was preinstalled when you bought it)?

Dave wrote:
> Yes, I had disabled email scanning prior to that.
>
> I have asked my ISP to check into this to see if there might be a problem
> at
> their end. When I sent one message it goes up on their webmail site as two
> messages.
>
> What would I do if I didn't have these little problems to keep me busy?
> ;o)
>
> Dave
>

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

You'll change your tune, just like everybody else, once archived messages
disappear. Let's stay On-topic, please.

Gerry wrote:
> Bear
>
> You know I do not share your views about scanning incoming mail. My own
> experience using AVG Free over many years has never supported your
> claims.
>
>
>

[Gerry]

Bear

Well it's had 10 years to happen and it hasn't happened yet and it's not
as though I am a casual user!

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gerry wrote:
> Bear
>
> You know I do not share your views about scanning incoming mail. My
> own experience using AVG Free over many years has never supported your
> claims.
>
>
>

[Bruce Hagen]

And there are plenty of people that have smoked for 50 years will no ill
effects. But should they recommend smoking to others? You're just one of the
lucky ones and God willing you will remain one of the lucky ones.
--

~Bruce

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e6hHe5i6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Dave]

I am using Trend Micro Internet Security ver. 16.60.0.1092.

Neither Norton nor McAfee have ever been installed on this computer. I have
used the Trend Micro since the computer was new. My Dell computer came with
a 15 month license for Trend Micro.

Thanks for your perseverance. I am grateful.

Dave

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23v2W9Hi...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

<koff> You talkin' to me?

Bruce Hagen wrote:
> And there are plenty of people that have smoked for 50 years will no ill
> effects. But should they recommend smoking to others? You're just one of
> the
> lucky ones and God willing you will remain one of the lucky ones.
>

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

If you very briefly reboot into Safe Mode with Networking and then send
yourself such a message again, do you see the same behavior (i.e., duplicate
messages) when you view the received message via the webmail page? ...in
OE?

NB: Reboot into normal (Windows) mode immediately after the message has left
your Outbox!

Has the "Break apart messages larger than..." option ever been
enabled/checked, Dave?

[Gerry]

Bruce

Bear and others have been living out on this after dinner speech for
years. Those making these claims never identify the precise reason why
scanning is supposed to wrongly remove incoming mail. They merely assert
it does. Loss of incoming mail can be for any number of reasons as the
path from sender to recipient is a tortuous route. Individual cases
where loss occurs can be difficult to investigate because parts of the
route are controlled by third parties. You can question third parties
but they are reluctant for commercial reasons to admit their activities
have caused the problem even when it seems obvious they have.

Whenever I have investigated loss of mail there have been other more
plausible explanations for what has occured.Of course all security
software is prone to false positive errors but it is also a convenient
explanation for something not readily explainable. In the past I have
observed scanning of incoming email and seen it intercept and place the
offending virus bearing mail in a virus vault. However, whilst
Internet Service Providers now have more sophisticated anti-virus
measures in place the distributors of malware are now more likely to
achieve their purpose by other means.

The basis for blaming scanning originates from circa 2000/2001 and
centres on Norton. The advocates of not scanning place great importance
on an article issued by Symantec. Norton are blamed for many computer
problems and many of these complaints would seem well founded. The
resource demands by Norton products are well known and they do puts
systems under pressure. System errors occur in stress situations, often
brought about by user intervention initiated as a result of user
frustration. Not all security software creates so great resource demands
but it is difficult for users to know how much this factor contributes
to outcomes and in what ways. Another consideration is that competing
anti-virus software may employ similar but not necessarily identical
methods when scanning. The incidence of false positives and how these
situations are handled will vary from one product to another. Thus
problems caused by scanning by one or more products are used as evidence
to blame all. I am unconvinced by the evidence.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bruce Hagen wrote:
> And there are plenty of people that have smoked for 50 years will no
> ill effects. But should they recommend smoking to others? You're just
> one of the lucky ones and God willing you will remain one of the
> lucky ones.

[Dave]

In Safe Mode, the message was only delivered once. I rebooted into normal
(Windows) mode but, by the time I got there, the In box was empty. . .
because the message had already been delivered.

The "Break apart messages larger than . . . " option is NOT and has NEVER
BEEN enabled/checked.

Are we getting closer . . . ;o)

Dave

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OUwIENj6...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Bruce Hagen]

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
--

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:%23mkw3Gn...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[Gerry]

Bruce

Two of those links were written over 5 years ago. I am not sure when the
Thunderbird article was written.

The views of Tom Koch carry a lot of weight here. He greatly influenced
my views on Outlook Express and I exchanged messages with him many times
over several years but that was over 8 years ago. The Article was
written in 2004 some time after he had ceased to contribute to these
newsgroups. His understanding of Outlook Express was far above those of
his contemporaries and Steve Cochran was a contemporary. No one since
has been able to emulate Tom's grasp of the subject.

The explanations given by Tom make interesting reading but I detect a
possible flaw. He fails to explain how scanning of incoming email
corrupts dbx files. Scanning takes place before the message reachs the
dbx file. If the anti-virus programme removes the infected email how can
the anti-virus software corrupt the dbx folder? It does not need to
consider the folder where the message would otherwise have been placed.

Tom also argues that the scanning of incoming email provides no
additional protection and therefore is unecessary. This case is well put
but I prefer not to allow malware to take up residence on my computer,
even if the anti-virus programme should detect it if the attachment is
opened.

I remain unconvinced that the scanning of incoming mail corrupts dbx
folders. Where some doubt remains in my mind is whether corruption can
occur if the anti-virus software senses a virus in the inbox i.e.before
the attachment is opened. I also wonder whether the anti-virus software
can respond quickly enough when an infected attachment is opened whilst
a full system scan is in progress. Many security programmes put systems
under severe pressure when system scans are in progress. Response times
to keyboard and mouse commands can be woefully slow. This could be all
the time that is needed for the security software to be disabled. If the
infected attachment has been removed before it has taken up residence on
the computer then this possibility can not arise.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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
>
> Turn off email scanning in your antivirus software:
> http://www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx#3
>

[@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters]

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e6hHe5i6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Well it's had 10 years to happen and it hasn't happened yet and it's

> not as though I am a casual user!

True enough, but one person's 10 years of experience does not negate one
persons single year of helping people who *have* had issues with e-mail
scanning. Just how many years of that type of experience would it take
to validate other's experiences in your mind. I agree with you in a
sense, but having witnessed many folks who's experience was outside of
my own experience having issues with it I believe it is worth mentioning
to folks that e-mail scanning may create problems.

I don't scan e-mail, but not out of fear of losing any data or excessive
time-outs, rather just because it is unneeded fluff.

[Dave]

This is all very interesting but what does it have to do with my problem of
having my messages containing pictures duplicated? My AV scanning is and has
been turned off and this is not the problem.

We seem to have strayed a little bit.

Dave

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:%2342QDor...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Dave]

I have tried everything I know and have followed the advice of everyone who
has tried to help. Additionally I ran sfc /scannow to verify that all
protected Windows files are intact and in their original versions, and
chkdsk to repair any disk problems, . . . both with no indication of any
problem.

In the past I have been able to "repair" the OE installation through the
Add/Remove Programs Folder . . . I can't do that because OE does not appear
in my Add/Remove Programs list.

My ISP tells me the problem is breaking the message apart, even though this
is not checked. They said, "This is the part of this message that leads me
to believe that it is breaking the message apart. "Content-Type:
multipart/mixed;"

Another bit of information, I have discovered that I can re-boot my system
and the first time I send a message containing a picture it is successful
and only sends one copy. When I try to send another one it goes back to
duplicating the message.

I'm still searching.

Dave

"FromTheRafters" <erratic @nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:%23RZzhbt...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters]

"Dave" <leedav...@myispotelco.net> wrote in message

news:ei3%23%23vu6J...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>I have tried everything I know and have followed the advice of everyone
>who has tried to help. Additionally I ran sfc /scannow to verify that
>all protected Windows files are intact and in their original versions,
>and chkdsk to repair any disk problems, . . . both with no indication
>of any problem.
>
> In the past I have been able to "repair" the OE installation through
> the Add/Remove Programs Folder . . . I can't do that because OE does
> not appear in my Add/Remove Programs list.

Haven't checked lately, but IIRC it *used* to be under the wing of the
IE repair install - that is it was covered as an Internet Explorer
component or some such thing.

> My ISP tells me the problem is breaking the message apart, even though
> this is not checked. They said, "This is the part of this message that
> leads me to believe that it is breaking the message apart.
> "Content-Type: multipart/mixed;"

I don't think so - that just means that you have different sections in
the body - one for text, one for HTML, one for an attachment etc...

> Another bit of information, I have discovered that I can re-boot my
> system and the first time I send a message containing a picture it is
> successful and only sends one copy. When I try to send another one it
> goes back to duplicating the message.
>
> I'm still searching.

It seems like an odd problem - I would suggest you stick with PA Bear on
this one seeing as he seems to be onto something with the "safe mode"
question and your answer. These guys really know their stuff, but
debates pop up out of nowhere. :oD

[Gerry]

Dave

You never responded to this thought.

http://snurl.com/jsjnh [www_google_co_uk]

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gerry]

Scanning takes place before the message reachs the
dbx file. If the anti-virus programme removes the infected email how can
the anti-virus software corrupt the dbx folder? It does not need to
consider the folder where the message would otherwise have been placed.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters]

I don't know, and if you find out (as far as I'm concerned) feel free to
share the information here. As far as I can tell just from posts I've
read, OE's dbx files corrupt at the slightest provocation. So, in this
case, it seems to me to not a problem with the AV but more a problem
with OE - without placing blame on either, you can work around this
incompatibility by not installing e-mail scanning (which is just fluff
anyway).

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:%23BFz5Ov...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

<plonk>

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Yes, we're getting closer. (And please ignore Gerry's OT rambles & rants.)

Tip: Also disable the Anti-Spam module in your Trend Micro suite, please.
Anti-spam apps (and especially Trend Micro's) do NOT play well with OE!

The test result gives us two (2) possible culprits:

1. One or more processes running in the background in normal (Windows) mode,
but not in Safe Mode; or...

2. A corrupt identity.

If you're lucky, it's #2. Proceed as follows:

� Create a new identity via File | Identities | Add new identity.

NB: Do NOT rename the "Main Identity" and do NOT include the word "main" in
your new identity's name.

� Configure your email account in the new identity and make certain that the
"Break apart..." option is NOT enabled (and that email scanning and the
anti-spam component are both disabled)

� Send a test message (i.e., one with a large attached pic) to yourself
using the new identity.

� Assuming the behavior is NOT seen in the new identity, (1) compact all
folders in the old identity, (2) import messages from the old identity into
the new one (cf. http://www.insideoe.com/faqs/how.htm#importOE5), and then
(3) delete the old one (File | Identities | Manage Identities).
--
~PA Bear

Dave wrote:
> In Safe Mode, the message was only delivered once. I rebooted into normal
> (Windows) mode but, by the time I got there, the In box was empty. . .
> because the message had already been delivered.
>
> The "Break apart messages larger than . . . " option is NOT and has NEVER
> BEEN enabled/checked.
>
> Are we getting closer . . . ;o)
>

[Gerry]

Bear

You introduced the subject of email scanning not me! The Whitehall spin
doctors could teach you little!

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> Yes, we're getting closer. (And please ignore Gerry's OT rambles &
> rants.)
> Tip: Also disable the Anti-Spam module in your Trend Micro suite,
> please. Anti-spam apps (and especially Trend Micro's) do NOT play
> well with OE!
> The test result gives us two (2) possible culprits:
>
> 1. One or more processes running in the background in normal
> (Windows) mode, but not in Safe Mode; or...
>
> 2. A corrupt identity.
>
> If you're lucky, it's #2. Proceed as follows:
>
> � Create a new identity via File | Identities | Add new identity.
>
> NB: Do NOT rename the "Main Identity" and do NOT include the word
> "main" in your new identity's name.
>
> � Configure your email account in the new identity and make certain
> that the "Break apart..." option is NOT enabled (and that email
> scanning and the anti-spam component are both disabled)
>
> � Send a test message (i.e., one with a large attached pic) to
> yourself using the new identity.
>
> � Assuming the behavior is NOT seen in the new identity, (1) compact
> all folders in the old identity, (2) import messages from the old
> identity into the new one (cf.
> http://www.insideoe.com/faqs/how.htm#importOE5), and then (3) delete
> the old one (File | Identities | Manage Identities).

[Gerry]

Bear

That's your typical response when someone challenges your views with a
reasoned alternative explanation.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Ron Sommer]

I don't see how logging in to Safe Mode and not having the problem suggests
that the problem could be a corrupt Identity.
If you logged in to a different Windows user, then you would be using a
different Identity.
--
Ron Sommer

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OLXBsiy6...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Dave]

That's because all of the articles at that Link are about the Blackberry . .
. which I don't have and don't know anything about.

Dave

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:%23owF5Ov...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Dave]

AHA . . . the solution was, apparently in your Tip: below . . . "Anti-spam
apps (and especially Trend Micro's) do NOT play well with OE!" I had skipped
that in my first reading of your message but, since I had already tried the
"New identity" idea, I decided to re-read your message carefully.

I turned the Anti-Spam module off and have been sending emailed pictures
with no duplication.

I have sent eight pictures with no duplication.

I have used the Newsgroups for several years and you guys always come
through for me. When you're 81 years old it's important to know where to go
when you need help.

Thank you.

Dave

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OLXBsiy6...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Yes, we're getting closer. (And please ignore Gerry's OT rambles &
> rants.)
>
> Tip: Also disable the Anti-Spam module in your Trend Micro suite, please.
> Anti-spam apps (and especially Trend Micro's) do NOT play well with OE!
>
> The test result gives us two (2) possible culprits:
>
> 1. One or more processes running in the background in normal (Windows)
> mode, but not in Safe Mode; or...
>
> 2. A corrupt identity.
>
> If you're lucky, it's #2. Proceed as follows:
>

> � Create a new identity via File | Identities | Add new identity.

>
> NB: Do NOT rename the "Main Identity" and do NOT include the word "main"
> in your new identity's name.
>

> � Configure your email account in the new identity and make certain that

> the "Break apart..." option is NOT enabled (and that email scanning and
> the anti-spam component are both disabled)
>

> � Send a test message (i.e., one with a large attached pic) to yourself
> using the new identity.
>
> � Assuming the behavior is NOT seen in the new identity, (1) compact all

[Gerry]

Dave

That's all you needed to say.

Glad the problem was nothing to do with email scanning <G>.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

That's amazing! It's hard to believe that the anti-spam component would
have any effect on messages being sent.

YW, Dave, and I'm glad we got it sorted.

>> � Create a new identity via File | Identities | Add new identity.

>>
>> NB: Do NOT rename the "Main Identity" and do NOT include the word "main"
>> in your new identity's name.
>>

>> � Configure your email account in the new identity and make certain that

>> the "Break apart..." option is NOT enabled (and that email scanning and
>> the anti-spam component are both disabled)
>>

>> � Send a test message (i.e., one with a large attached pic) to yourself
>> using the new identity.
>>
>> � Assuming the behavior is NOT seen in the new identity, (1) compact all

[@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters]

Okay...

1) Create rule from message
2) Where the From line contains people
3) Mark as color [maroon seems to fit]

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:OCJT0126...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Gerry]

One factor about scanning incoming mail is that if a file with a large
attachment is being downloaded then the receive operation takes
significantly longer. Some users of Outlook Express use automatic send
and receive options and these take place in the background leaving the
user unaware that they are going on. This means that the user can close
Outlook Express and / or shut down the computer without allowing the
receive operation to complete. Normally the system can handle
uncompleted operations but a frustrated user can do anything in this
type of situation. Loss of mail is then blamed on email scanning when it
is more properly attributed to user error, albeit in many cases
unwittingly.

Use of background synchronisation methods, as explained, may be
responsible for causing user error. In Outlook Express there is Send and
Receceive at Start Up and, perhaps more likely to cause a problem,
"Check for new messages every XX minutes". Use of the options means that
users can easily interupt these operations without being aware that they
have done so. I have always prefer to manually Send and Receive and this
may account for my having no problems with the scanning of incoming
mail.

On the question as to whether scanning is unnecessary fluff I would
answer it may be. However, I wonder whether the anti-virus software can

respond quickly enough when an infected attachment is opened whilst a
full system scan is in progress. Many security programmes put systems
under severe pressure when system scans are in progress. Response times
to keyboard and mouse commands can be woefully slow. This could be all
the time that is needed for the security software to be disabled. If the
infected attachment has been removed before it has taken up residence on
the computer then this possibility can not arise.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gerry]

<VBG>

Would not work given that all my incoming newsgroup messages are already
coloured red!

What does hot air do? It rises. In a house in hot weather where does it
concentrate? Under the r........ <G>

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters]

"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:u2aGq%23$6JHA...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[...]

> On the question as to whether scanning is unnecessary fluff I would
> answer it may be.

Unlike most others in the 'don't scan e-mail' camp, I avoid labelling it
as *completely* worthless. One case is where the subject malware
exploits a software vulnerability (possibly in the e-mail client
software itself) to run abitrary code. Another is where some other
reason exists for failure of the "on-access" module to detect it (as you
pointed out).

[...]

[Gerry]

As I have said I am not convinced. Equally I cannot deny that scanning
may result in loss of messages. The evidence to justify either
conclusion is never produced.

I feel that the opportunity for user error is greater if email is
scanned as this prolongs downloading thereby increasing the opportunity
for a user to take action not knowing that a process is in progress in
the background. On my computer you are only reminded of the scanning if
a large attachment is included in the download.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

None of us (MVPs) have called email scanning worthless. A redundant
"feechur" & overly-hyped, scare-the-bejesus-out-of-you marketing gimmick
from the late 20th Century, perhaps, but not worthless. <VBEG>
--
~PA�

[@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters]

Yes, MVPs seem to know better than to say that. :o)

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:eYgq4Fs7...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> None of us (MVPs) have called email scanning worthless. A redundant
> "feechur" & overly-hyped, scare-the-bejesus-out-of-you marketing
> gimmick from the late 20th Century, perhaps, but not worthless. <VBEG>
> --

> ~PA�

>
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> On the question as to whether scanning is unnecessary fluff I would
>>> answer it may be.
>>
>> Unlike most others in the 'don't scan e-mail' camp, I avoid labelling
>> it
>> as *completely* worthless. One case is where the subject malware
>> exploits a software vulnerability (possibly in the e-mail client
>> software itself) to run abitrary code. Another is where some other
>> reason exists for failure of the "on-access" module to detect it (as
>> you
>> pointed out).
>>
>> [...]

--

See top posted response - theoretically PA Bear won't even see this
part. :o)

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

[You tend to remember stuff when you wrote the book. <eg>]

FromTheRafters wrote:
> Yes, MVPs seem to know better than to say that. :o)
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eYgq4Fs7...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> None of us (MVPs) have called email scanning worthless. A redundant
>> "feechur" & overly-hyped, scare-the-bejesus-out-of-you marketing
>> gimmick from the late 20th Century, perhaps, but not worthless. <VBEG>
>> --

>> ~PA�

[Gerry]

Bear

That's rich! Having read thousands of your posts I have never seen you
admit that in a single one. No other MVP is so vociferous in proclaiming
the need to disable email scanning on the basis that it is worthless and
that it corrupts Outlook Express folders. You do this purely by
asserting it to be so and by referencing a Symantec Article written in
2001, which only comments on the need to scan. You do not answers
questions directed to establish the basis of your assertions.

Your normal reaction to receiving a challenge of this sort is not to
offer a reasoned response. You either ignore the challenge or offer a
gratiutous insult. You did not exhibit this type of behaviour when I
first got to know you and for some years after. Sadly you have done so
increasingly of late. You find it difficult to appreciate that others do
not see things the way you do. I hold views, which many find
controversial, but I do try not to resort to the tactics you employ
when you encounter some lesser mortal who does not conform to your way
of doing things.

--

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

> None of us (MVPs) have called email scanning worthless. A redundant
> "feechur" & overly-hyped, scare-the-bejesus-out-of-you marketing
> gimmick from the late 20th Century, perhaps, but not worthless. <VBEG>
>