fox | the great flist tech support department

Hmmm... since Outlook is fine when downloading from the other three servers, then I would think the problem lies with the fourth mail server. Might be worth an e-mail to their support department (if they have one!). If it were a problem with Outlook, I would expect to see it happen for all of the servers.

I'll keep digging and let you know if I find anything. One thing you could do is compare the field mentioned in my other post in two separate e-mails: one from the problem server and one from the other server. See if the formatting of the timestamp is different in any way.

Also, have you applied all of the latest hotfixes and patches for Outlook?

yeah -- no, but the messages themselves are the same. i mean, i sent a test message to all five addresses, and four of them arrived with one timestamp and one with a different one; but when i open the loner and one of the four alike ones, the headers are identical. so it's totally only a problem with the inbox/preview screen.

i haven't applied any patches or anything -- i don't let microsoft nag me, so i don't always know when things are there. (i count on my antivirus and my firewall to take care of me. them, i allow to tell me when it's time to update.)

Again, this makes me think that it is an issue with the receiving mail server, since the e-mail for the four other servers are correct. Could be related to the KB article I mentioned in a separate post. They may have done some administration on that box that could be confusing Outlook. If it were an Outlook issue, I would expect all five to be incorrect. I know, I'm not helping :-(

As for letting Microsoft nag you - go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com, and see if there are any updates for Outlook Express. You should go there fairly regularly anyway, because generally Microsoft will release patches long before your anti-virus software will release a virus definition update.

The way exploits usually work:

1. Someone (Microsoft or some other security firm) identifies a defect in some Microsoft product.
2. Microsoft issues a hotfix.
3. Weeks or months down the road, virus writers release a virus that exploits that defect in the hopes that people didn't apply the fix in step 2.
4. Norton, McAfee, et al release virus definition updates reactively to try to stop the floodgates.
5. Weeks or months down the road, virus writers release a virus that is a variant to the one in step 3, again hoping people didn't apply the fix in step 2.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 forever ;)

Don't want to sound like a nag, so I apologize if I came off that way. The company for whom I work was burned by this, and I ended up having to come in to work at 1 am to fix a problem that should have never happened. I'm a bit bitter :)

well -- i deleted and recreated the account, and waited for Outlook to download everything from the server (into a special folder so i could just throw it away, as it was all duplicates), and all the messages from before today at 11:37 were right, and the ones since then were still wrong. so i'm more willing to think it's something to do with the server, but why on earth would it display the wrong time in the preview screen but not on the header? grargh.

also, i went to update-land and downloaded something that it told me was a cumulative security update for Outlook Express 6, but when i went to run it it blinked and said "this update requires Outlook Express 6 to be installed", which was surprising to me as i'm running Outlook Express 6.0.2800.1123. the whole thing is broken, if you ask me. feh.

all the messages from before today at 11:37 were right, and the ones since then were still wrong. so i'm more willing to think it's something to do with the server, but why on earth would it display the wrong time in the preview screen but not on the header

Is the date format in the pre-11:37 header the same as the post-11:37 header?

I'd send an e-mail to the support people at the "bad" server to see if they have any insight.

went to update-land and downloaded something that it told me was a cumulative security update for Outlook Express 6, but when i went to run it it blinked and said "this update requires Outlook Express 6 to be installed

Are you an Administrator on your machine?

Also, if possible, I'd ditch Express and go for the regular Outlook version if possible.

everything is the same pre-11:37 and post-11:37 except the correctness of the time stamp in the preview window.

my friend who runs the server hosting the errant account is going to look into it when he gets home this evening. [waves to

jgesteve]

i am an administrator on my machine. i'm everything! i'm the only user. :-)

i've heard equal numbers of people tell me the same thing about Outlook and Outlook Express; proponents of each insist that the other is inferior due to some security issue or another. i'm convinced that it's a coke vs. pepsi issue.

Outlook vs Outlook Express: from what I've seen on MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) there are more exploits for Outlook Express than Outlook. I think the former is free, so if it works for you, then I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Mind if I add you to my flist? I think I remember your postings either from SFMEDTWO on CompuServe or over at the real Echo boards run by Web Leader Dave. You're fun to read.

i never mind being added to people's flists. my feeling is, it's none of my business one way or the other if people want to read me. :-) and i'm glad to be thought of as fun to read.

are there fake echo boards? long ago (etc) i was indeed on echo boards run by Web Leader Dave, but the last time i went over there to see what was going on -- gosh, a year and a half ago or so -- it seemed kind of deserted. new boards? new dave? i never understood what had happened. kind of sad, really.

Were you ever on the CompuServe SF Media forum? Those were fun times.

I probably should have explained what I meant a little better - the problem with posting while I work is I am generally multi-tasking and some things are lost while I try to keep it short.

The Echo Boards on echostation.com are still there and, I believe, still run by Dave. I was visiting there off and on since the CIS forum died, and went through the various incarnations of the board. I stopped going because it turned out being just me and Dex posting back and forth. Kenny and Shez would occasionally pop in, but that was a rather rare occurrence. It got a bit boring just chatting with Dex (no offense to Dex, of course), so I gravitated more to LJ.

The "fake" Echo board is the echostation LJ community that Shez had established. I created my LJ account because of that community, and am a bit discouraged that it seems as dead as Echo.

As for what happened with the real Echo - I'm guessing people's interests moved elsewhere, away from Star Wars. The Echo magazine wasn't really being updated, so I'm guessing very little new traffic went its way. During the prequels, people probably gravitated more towards the spoiler sites.

It is sad that Echo died a slow death - I met a lot of great people through CIS and Echo, and really enjoyed chatting with them. Jodo was always a hoot!

yeah, okay, makes more sense now. i was never at CIS; i turned up at echostation.com around october of 1999, not too long (if i'm not mistaken) after

zoethe's infamous "vermin" comment -- least, that's what people were talking about when i arrived. stayed for ... well, at least a couple of years, because i was definitely still in touch with that crowd in september of 2001, but somehow not long enough to be there for Episode 2, i don't think. of course, i landed on LJ in december of 2001, so that might have had something to do with it. :-P but like i said, some time after that when i popped back over the place was deserted. i tried at one point to change my e-mail address for notification purposes, and everything i tried to send to dave bounced back. i really thought the whole thing had been abandoned. :-(

i never joined shez's

echostation LJ because i understood it to be spoiler-ridden (or at least spoiler-friendly) and i wanted no part of that. [g]

I must have missed Gini's "vermin" comment. I found the echo interface to be a bit clunky, so I wasn't much of a regular (I used the web, not a newsreader). Who was she calling vermin?

Shez's echo LJ community didn't have spoilers, really. It was primarily slash fic, which is why Dex initially refused to go there. That's died down a bit, which has left the community rather...dead. I post there every now and then, but since I'm not into the EU, there's not much Star Wars news to talk about.

i believe the 'vermin' were new people. but i could be wrong; like i say, i got there afterward, when people were talking about it, rather than responding to it. :-)

and: ah, dex. [sigh][headshake]

and: ah, dex. [sigh][headshake]

Honestly, though, would you expect a different reaction from Dex? ;-)

hard to say. there's a difference between "primarily" and "exclusively", and assuming everything was properly labeled and cut-tagged, i guess i'd have thought that even dex could handle being part of a community where some of the traffic he didn't so much care for. i mean if he didn't have to read it; like, he wouldn't even be where it was? that does strike me as a bit much, if he wanted to be in the comm but wouldn't for that reason.

but of course all dex and i ever had in common was that we were both stubborn as all hell. :-)

You got that right (that Dex is stubborn as hell). You should have been over at Echo when he and I were in a heated exchange about the Skywalker kids. Dex insisted that we would find that there was a third Skywalker, born before Luke and Leia, and that would be revealed in Episode III.

No matter what I - or anyone else - said, he wouldn't budge. There was only one explanation for "there is another Skywalker" and "the Emperor knew, as did I, that were Anakin to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him":

Anakin and Padme had a child before Luke and Leia who was trained in the Force, but bailed on Ben and Yoda.

He was quite insistent about it.

[thinks about this]

well -- bailed on Yoda, anyway. because if Ben knew about Phil Skywalker (or whatever his name was going to have been), it wouldn't solve anything. i mean, presumably one would insist on the existence of Phil in order to make sense of Ben's mistaken impression that Luke was their last hope. right? except, duh, he knew about Leia. ... i was trying to think of a way he could legitimately not know that Leia wasn't dead, but no, i got nothin.

so why was it that "there is another" and "the Emperor knew etc." didn't make sense?

Because Dex absolutely, positively refused to believe that Leia was "the other", and refused to believe that Anakin's offspring would be strong enough in the Force to pose a threat. He had to have witnessed that they would pose a threat before he could make that assumption.

and he apparently really, genuinely believed that George Lucas thought that far ahead or would ever give a rat's ass about tying anything up that neatly.

i say again: [sigh][headshake]

No, I think Dex thought that this was a plot hole.

good old dex. he can insist that it really was a plot hole and george was both in a position to notice and willing to fix it, and at the same time, refuse to be in a virtual room where people are having fun with a little observable homoerotic subtext -- and remain completely unaware that this could be even the tiniest bit ironic. :-)

And talk about high-jacking a thread! :)

[snort] yeah. off to the promenade with you, buddy.

Are you saying I need to add T*PPL to my posts now? ;)

not even if i remembered what that stood for. :-) the beauty of LJ.

That Damn Promenade Protection Line. An in-joke where we would add a Star Wars related line to a Promenade-type posting to prevent the sysadms from moving it to the Promenade.

but in that case this whole thing, since before you even mentioned dex and jodo is, like, a Promenade Protection Thread.

the great flist tech support department

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject