If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote: You just don't get it. In the referenced message iCloud is nothing but an email address. It meets all cross-platform standards and has aught to do with where the photo was hosted. Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. so are attachments. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little wrote: You just don't get it. In the referenced message iCloud is nothing but an email address. It meets all cross-platform standards and has aught to do with where the photo was hosted. Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. so are attachments. Some attachments. But remote images my be beacons, (they are always logged by the server), and also that image my have a script backend. Not so with an attached image. People who click on compressed|executable|unknown attachments from unknown origins are just plain stupid. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote: You just don't get it. In the referenced message iCloud is nothing but an email address. It meets all cross-platform standards and has aught to do with where the photo was hosted. Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. so are attachments. Some attachments. some remote content. the vast majority is *not* in any way a security risk. But remote images my be beacons, (they are always logged by the server), and also that image my have a script backend. Not so with an attached image. attachments can be something other than what they claim to be, and your isp has logs of what was sent. People who click on compressed|executable|unknown attachments from unknown origins are just plain stupid. except that's what you're asking people to do, by sending photos as attachments. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
In article ,
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote: Hi dorayme! Nope still will flush them. Same goes when folks email images via some "service" that requires the recipient sign-up to get the image. Haven't seen those for a while though... If important I would request sender to attach images is the standard manner. Yes, hi Jonathan! I was just thinking if someone wanted to show someone a lot of photos via email communication, a link to a website would seem logical. I know I do it, but then I have easy access to my own website server and it is not much trouble. And the truth is, I would prefer them to do same if there are a lot of pics because it is easy for me to delete caches on browsers but I am always forgetting how to get rid of pics in attachments on my email program. -- dorayme |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
nospam wrote:
and the crashes you claim are pure fabrication anyway. roughly a *billion* people use itunes without issue. it's one of the most popular apps on windows (source: microsoft). I have on a few occasions, helped people remove iTunes. If you look at the package construction, it was an attempt to add materials to the Windows ecosystem, in an unnecessary way. Let's analyze the Apple position on QuickTime over time, to get some idea of how the package is "opportunistic". Initially the position was "Oh, Jesus, you need QuickTime on your Windows computer, because... movies". The QuickTime would grab all the file associations away from Windows existing solutions. Because... clever ecosystem play. A bit more than a year ago, Apple decided to pull the plug on doing security updates on the Windows QuickTime package. They decided to remove QuickTime from the latest iTunes installer. If a movie situation were to arise in iTunes now, a message to the effect "you figure it out" would appear, as iTunes no longer has an interest in promoting the sale of QuickTime Pro or the like. So while the initial iTunes installations were quite adamant about "Oh, Jesus, you need QuickTime", suddenly the Apple message is "Never mind". Bonjour is more of the same, and if you read the description here, it's just more "we'll just add our crap to your ecosystem" play. The difference now, is Apple gives Bonjour away to third-party developers, so they can be installing it, instead of Apple. And now you have multiple vectors for getting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software) "Bonjour for Windows also adds zeroconf capabilities to Internet Explorer, and provides a zeroconf implementation to Java VMs. It modifies Windows system-registry entries related to internal network configuration and operation. " It should have been possible for the iTunes package to have just *one* MSI in it, performing the iTunes functions. Without all that baggage (such as the Gears optical burning software that hijacks an UpperFilter on the optical drive and can break its operation like Roxio used to do). The Gears package was eventually removed, and while I don't know what replaced it, I think the adamant Apple position on that was "Never mind, you don't need to burn stuff". I own three Macs, and Apple does a *much* better job of designing software for those computers, than for anything it did on behalf of Windows. As for Bonjour, I used to disable mDNSresponder on my Mac (G4). Presumably this was the "quiet network" issue, where I wanted no LEDs flashing on the router, when the Mac isn't doing anything. It makes it easier to spot issues, if the LAN is quiet when I'm not using it. When the day comes, that IPV6 is the only option, I'll lose that benefit (by comparison, IPV6 chats constantly). Here's a short retrospective, of iTunes on Windows. Queue weepy violin music https://s30.postimg.org/9sdinlrsx/apple_pollutes.gif Paul |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 01:03:08 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Jonathan N. Little wrote: You just don't get it. In the referenced message iCloud is nothing but an email address. It meets all cross-platform standards and has aught to do with where the photo was hosted. Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. so are attachments. Some attachments. But remote images my be beacons, (they are always logged by the server), and also that image my have a script backend. Not so with an attached image. People who click on compressed|executable|unknown attachments from unknown origins are just plain stupid. It is vital that you turn off 'hide extensions for known file types.' |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 03:32:41 -0400, Paul
wrote: nospam wrote: and the crashes you claim are pure fabrication anyway. roughly a *billion* people use itunes without issue. it's one of the most popular apps on windows (source: microsoft). I have on a few occasions, helped people remove iTunes. iTunes is necessary if you have an ipod/pad/phone. If you look at the package construction, it was an attempt to add materials to the Windows ecosystem, in an unnecessary way. Windows 10 itself is very bossy. It keeps wanting to redirect files to Microsoft programs. Bonjour is more of the same, and if you read the description here, it's just more "we'll just add our crap to your ecosystem" play. The difference now, is Apple gives Bonjour away to third-party developers, so they can be installing it, instead of Apple. And now you have multiple vectors for getting it. Should we uninstall Bonjour? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software) "Bonjour for Windows also adds zeroconf capabilities to Internet Explorer, and provides a zeroconf implementation to Java VMs. It modifies Windows system-registry entries related to internal network configuration and operation. " Paul |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
"nospam" wrote
| Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not | encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise | webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does | by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. | | so are attachments. The point is that most email programs will now block remote image links because they're usually web beacons. Attachments are generally not blocked by email software. And ISPs don't block JPGs. Blocking linked images would explain why Lionel only sees Xs where images should be. But Lionel never came back to let us know what's happening, and he never posted enough email code for anyone to figure it out, so it seems to be another case of the disappearing poster who can't be bothered with common courtesy and just leaves a trail of arguments in his wake. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
Paul wrote:
nospam wrote: and the crashes you claim are pure fabrication anyway. roughly a *billion* people use itunes without issue. it's one of the most popular apps on windows (source: microsoft). I have on a few occasions, helped people remove iTunes. If you look at the package construction, it was an attempt to add materials to the Windows ecosystem, in an unnecessary way. Let's analyze the Apple position on QuickTime over time, to get some idea of how the package is "opportunistic". Initially the position was "Oh, Jesus, you need QuickTime on your Windows computer, because... movies". The QuickTime would grab all the file associations away from Windows existing solutions. Because... clever ecosystem play. Yep, real PITA. I don't have QuickTime installed either. Do not miss it. Some of MS's applications used to do that, not so much now. But did notice when MS pushes an OS update like creator does F'up some of my file associations. Not pleased... A bit more than a year ago, Apple decided to pull the plug on doing security updates on the Windows QuickTime package. They decided to remove QuickTime from the latest iTunes installer. If a movie situation were to arise in iTunes now, a message to the effect "you figure it out" would appear, as iTunes no longer has an interest in promoting the sale of QuickTime Pro or the like. So while the initial iTunes installations were quite adamant about "Oh, Jesus, you need QuickTime", suddenly the Apple message is "Never mind". Bonjour is more of the same, and if you read the description here, it's just more "we'll just add our crap to your ecosystem" play. The difference now, is Apple gives Bonjour away to third-party developers, so they can be installing it, instead of Apple. And now you have multiple vectors for getting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software) "Bonjour for Windows also adds zeroconf capabilities to Internet Explorer, and provides a zeroconf implementation to Java VMs. It modifies Windows system-registry entries related to internal network configuration and operation. " It should have been possible for the iTunes package to have just *one* MSI in it, performing the iTunes functions. Without all that baggage (such as the Gears optical burning software that hijacks an UpperFilter on the optical drive and can break its operation like Roxio used to do). The Gears package was eventually removed, and while I don't know what replaced it, I think the adamant Apple position on that was "Never mind, you don't need to burn stuff". Yep, seen that little issue too. I own three Macs, and Apple does a *much* better job of designing software for those computers, than for anything it did on behalf of Windows. As for Bonjour, I used to disable mDNSresponder on my Mac (G4). Presumably this was the "quiet network" issue, where I wanted no LEDs flashing on the router, when the Mac isn't doing anything. It makes it easier to spot issues, if the LAN is quiet when I'm not using it. When the day comes, that IPV6 is the only option, I'll lose that benefit (by comparison, IPV6 chats constantly). And so you are able to live without Bonjour blabbing on your LAN, right? Of course. Here's a short retrospective, of iTunes on Windows. Queue weepy violin music https://s30.postimg.org/9sdinlrsx/apple_pollutes.gif -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little wrote: You just don't get it. In the referenced message iCloud is nothing but an email address. It meets all cross-platform standards and has aught to do with where the photo was hosted. Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. so are attachments. Some attachments. some remote content. the vast majority is *not* in any way a security risk. Except for the remote content in spam. In commercial emails it is used for statistics and is just a privacy issue, that's your decision. I chose to let NewEgg know that I looked at their promotional email. However, unsolicited spam with remote content is a security risk. At the very least you've been added to the We-Have-A-Live-One list. But remote images my be beacons, (they are always logged by the server), and also that image my have a script backend. Not so with an attached image. attachments can be something other than what they claim to be, and your isp has logs of what was sent People who click on compressed|executable|unknown attachments from unknown origins are just plain stupid. except that's what you're asking people to do, by sending photos as attachments. Not if the attachment is a non-executable, non-script embedded media. This is aside of an certain OS's 'stupid' reliance on the mere portion of a filename to determine its disposition :-( -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
It is vital that you turn off 'hide extensions for known file types.' For an OS where that is vital to identifying media type the default setting is just plain stupid. Especially now where rename initially only selects the forward portion of the filename to assist newbies from inadvertently changing the extension and breaking the file association. MS would not recognize security if it where the size of Texas. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
Mayayana wrote:
"nospam" wrote | Ah ha, that might be the issue. If the image is remotely served and not | encoded and attached to the email gmail may be blocking it. I don't ise | webmail so not sure about it. Thunderbird surely will block it, it does | by default. You must white-list it. Remote content is a security risk. | | so are attachments. The point is that most email programs will now block remote image links because they're usually web beacons. Attachments are generally not blocked by email software. And ISPs don't block JPGs. Blocking linked images would explain why Lionel only sees Xs where images should be. But Lionel never came back to let us know what's happening, and he never posted enough email code for anyone to figure it out, so it seems to be another case of the disappearing poster who can't be bothered with common courtesy and just leaves a trail of arguments in his wake. I'd put money on blocked remote content. Fits the evidence. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
dorayme wrote:
In article , "Jonathan N. Little" wrote: Hi dorayme! Nope still will flush them. Same goes when folks email images via some "service" that requires the recipient sign-up to get the image. Haven't seen those for a while though... If important I would request sender to attach images is the standard manner. Yes, hi Jonathan! I was just thinking if someone wanted to show someone a lot of photos via email communication, a link to a website would seem logical. Yep, I agree it is what I do, if what we are talking about is a link to an online source and not *hot-linking* in an email. For one thing binary data must be encoded before being transmitted via a text-only protocol. Images can easily double in size in order to be attached to an email. Being in Third-World-USA without access to real broadband size is an issue. I know I do it, but then I have easy access to my own website server and it is not much trouble. And the truth is, I would prefer them to do same if there are a lot of pics because it is easy for me to delete caches on browsers but I am always forgetting how to get rid of pics in attachments on my email program. Welllllll, if you are using some Apple product you know my answer ;-) But with Thunderbird and my SeaMonkey you have Message Attachments Save All|Detach All|Delete All Both support OSX. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:56:16 +1000, Lucifer Morningstar
wrote: It is vital that you turn off 'hide extensions for known file types.' Vital or not, as far as I'm concerned, hiding extensions is a very poor choice, and shouldn't even be a choice anyone has. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
mac windows gmail pic
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:15:43 +1000, Lucifer Morningstar
wrote: I have on a few occasions, helped people remove iTunes. iTunes is necessary if you have an ipod/pad/phone. I think what you're saying is that Apple users are extremely unimaginative. What does iTunes do that "makes" it necessary for an iPod/iPad/iPhone? I don't have iTunes, and I have all three devices on my network. AFAICT, the _only_ thing you need iTunes for is to "initialize" an iPod. After that go-to-jail penalty is paid, iTunes is just unnecessary. If I'm wrong that iTunes is unnecessary (except to initialize iPods), then you will be able to tell us why or how iTunes is "necessary" to use an iPod, an iPad, or an iPhone, bearing in mind I use them all the time without iTunes existing (thank God). What does iTunes do that "makes" it necessary for an iPod/iPad/iPhone? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|