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.

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

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.

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

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

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.'

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?