Email Info BackUp ?!

On 11/7/18 1:05 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:09:34 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 11/6/18 12:01 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

There is NO BACKUP unless there are at lest TWO independent copies of
the info.

True. Better with at least one offline at all times (can be accomplished
with two sets of media, used alternately).


*Not* true, as far as I'm concerned. Certainly, TWO independent copies
are better than one, and certainly having at least one offline at all
times, is better than not doing that. But saying that without having
two copies it's not backup is nonsense.

What? I'm agreeing with something (as well as adding additional
information). You seem to be agreeing with me (except for the part where
I was agreeing with something).



You were agreeing with Zaidy036's statement "There is NO BACKUP unless
there are at lest TWO independent copies of the info." I was
disagreeing with that statement.

But I was agreeing with *your* statement "Better with at least one
offline at all times (can be accomplished with two sets of media, used
alternately)."

OK. "There is NO BACKUP unless there are at lest TWO independent copies
of the info." appeared to be the definition of backup (the original AND
a backup). Did you consider it to be something else?

--
48 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1
day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent men without religion,
and religious men without intelligence." [Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri
(973-1057; Syrian poet)]

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
[]
For some email clients, you can save the 'source' ('over-the-wire') of
an email message to a file, edit it and then 'copy' it back into an
email folder. IIRC, I have done that in Outlook Express, Windows Mail
and maybe Windows Live Mail. You can do it in Thunderbird by just
dragging the modified .eml file from [Windowsr|File] Explorer into a TB
folder.

Yes, I can do that with TP too. But I have to Export; delete; close TP;
do the edit; open TP; re-Import, which is a faff. (If I don't delete it,
it just sees it as a duplicate.)

Can't Turnpike save - instead of export - a single message? And drag

Yes; it saves (it calls it Export) one or more messages. Not sure about
dragging.

- instead of import - the edited message? And why do you have to close
and re-open Turnpike?

Otherwise the deleted message gets back somehow. _Maybe_ there's an
"empty wastebasket" function somewhere, but closing and re-opening isn't
much hassle (for me, anyway).

And yes, you of course have to delete the unedited message to prevent

In Outlook, I could edit the email in
situ.

In situ is of course more convenient, but the Thunderbird process I
described is quite easy and I assume you don't edit that many messages.

No, but I'd often like to edit (usually, prepend something to) the
subject lines, which a long conversation can often drift away from, with
neither party bothering to change the subject.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"On the whole, I'm in favour of the state getting out of people's lives, but I
would not have a problem with voting being made compulsory. But if you did
that, you'd have to have a box for 'None of the above'."
Jeremy Paxman, quoted in RT 2015/5/2-8

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:19:56 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:

But I'm still spending most of my time still using Windows XP, so I don't
have to put up with some of the (to me, somewhat undesired) "nuances" of
Windows 7. :-)

Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
a lot of them still run WinXP too.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-tv-licensing

mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:19:56 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:

But I'm still spending most of my time still using Windows XP, so I don't
have to put up with some of the (to me, somewhat undesired) "nuances" of
Windows 7. :-)

Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
a lot of them still run WinXP too.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-tv-licensing

"A colour TV Licence currently costs £145.50.
A black and white TV Licence currently costs £49.00."

There's an incentive.

Paul

"mechanic" wrote

| Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
| households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
| a lot of them still run WinXP too.
|

Says the man who's using an OS that's already
8 years old. There are a lot of people who would
classify you as the dinosaur and XP users antique
collectors.

I have Win7-64, Win7-32 and XP-32. I only use
Win7 for testing software or when I have to use
heavily commercial websites that won't work with
my normal security and privacy controls. It's my
sacrificial lamb. Any real work is done on XP, so
I'm careful to keep that safe.

Why do I do that? Because XP is simpler, less
intrusive, more stable, less bloated, easier to
back up, and there's nothing I need that doesn't
run on XP. I also have no interest in CPU-hogging,
pseudo-3D techno-kitsch. When I use Win7 it
looks just like XP. So why switch? I just built
my latest XP machine 3 years ago. 8 AMD cores
and an SSD. So it's not as though the hardware is
outdated.

Lately there are more software
products that won't run on XP, but that's a
fairly recent development. (The last XP version
of Firefox is less than 6 months old. Though they
seem to come out with a new version morning,
noon and night, so some people might think 6
months is old.)

That last point is critical. It's a variant of "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the computer you
have still does what you need, it ain't broke.
That's not comparable to B/W vs color TV.

Microsoft are very good at scaring people into
thinking their last version of Windows is a
dangerous malware magnet. Each version magically
becomes so when the next version comes out.**
The only reason to buy a new copy of Windows
is because you need software that won't run on
the last.

The one possible exception to that would be people
who know nothing about computers, don't control
their browser, don't use a firewall or AV, and happily
click links in email from "Daisy Hernadez" with the
subject "Wieght loss erectile aidz". Those people
might get some slight benefit from having all the
very latest updates from Microsoft.
(On the other hand, a serious Edge bug was reported
this week with no word of when Microsoft might offer
a fix. So, sometimes older is safer. No one's writing
exploits to target XP.)

__________________________________________

** I was following Microsoft's marketing strategy
when XP came out because at the time I was making
money selling a tweak program for Win9x. The media
blitz was intense. Microsoft spends a fortune on
propaganda and the news-starved tech media are
only too happy to gush about every MS press
release. There are numerous "reporters" whose only
business is spreading Microsoft press releases.

When XP came out the media were filled with an
ominous report from a high tech research company
named Asset Metrix. The report was available as PDF.
It warned that Win98 was dangerous and that people
needed to update to XP as soon as possible... Dire
situation and all that good stuff.

I read the report. Why was 98 dangerous? There
was not a single technical point. Their claim rested
on the fact that 98 support was going to end. Then
it turned out that Asset Metrix was in the business
of doing XP upgrades for business. Later, Microsoft
quietly bought Asset Metrix. Why would MS buy a
company that installs Windows for companies? My
guess is that Asset Metrix was a "spin-in", started
by MS people solely for the purpose of creating an
anti-98/pro-XP media blitz that would sound
"scientific".

Mayayana wrote:
"mechanic" wrote

Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
a lot of them still run WinXP too.


Says the man who's using an OS that's already
8 years old. There are a lot of people who would
classify you as the dinosaur and XP users antique
collectors.

I have Win7-64, Win7-32 and XP-32. I only use
Win7 for testing software or when I have to use
heavily commercial websites that won't work with
my normal security and privacy controls. It's my
sacrificial lamb. Any real work is done on XP, so
I'm careful to keep that safe.

Why do I do that? Because XP is simpler, less
intrusive, more stable, less bloated, easier to
back up, and there's nothing I need that doesn't
run on XP.

I think that pretty well summarizes my experience too. I have a Windows 7
laptop, but avoid using it unless I'm forced to - due primarily, if not
exclusively, to some browser limitations with some websites. I really
don't appreciate the extra hoops you have to go through to have control of
the OS even superficially, even at the windows explorer level. Plus I find
its desktop anything but intuitive and easy to use, although Classic Shell
helps.

As for black and white, I can still enjoy watching some silent movies, for
that matter. How many today can even handle that? And some things (IMO)
are better in black and white, such as some of the film noir films from the
1940's.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 11:51:12 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:

As for black and white, I can still enjoy watching some silent
movies, for that matter. How many today can even handle that?
And some things (IMO) are better in black and white, such as some
of the film noir films from the 1940's.

Weren't they made in black & white? So truer to the original to
watch that way. If you're really keen you could kill the saturation
on your monitor and get the whole XP experience in black & white!

On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 07:40:51 -0500, Paul wrote:

"A colour TV Licence currently costs £145.50.
A black and white TV Licence currently costs £49.00."

There's an incentive.

For those over 75 it's free in the UK anyway. Take a wild guess who
on here qualifies?

"mechanic" wrote
|
| For those over 75 it's free in the UK anyway. Take a wild guess who
| on here qualifies?

Probably about half of us. It's probably just as well
that we don't see each other. We'd likely see a group of
doddering old men in a circle, fiddling with their pocket
protectors.

"Bill in Co" wrote

| As for black and white, I can still enjoy watching some silent movies, for
| that matter. How many today can even handle that?

It's not for me, except for Charlie Chaplin. His
"Modern Times" could have been about modern
tech and cellphone addicts. Yet it was made
before WW2.

On 08/11/2018 09:19, mechanic wrote:
Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
a lot of them still run WinXP too.


It's fake news. You can't buy a B&W TV these days. Some people just
lie to pay lower license fees but there are no B&W TV these days. Old
analogue TV sets won't connect to modern digital broadcasts even with
convertors. I had to throw away a pretty good working TV that was in
the house but it just didn't connect. I then bought a 60 inch Sharp TV
set and got it fitted on the wall so I can watch football or news or
Newsnight or Question Time or University Challenge. Some are recorded
as I am normally busy getting time to watch a program. I don't normally
watch any TVs these days. There are better things to do. Election
nights here and the US are something I like to watch and I normally take
time off from work so that I can stay late watching the results as they
come.





--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:26:08 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

"mechanic" wrote

| Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
| households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
| a lot of them still run WinXP too.
|

Says the man who's using an OS that's already
8 years old. There are a lot of people who would
classify you as the dinosaur and XP users antique
collectors.

Eh? Win10 running here.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 11:51:12 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"mechanic" wrote

Ha! And we learn today (Guardian) that there are still 7000
households in the UK still watching TV in black and white! Probably
a lot of them still run WinXP too.


Says the man who's using an OS that's already
8 years old. There are a lot of people who would
classify you as the dinosaur and XP users antique
collectors.

I have Win7-64, Win7-32 and XP-32. I only use
Win7 for testing software or when I have to use
heavily commercial websites that won't work with
my normal security and privacy controls. It's my
sacrificial lamb. Any real work is done on XP, so
I'm careful to keep that safe.

Why do I do that? Because XP is simpler, less
intrusive, more stable, less bloated, easier to
back up, and there's nothing I need that doesn't
run on XP.

I think that pretty well summarizes my experience too. I have a Windows 7
laptop, but avoid using it unless I'm forced to - due primarily, if not
exclusively, to some browser limitations with some websites. I really
don't appreciate the extra hoops you have to go through to have control of
the OS even superficially, even at the windows explorer level. Plus I find
its desktop anything but intuitive and easy to use, although Classic Shell
helps.

As for black and white, I can still enjoy watching some silent movies, for
that matter. How many today can even handle that? And some things (IMO)
are better in black and white, such as some of the film noir films from the
1940's.



No, they were blanc et noir films, not just noir G.

"mechanic" wrote

| Says the man who's using an OS that's already
| 8 years old. There are a lot of people who would
| classify you as the dinosaur and XP users antique
| collectors.
|
| Eh? Win10 running here.

Ah. My condolences. You're just slumming
in the Win7 group?

Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:59:55 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"mechanic" wrote

... And of course I'd also agree with everyone else:
Never, under any circumstances, use webmail.

That seems a bit harsh. Email service providers can include secure
storage and communication in their package, and whether the messages
are accessed by IMAP or webmail makes no difference to that.

Note the smiley. It was a joke because he
got several responses telling him he should get
off the webmail.

Nevertheless, personally I wouldn't use webmail
and do think the only reason to use it is
inability or unwilling laziness about setting up a
client(s).


That's largely right, but there's one other reason that applies to
some people--not realizing they have the choice of using an e-mail
program.


I think there might be another reason. If you want easy accessibility
of all your local email from any of your computers, no matter where you
are - and especially if you are mobile, how are you going to readily do
it without using webmail?


It's easy. I do it all the time when I travel. You can (but don't have
to) use IMAP, and install an e-mail program on all your devices.

As I think I said in another message in this thread, before wi-fi was
readily available in most hotels, I used to use web-based e-mail on
public computers that I rented by the hour. Now I do e-mail with an
e-mail program on my smart phone in my hotel room.


And I don't even use IMAP. I just set my phone's e-mail program
(Bluemail) not to delete messages when I read them. I want them to
still be there when I return home.


I guess the only way is if you have everything somehow
perfectly networked together, no matter where you are, but I can see some
potential limitations even in this approach.


Not at all necessary.


That said, I don't know
anything about IMAP, and maybe that gets around some of those
limitations.


Yes. Gets around *all* of them.


(I'm just using OE locally here, with a POP3, ISP account, so I just
don't know).


Outlook Express? On Windows 7? It's not available, but OE Classic, a
third-party clone of it, is.

There is a customized version of Outlook Express that is available for
Windows 7 called OEx (which uses a few customized DLLs to allow it to
install and run on Windows 7 and above). Last time I checked it was
donationware. I've got it installed on the Windows 7 laptop, as I simply
prefer it to the other email programs, including OE Classic (which admitedly
seems to be a pretty good clone of OE, but is not OE, per se). I've
provided a link below for those who might be interested.

https://runasxp.com/Topic-Download-O...ows-7-8-and-10