Free Firewall......#2

On cable......dropped dialup 2 years ago. And I have now *lost the plot* as
they say.....have to talk to you later coz we are heading out shopping.

Cheers....Heather

PS....My ISP refused to send this due to *ill-formed something or other in
the headers*......so starting new thread.

"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
IIRC, you're still on dialup, Figgs? - if so, then you probably don't need
UPnP.

If you're on DSL, then the modem/router/hub/switch possibly wouldn't work
without UPnP

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Heather" wrote in message
...
Noel......does this mean I should have it enabled? Speaking of #1 only.

All my appliances are ancient and I have to remember to write down "Get
More
Beer" the old-fashioned way.....LOL!!

Anyway.....I have the old USB I think.....the 1.5 one. Just thought I
would
ask.

XX Figgs

PS....My ISP refused to send this due to *ill-formed something or
other in the headers*......so starting new thread.

Not an ISP problem but due to there being more than 1000 characters in the
Reference header which OE then wrapped and broke. The reason being not
the number of posts in the thread but the depth of the thread.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Heather wrote:

On cable......dropped dialup 2 years ago. And I have now *lost the
plot* as they say.....have to talk to you later coz we are heading
out shopping.

Cheers....Heather

PS....My ISP refused to send this due to *ill-formed something or
other in the headers*......so starting new thread.

Mike M wrote:
PS....My ISP refused to send this due to *ill-formed something or
other in the headers*......so starting new thread.


Not an ISP problem but due to there being more than 1000 characters in
the Reference header which OE then wrapped and broke. The reason being
not the number of posts in the thread but the depth of the thread.

and *that* is one of the reasons the PC biz is sh*t; "normal"
programming practises would have the message "Reference header overflow"
or somesuch so you could easily figure out the problem; instead as the
OP laments you go 'round blaming your ISP, maybe thinking the previous
poster is an evil hacker or that you're virus-infected (the phrase
"malformed header" being a common one in IE patch blurbs); if it's your
personal use of the system then you're the butt of what is, at best, a
practical joke; if you're in business, they're costing you time and
money. And that's why I *never* recommend M$ for business use.


Rick

Rick,

OE does in fact say that the reference field is broken or rather that the
message id is ill-formed. The user's ISP doesn't come into the equation
but rather the nntp host (news server) which rightly rejects the message.
The OE error message is as follows:
Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject ' Free
Firewall?', Account: 'MS News (Win Me)', Server: 'msnews.microsoft.com',
Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 (629) Article Rejected -- Ill-formed
message id ' in field
'References:'', Port: 119, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 441, Error
Number: 0x800CCCA9

I'm not sure how other news clients treat the problem of a reference field
1,000 characters but I know it is covered by an RFC but I can't put my
hand to it at the moment.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Rick T wrote:

and *that* is one of the reasons the PC biz is sh*t; "normal"
programming practises would have the message "Reference header
overflow" or somesuch so you could easily figure out the problem;
instead as the OP laments you go 'round blaming your ISP, maybe
thinking the previous poster is an evil hacker or that you're
virus-infected (the phrase "malformed header" being a common one in
IE patch blurbs); if it's your personal use of the system then you're
the butt of what is, at best, a practical joke; if you're in
business, they're costing you time and money. And that's why I
*never* recommend M$ for business use.

Mike M wrote:
Rick,

OE does in fact say that the reference field is broken or rather that
the message id is ill-formed. The user's ISP doesn't come into the
equation but rather the nntp host (news server) which rightly rejects
the message.
The OE error message is as follows:
Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject ' Free
Firewall?', Account: 'MS News (Win Me)', Server: 'msnews.microsoft.com',
Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 (629) Article Rejected --
Ill-formed message id ' in field
'References:'', Port: 119, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 441, Error
Number: 0x800CCCA9

I'm not sure how other news clients treat the problem of a reference
field 1,000 characters but I know it is covered by an RFC but I can't
put my hand to it at the moment.

I'll go looking for it... TBird (which I use) had (extreme) lag problems
with a 3k thread; I almost switched back to OE because of it
(apparently that wouldn'ta done me any good).

I'm not having any problems with the thread we were in.

(um... "no server error"? isn't that what Harry's got somewhere 'round
here?)



The "References Field" header contains the unique message-id's of it's
precursors to better enable newsreaders to construct a thread even if
some of the posts are missing.


RFC 1036 contains no length information on References Field.

RFC 977 contains a commandline limit of 512 bytes (but I don't know
enough about NNTP to say "aha"; I don't think it has anything to do with
the current problem)

source code for some random newsreader uses 1024 as max length for all
fields (I didn't look to see how it handles overflow).

Another random newsreader suggests 21 as the maximum number of references.

All this leads me to believe that the common/preferred method of
handling too many references is to parse them... *not* to send garbage
to the newsserver.



Rick

Rick,

I think the problem could be not just that OE incorrectly wraps the
reference field at c1,000 characters and in so doing breaks the last
reference but also that it's possible, but I admit unlikely, that the RFC
doesn't specifically specify what should be done. Personally it would
help if OE simply truncated the field at the last complete reference which
whilst leading to some odd message threading would at least prevent the
error that we see in long threads such as 'Free Firewall?' in this NG.
--
Mike M


Rick T wrote:

I'll go looking for it... TBird (which I use) had (extreme) lag
problems with a 3k thread; I almost switched back to OE because of
it (apparently that wouldn'ta done me any good).

I'm not having any problems with the thread we were in.

(um... "no server error"? isn't that what Harry's got somewhere 'round
here?)



The "References Field" header contains the unique message-id's of it's
precursors to better enable newsreaders to construct a thread even if
some of the posts are missing.


RFC 1036 contains no length information on References Field.

RFC 977 contains a commandline limit of 512 bytes (but I don't know
enough about NNTP to say "aha"; I don't think it has anything to do
with the current problem)

source code for some random newsreader uses 1024 as max length for all
fields (I didn't look to see how it handles overflow).

Another random newsreader suggests 21 as the maximum number of
references.
All this leads me to believe that the common/preferred method of
handling too many references is to parse them... *not* to send garbage
to the newsserver.



Rick

Thanks.....glad to know it wasn't just my ISP/news agent......odd, there
have been way longer threads than this, so I don't understand it. But no
matter.....it has never happened before in some 9 years, so not about to
worry.

Mike.....will write you later re printer. Been out all day shopping.....not
used to that, grin. And chasing down hotels for our trip that starts a lot
sooner than I realized!! (June 7th) Elayne leaves for Glasgow June 5th.
Just call us the *Travelling Figberries*. (G)

Cheers....Heather


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
PS....My ISP refused to send this due to *ill-formed something or
other in the headers*......so starting new thread.

Not an ISP problem but due to there being more than 1000 characters in the
Reference header which OE then wrapped and broke. The reason being not
the number of posts in the thread but the depth of the thread.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Heather wrote:

On cable......dropped dialup 2 years ago. And I have now *lost the
plot* as they say.....have to talk to you later coz we are heading
out shopping.

Cheers....Heather

PS....My ISP refused to send this due to *ill-formed something or
other in the headers*......so starting new thread.

"Rick T" wrote in message
...
Mike M wrote:
Rick,

OE does in fact say that the reference field is broken or rather that
the message id is ill-formed. The user's ISP doesn't come into the
equation but rather the nntp host (news server) which rightly rejects
the message.
The OE error message is as follows:
Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject ' Free
Firewall?', Account: 'MS News (Win Me)', Server: 'msnews.microsoft.com',
Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 (629) Article Rejected --
Ill-formed message id ' in field
'References:'', Port: 119, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 441, Error
Number: 0x800CCCA9

I'm not sure how other news clients treat the problem of a reference
field 1,000 characters but I know it is covered by an RFC but I can't
put my hand to it at the moment.

I'll go looking for it... TBird (which I use) had (extreme) lag problems
with a 3k thread; I almost switched back to OE because of it
(apparently that wouldn'ta done me any good).

I'm not having any problems with the thread we were in.

(um... "no server error"? isn't that what Harry's got somewhere 'round
here?)

That's what I thought exactly, when I red these threads, Rick, only my
port # was 119 and the error # 0x800CCC0F. I created a new identity, as was
recommended to me.
Hope this will clear things up.

Harry.


The "References Field" header contains the unique message-id's of it's
precursors to better enable newsreaders to construct a thread even if
some of the posts are missing.


RFC 1036 contains no length information on References Field.

RFC 977 contains a commandline limit of 512 bytes (but I don't know
enough about NNTP to say "aha"; I don't think it has anything to do with
the current problem)

source code for some random newsreader uses 1024 as max length for all
fields (I didn't look to see how it handles overflow).

Another random newsreader suggests 21 as the maximum number of references.

All this leads me to believe that the common/preferred method of
handling too many references is to parse them... *not* to send garbage
to the newsserver.



Rick

Mike M wrote:
Rick,

I think the problem could be not just that OE incorrectly wraps the
reference field at c1,000 characters and in so doing breaks the last
reference but also that it's possible, but I admit unlikely, that the
RFC doesn't specifically specify what should be done. Personally it
would help if OE simply truncated the field at the last complete
reference which whilst leading to some odd message threading would at
least prevent the error that we see in long threads such as 'Free
Firewall?' in this NG.

TBird includes an RFC822 field, In-Reply-To, which contains the
Message-ID of the immediate parent of the post (which is of course also
the last message-id in the References field).

RFC822 (the original Usenet RFC which 1036 adds to) also does not give a
maximum field length but does give instructions on how to handle large
fields.

RFC 1036(2.2.5):

It is permissible to not include the entire previous "References"
line if it is too long. An attempt should be made to include a
reasonable number of backwards references.


Rick

Heather,

It's not the length but the breath. :-) In other words how deep the
threads go rather than the number of posts.

I still haven't set up the R200 on my Win Me box but will try to do so
later (haven't been much better than 70% recently - still got the remains
of that flu from February!)
--
Mike


Heather wrote:

Thanks.....glad to know it wasn't just my ISP/news agent......odd,
there have been way longer threads than this, so I don't understand
it. But no matter.....it has never happened before in some 9 years,
so not about to worry.

Mike.....will write you later re printer. Been out all day
shopping.....not used to that, grin. And chasing down hotels for our
trip that starts a lot sooner than I realized!! (June 7th) Elayne
leaves for Glasgow June 5th. Just call us the *Travelling
Figberries*. (G)