[Ian Bell]

In message <sdhLqLGB+YqCFAX9@thus.net>, Ian Bell <ianbell@turnpike.com>
writes
>In message <ea5AkvAvuWqCFwBE@ntlworld.com>, Mike Isaacs
><mike@mdji.co.uk> writes
>>I am having problems viewing certain pictures sent to me from Outlook
>>(or Outlook Express)

(Outlook Express, it turns out)

>>On several occasions he has just sent me a photo without any
>>accompanying text, but all I can see is a long string in the form
>>similar to this "cid:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz@useryyyyyyyy".

In case anyone else comes across this problem:

This turns out to be a new form of broken message I haven't seen before.
The cause of the problem is that the MIME boundary string before the
image part has been broken.

The problem seems to occur when OE is used to send an image in the body
of an email (not as an "attachment") and when there is no accompanying
text.

The sending client is identified by:

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180

The offending, broken, part of the message is of the form:

A------=_NextPart_000_0001_01234567.89012345
Content-Type: image/jpeg

(the initial "A" stops the MIME part being recognized and processed)

(crossposted to microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress
in case an MVP wants to look into this)

--
Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Steve Cochran]

The CID number is normal. OE uses that to reference the image that is
embedded with the message according to RFC specifications (e.g.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).

I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could be an
incompatibility between the recipient email program not being able to handle
the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I think that is the problem,
as Turnpike is not designed to handle multipart mime messages -- at least
that is my understanding, never having used it myself.

steve

"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message
news:pR1KpGGV4UrCFAfV@thus.net...
> In message <sdhLqLGB+YqCFAX9@thus.net>, Ian Bell <ianbell@turnpike.com>
> writes
>>In message <ea5AkvAvuWqCFwBE@ntlworld.com>, Mike Isaacs
>><mike@mdji.co.uk> writes
>>>I am having problems viewing certain pictures sent to me from Outlook
>>>(or Outlook Express)
>
> (Outlook Express, it turns out)
>
>>>On several occasions he has just sent me a photo without any
>>>accompanying text, but all I can see is a long string in the form
>>>similar to this "cid:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz@useryyyyyyyy".
>
> In case anyone else comes across this problem:
>
> This turns out to be a new form of broken message I haven't seen before.
> The cause of the problem is that the MIME boundary string before the
> image part has been broken.
>
> The problem seems to occur when OE is used to send an image in the body
> of an email (not as an "attachment") and when there is no accompanying
> text.
>
> The sending client is identified by:
>
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
>
> The offending, broken, part of the message is of the form:
>
> A------=_NextPart_000_0001_01234567.89012345
> Content-Type: image/jpeg
>
> (the initial "A" stops the MIME part being recognized and processed)
>
> (crossposted to microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress
> in case an MVP wants to look into this)
>
> --
> Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Ian Cummings]

In message <#GSQoiAcFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>The CID number is normal. OE uses that to reference the image that is
>embedded with the message according to RFC specifications (e.g.
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).
>
>I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could be
>an incompatibility between the recipient email program not being able
>to handle the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I think that
>is the problem, as Turnpike is not designed to handle multipart mime
>messages -- at least that is my understanding, never having used it myself.

I'm no expert on these matters, and somebody will doubtless correct me
if I'm wrong...

but I think the issue here is that Turnpike _can_ handle multipart MIME
unless the sending client - OE in this case - sends something that is
broken in the way that Ian B described.
--
Ian Cummings

[Steve Cochran]

I think someone who uses both Turnpike and OE could better address that
issue. There you could compare sending and receiving with the various user
agents and figure out in more detail where the incompatibilities are.

steve

"Ian Cummings" <news.spam@glitton.org.uk> wrote in message
news:KLIvB6T5C9uCFwTE@btinternet.com...
> In message <#GSQoiAcFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>The CID number is normal. OE uses that to reference the image that is
>>embedded with the message according to RFC specifications (e.g.
>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).
>>
>>I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could be an
>>incompatibility between the recipient email program not being able to
>>handle the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I think that is the
>>problem, as Turnpike is not designed to handle multipart mime messages --
>>at least that is my understanding, never having used it myself.
>
> I'm no expert on these matters, and somebody will doubtless correct me if
> I'm wrong...
>
> but I think the issue here is that Turnpike _can_ handle multipart MIME
> unless the sending client - OE in this case - sends something that is
> broken in the way that Ian B described.
> --
> Ian Cummings

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:23:26 <KLIvB6T5C9uCFwTE@btinternet.com>
demon.ip.support.turnpike Ian Cummings <news.spam@glitton.org.uk>

>In message <#GSQoiAcFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
><scochran@oehelp.com> writes

>>The CID number is normal.

No it is not.

>> OE uses that to reference the image that is embedded with the message
>>according to RFC specifications (e.g.
>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).

Wrong.

>>I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could
>>be an incompatibility between the recipient email program not being
>>able to handle the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I think
>>that is the problem, as Turnpike is not designed to handle multipart
>>mime messages -- at least that is my understanding, never having used
>>it myself.
>
>I'm no expert on these matters, and somebody will doubtless correct me
>if I'm wrong...

You have a fool for a correspondent.

>but I think the issue here is that Turnpike _can_ handle multipart MIME
>unless the sending client - OE in this case - sends something that is
>broken in the way that Ian B described.

Quite.

--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

[Steve Cochran]

How nice of you to clarify things so succintly Ian.


"Wm..." <tcnw41@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:mo5IDEFwAFvCFwdW@[127.0.0.1]...
> Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:23:26 <KLIvB6T5C9uCFwTE@btinternet.com>
> demon.ip.support.turnpike Ian Cummings <news.spam@glitton.org.uk>
>
>>In message <#GSQoiAcFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
>><scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>
>>>The CID number is normal.
>
> No it is not.
>
>>> OE uses that to reference the image that is embedded with the message
>>> according to RFC specifications (e.g.
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).
>
> Wrong.
>
>>>I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could be
>>>an incompatibility between the recipient email program not being able to
>>>handle the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I think that is the
>>>problem, as Turnpike is not designed to handle multipart mime messages --
>>>at least that is my understanding, never having used it myself.
>>
>>I'm no expert on these matters, and somebody will doubtless correct me if
>>I'm wrong...
>
> You have a fool for a correspondent.
>
>>but I think the issue here is that Turnpike _can_ handle multipart MIME
>>unless the sending client - OE in this case - sends something that is
>>broken in the way that Ian B described.
>
> Quite.
>
> --
> Wm ...
> Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

[Ian Cummings]

In message <uv6y$SYeFHA.2888@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes

>How nice of you to clarify things so succintly Ian.

I suspect that you're getting your quote attributions muddled :(

>"Wm..." <tcnw41@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:mo5IDEFwAFvCFwdW@[127.0.0.1]...
>> Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:23:26 <KLIvB6T5C9uCFwTE@btinternet.com>
>>demon.ip.support.turnpike Ian Cummings <news.spam@glitton.org.uk>
>>>In message <#GSQoiAcFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
>>><scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>
>>>>The CID number is normal.
>>
>> No it is not.
>>
>>>> OE uses that to reference the image that is embedded with the
>>>>message according to RFC specifications (e.g.
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could
>>>>be an incompatibility between the recipient email program not being
>>>>able to handle the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I
>>>>think that is the problem, as Turnpike is not designed to handle
>>>>multipart mime messages -- at least that is my understanding, never
>>>>having used it myself.
>>>
>>>I'm no expert on these matters, and somebody will doubtless correct
>>>me if I'm wrong...
>>
>> You have a fool for a correspondent.
>>
>>>but I think the issue here is that Turnpike _can_ handle multipart
>>>MIME unless the sending client - OE in this case - sends something
>>>that is broken in the way that Ian B described.
>>
>> Quite.
>>
>> -- Wm ...
>> Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting



In message <#CdW7GLeFHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>I think someone who uses both Turnpike and OE could better address that
issue.

Does it need somebody who uses both ? If OE is, under certain
conditions, sending broken MIME, is the client at the receiving end
relevant?

Are you saying that a message that is broken in the way that Ian B
described is not, in fact, broken ?

>There you could compare sending and receiving with the various user
>agents and figure out in more detail where the incompatibilities are.

I think I know where the incompatibility is.

Sorry to labour the point, but I've come across this a few times myself
and would like to get it straight in my head as to what the real problem
is (and I'm pretty sure it's not because Turnpike doesn't do multipart
MIME, or that Turnpike can't handle valid MIME messages )
--
Ian Cummings

[Ian Bell]

In message <#CdW7GLeFHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes

>I think someone who uses both Turnpike and OE could better address that
>issue.

I have now tried to duplicate the problem using OE, but can't.
Furthermore, I have now viewed a copy of the damaged message with OE,
and OE can't make sense of it either.

> There you could compare sending and receiving with the various user
>agents and figure out in more detail where the incompatibilities are.

The "incompatibility" is clear - the received message is simply broken
MIME.

What is not clear is how and where the damage took place. Now I know
that OE can't view it, it seems perhaps unlikely that it was sent in
this broken state (otherwise it surely would be a known problem
already).

I understand that there may be anti-virus proxies in use by both the
sender and the recipient; it may be that this is just another way in
which such proxies can break mail :-(

--
Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Steve Cochran]

I would have liked to have seen the original message and not just the part
where it seems to have been broken.

I think it really does require someone who has access to both programs to
test. From what Ian Bell posts here, it seems to be a fluke, unless
definitive steps to reproduce it can be established.

cheers,

steve

"Ian Cummings" <news.spam@glitton.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ZS17Xx3KTdvCFw5D@btinternet.com...
> In message <uv6y$SYeFHA.2888@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>
>>How nice of you to clarify things so succintly Ian.
>
> I suspect that you're getting your quote attributions muddled :(
>
>>"Wm..." <tcnw41@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>>news:mo5IDEFwAFvCFwdW@[127.0.0.1]...
>>> Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:23:26 <KLIvB6T5C9uCFwTE@btinternet.com>
>>> demon.ip.support.turnpike Ian Cummings <news.spam@glitton.org.uk>
>>>>In message <#GSQoiAcFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
>>>><scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>>
>>>>>The CID number is normal.
>>>
>>> No it is not.
>>>
>>>>> OE uses that to reference the image that is embedded with the message
>>>>> according to RFC specifications (e.g.
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt?number=1521).
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>>>I don't know from what you posted what the error could be. It could be
>>>>>an incompatibility between the recipient email program not being able
>>>>>to handle the RFC specs. If you are using Turnpike then I think that
>>>>>is the problem, as Turnpike is not designed to handle multipart mime
>>>>>messages -- at least that is my understanding, never having used it
>>>>>myself.
>>>>
>>>>I'm no expert on these matters, and somebody will doubtless correct me
>>>>if I'm wrong...
>>>
>>> You have a fool for a correspondent.
>>>
>>>>but I think the issue here is that Turnpike _can_ handle multipart MIME
>>>>unless the sending client - OE in this case - sends something that is
>>>>broken in the way that Ian B described.
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>>
>>> -- Wm ...
>>> Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
>
>
>
> In message <#CdW7GLeFHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>I think someone who uses both Turnpike and OE could better address that
> issue.
>
> Does it need somebody who uses both ? If OE is, under certain conditions,
> sending broken MIME, is the client at the receiving end relevant?
>
> Are you saying that a message that is broken in the way that Ian B
> described is not, in fact, broken ?
>
>>There you could compare sending and receiving with the various user agents
>>and figure out in more detail where the incompatibilities are.
>
> I think I know where the incompatibility is.
>
> Sorry to labour the point, but I've come across this a few times myself
> and would like to get it straight in my head as to what the real problem
> is (and I'm pretty sure it's not because Turnpike doesn't do multipart
> MIME, or that Turnpike can't handle valid MIME messages )
> --
> Ian Cummings

[Steve Cochran]

Thanks for the clarification.

Does that mean Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages? Some of its
advocates have indicated to me it cannot.

cheers,

steve

"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message
news:quL6GFC876vCFA9K@thus.net...
> In message <#CdW7GLeFHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>
>>I think someone who uses both Turnpike and OE could better address that
>>issue.
>
> I have now tried to duplicate the problem using OE, but can't.
> Furthermore, I have now viewed a copy of the damaged message with OE, and
> OE can't make sense of it either.
>
>> There you could compare sending and receiving with the various user
>> agents and figure out in more detail where the incompatibilities are.
>
> The "incompatibility" is clear - the received message is simply broken
> MIME.
>
> What is not clear is how and where the damage took place. Now I know that
> OE can't view it, it seems perhaps unlikely that it was sent in this
> broken state (otherwise it surely would be a known problem already).
>
> I understand that there may be anti-virus proxies in use by both the
> sender and the recipient; it may be that this is just another way in which
> such proxies can break mail :-(
>
> --
> Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Ian Bell]

In message <eY#FXTxeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>Thanks for the clarification.
>
>Does that mean Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages? Some of
>its advocates have indicated to me it cannot.

Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages just fine . What it won't
handle "fully" is html messages (including multipart/related) - and that
is by design.

(html is reduced to its textual equilavent and links are not followed
meaning that reading html messages in Turnpike should always be safe)

--
Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Steve Cochran]

"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message
news:EpvBHwIs4$vCFAJi@thus.net...
> In message <eY#FXTxeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>>Does that mean Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages? Some of its
>>advocates have indicated to me it cannot.
>
> Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages just fine . What it won't
> handle "fully" is html messages (including multipart/related) - and that
> is by design.
>
> (html is reduced to its textual equilavent and links are not followed
> meaning that reading html messages in Turnpike should always be safe)
>

But not much fun. <G>

Thanks for the clarification. That explains the problem I think, as the
message was probably multipart related with an embedded image, which from
what you say above, Turnpike won't render as HTML.

cheers,

steve

> --
> Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Ian Bell]

In message <#nWy1N9eFHA.3880@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>
>"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message news:EpvBHwIs4$vCFAJ
>i@thus.net...


>> Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages just fine . What it won't
>>handle "fully" is html messages (including multipart/related) - and
>>that is by design.
>>
>> (html is reduced to its textual equilavent and links are not followed
>>meaning that reading html messages in Turnpike should always be safe)

>Thanks for the clarification. That explains the problem I think, as
>the message was probably multipart related with an embedded image,
>which from what you say above, Turnpike won't render as HTML.

The message structure was:

multipart/related
multipart/alternative
text/plain
text/html
image/jpeg

If the MIME boundary hadn't been broken, Turnpike would have allowed the
user to see either the html text, or the plain text alternative (with a
clickable buttons to switch between). The image would have been
displayed separately in either case (i.e. the image wouldn't have been
shown "within" the html text).

The problem remains the same - the broken MIME boundary. The broken
message could not be displayed by either Turnpike or OE. Since this does
not seem to be a known OE issue, the source of the problem may well lie
elsewhere, but any investigation will probably only be possible with the
involvement of the original poster.

--
Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Robert Aldwinckle]

(posted to msnews; I have no access to USENET
but am leaving the cross-posting intact assuming it
will propagate somehow.)


"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message
news:quL6GFC876vCFA9K@thus.net
....
> I have now tried to duplicate the problem using OE, but can't.
> Furthermore, I have now viewed a copy of the damaged message with OE,
> and OE can't make sense of it either.


It may help to describe what you did to try to duplicate the problem.

FYI there used to a problem with a dropped character from duplicate
references for the case where one embedded image existed and multiple
references to it were also present. I thought that was only found with
HTML messages though. However, if that case still exists it could be
closer to what you need to reproduce your Turnpike symptom.
You could undoubtedly recreate it with an older version of OE.
OTOH if that problem was "fixed" in a new version but an new off-by-one
case introduced somewhere else for the same scenario, it might be worth
testing that case in newer versions of OE too.


....
> The "incompatibility" is clear - the received message is simply broken
> MIME.
>
> What is not clear is how and where the damage took place. Now I know
> that OE can't view it, it seems perhaps unlikely that it was sent in
> this broken state (otherwise it surely would be a known problem
> already).

I wouldn't bet on that! <eg>


>
> I understand that there may be anti-virus proxies in use by both the
> sender and the recipient; it may be that this is just another way in
> which such proxies can break mail :-(

Good point. ;)


Good luck

Robert Aldwinckle
---

[Steve Cochran]

Okay, thanks. I would tend to agree that the corruption occured somewhere
in the transmission.

Since this has an "n" of 1 at the moment, I'd think its not such a big
issue.

steve

"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message
news:5A0F6JGNPVwCFA0h@thus.net...
> In message <#nWy1N9eFHA.3880@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>
>>"Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message news:EpvBHwIs4$vCFAJ
>>i@thus.net...
>
>
>>> Turnpike can handle multipart MIME messages just fine . What it won't
>>>handle "fully" is html messages (including multipart/related) - and
>>>that is by design.
>>>
>>> (html is reduced to its textual equilavent and links are not followed
>>>meaning that reading html messages in Turnpike should always be safe)
>
>>Thanks for the clarification. That explains the problem I think, as
>>the message was probably multipart related with an embedded image,
>>which from what you say above, Turnpike won't render as HTML.
>
> The message structure was:
>
> multipart/related
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain
> text/html
> image/jpeg
>
> If the MIME boundary hadn't been broken, Turnpike would have allowed the
> user to see either the html text, or the plain text alternative (with a
> clickable buttons to switch between). The image would have been
> displayed separately in either case (i.e. the image wouldn't have been
> shown "within" the html text).
>
> The problem remains the same - the broken MIME boundary. The broken
> message could not be displayed by either Turnpike or OE. Since this does
> not seem to be a known OE issue, the source of the problem may well lie
> elsewhere, but any investigation will probably only be possible with the
> involvement of the original poster.
>
> --
> Ian Bell T U R N P I K E

[Steve Cochran]

"Robert Aldwinckle" <robald@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23gXqXQOfFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> (posted to msnews; I have no access to USENET
> but am leaving the cross-posting intact assuming it
> will propagate somehow.)
>
>
> "Ian Bell" <ianbell@turnpike.com> wrote in message
> news:quL6GFC876vCFA9K@thus.net
> ...
>> I have now tried to duplicate the problem using OE, but can't.
>> Furthermore, I have now viewed a copy of the damaged message with OE,
>> and OE can't make sense of it either.
>
>
> It may help to describe what you did to try to duplicate the problem.
>
> FYI there used to a problem with a dropped character from duplicate
> references for the case where one embedded image existed and multiple
> references to it were also present. I thought that was only found with
> HTML messages though. However, if that case still exists it could be
> closer to what you need to reproduce your Turnpike symptom.
> You could undoubtedly recreate it with an older version of OE.
> OTOH if that problem was "fixed" in a new version but an new off-by-one
> case introduced somewhere else for the same scenario, it might be worth
> testing that case in newer versions of OE too.
>
>

He doesn't have to use an "older" version of OE. Just use the current
version in Win98 or Win2000. They haven't fixed it there and they refuse
to, even though it was a security patch that broke it, and its a bug that's
been around for about 3 years or more.


> ...
>> The "incompatibility" is clear - the received message is simply broken
>> MIME.
>>
>> What is not clear is how and where the damage took place. Now I know
>> that OE can't view it, it seems perhaps unlikely that it was sent in
>> this broken state (otherwise it surely would be a known problem
>> already).
>
> I wouldn't bet on that! <eg>
>
>
>>
>> I understand that there may be anti-virus proxies in use by both the
>> sender and the recipient; it may be that this is just another way in
>> which such proxies can break mail :-(
>
> Good point. ;)
>

As I also indicated, a single message is unlikely to indicate a fault in any
program. If this occurred on a regular basis then it'd be worth exploring.

steve



>
> Good luck
>
> Robert Aldwinckle
> ---
>
>
>

[Ian Cummings]

In message <OVbAOTWfFHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
<scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>Okay, thanks. I would tend to agree that the corruption occured
>somewhere in the transmission.
>
>Since this has an "n" of 1 at the moment, I'd think its not such a big
>issue.

Only one particular example being discussed here in this thread. But the
OP did say:

---x---
In message <ea5AkvAvuWqCFwBE@ntlworld.com>, Mike Isaacs
<mike@mdji.co.uk> writes
>I am having problems viewing certain pictures sent to me from Outlook
>(or Outlook Express)
>
>My son has just bought a new computer with XP Pro installed, and wishes
>to send me photos.
>
>On several occasions he has just sent me a photo without any
>accompanying text, but all I can see is a long string
---X---

which suggests to me that this isn't a one-off case for him. Add to that
the fact that I've seen this myself - which is the only reason that I
got involved in this thread - and I'm inclined to think that this is
more than a one-off fluke.

IIRC the sequence of events is:

email received as per the OP
I reply with "sorry - couldn't make sense of that"
email received again with comment "don't know what went wrong there!"
which is OK.

If it occurs again I'll follow it up and see if I can find the cause,
but probably elsewhere as I'm sure it's nothing to do with Turnpike.
--
Ian Cummings

[Steve Cochran]

Okay, I think I missed the original message, as it was only later posted to
the OE NG.

If he's got problems with images in OE, then he should post to the MS OE NG
about it.

As you suggested, its probably an ISP issue. Many anti-spam filters inject
code into the original message and that could be responsible for breaking
stuff.

steve

"Ian Cummings" <news.spam@glitton.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhNf$nBZFCxCFw7r@btinternet.com...
> In message <OVbAOTWfFHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Steve Cochran
> <scochran@oehelp.com> writes
>>Okay, thanks. I would tend to agree that the corruption occured somewhere
>>in the transmission.
>>
>>Since this has an "n" of 1 at the moment, I'd think its not such a big
>>issue.
>
> Only one particular example being discussed here in this thread. But the
> OP did say:
>
> ---x---
> In message <ea5AkvAvuWqCFwBE@ntlworld.com>, Mike Isaacs <mike@mdji.co.uk>
> writes
>>I am having problems viewing certain pictures sent to me from Outlook (or
>>Outlook Express)
>>
>>My son has just bought a new computer with XP Pro installed, and wishes to
>>send me photos.
>>
>>On several occasions he has just sent me a photo without any accompanying
>>text, but all I can see is a long string
> ---X---
>
> which suggests to me that this isn't a one-off case for him. Add to that
> the fact that I've seen this myself - which is the only reason that I got
> involved in this thread - and I'm inclined to think that this is more than
> a one-off fluke.
>
> IIRC the sequence of events is:
>
> email received as per the OP
> I reply with "sorry - couldn't make sense of that"
> email received again with comment "don't know what went wrong there!"
> which is OK.
>
> If it occurs again I'll follow it up and see if I can find the cause, but
> probably elsewhere as I'm sure it's nothing to do with Turnpike.
> --
> Ian Cummings