Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size returned mmmmmm

[micky]

After having my laptop for more than a year, I finally got around to
installing Eudora and Agent on it.

Eudora went fine, but when I tried to run a32en193.exe (Agent 1.93) I
got, "Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size
returned mmmmmm"

I know a bit about why this happened, but not much and I don't know how
to overcome it.

Originally I dl'd a copy of the program from http://mirrors.easy.....
(I can get the site if you want it.) I've never dealt with them before
and I worry about getting spyware or a virus. (Because I don't know
how these sites make a profit otherwise.)

Now that I was reminded of the file name, I found it on my desktop.
The one I just dl'd was 30 bytes shorter! That's a good sign, isn't
it??? They can't insert malicious code and make the file shorter at
the same time, can they?????

But nonetheless I wanted to use the file I'm almost sure I used before.
So I emailed it to the laptop. and I moved the file from the attachment
folder of Eudora to my download folder, overlaying the copy that I had
just downloaded. Then when I tried to run it, I got the message
above, The size it "expected" was that of the downloaded file, the
first one by that name in that folder. The size that was "returned"
was the file size of the one I overlaid the first one with.

So I deleted the whole thing, re-retrieved my email, copied it to the
downloads directory, ran it, and got the same result.

So I renamed the file, adding a 3 to a32en193, reran it, and got the
same result.

So I renamed the file in the Eudora attachment directory -- renamed it
differently from the prior renaming, that is -- ran it from that
directory, and got the same result (the same error message)

Then I thought, even though nothing in the message box attributed the
message to Avast or Security Essentials, maybe Avast was keeping track
of this, so I turned off 3 things I thought might be related, but that
didn't help. And I found maybe one thing in Security Essentials to
turn off, but that didn't help!!! Neither program had a switch to turn
off the whole thing, though AVG has that.

Googling got a few hits on the mesage, but none related to my setup. I
could google some more though.

Or, I suppose I could rename it before I sent it to the laptop, but I
don't think that will fool it.

Is there code IN the file that says how long it is? That didn't cause a
problem when I used it when I first got XP. (Though I used AVG and not
Avast or Security Essentials, and just maybe it was before SP3.)


Anyhow, for the future, I'd like to know what is happening and how to
avoid it.

Any ideas?

 

[philo]

After having my laptop for more than a year, I finally got around to
installing Eudora and Agent on it.

Eudora went fine, but when I tried to run a32en193.exe (Agent 1.93) I
got, "Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size
returned mmmmmm"

Your download is corrupted and very possibly it's corrupted on the
server and the problem not on your end. Find another source.

 

[VanguardLH]

After having my laptop for more than a year, I finally got around to
installing Eudora and Agent on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_(e-mail_client)#Eudora_OSE

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/relea...collaboration-mozilla-foundation-develop-open

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Eudora_OSE

So just go with Thunderbird. If you feel compelled to go with the
Eudora GUI then download from a known good source, like:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/Eudora.shtml
http://download.cnet.com/Eudora-OSE/3000-2367_4-10037040.html?tag=mncol;1

I tend to get downloads from Softpedia, if available, than from Cnet's
download site. Some of Cnet's downloads have their own wrapper on them.

Eudora went fine, but when I tried to run a32en193.exe (Agent 1.93) I
got, "Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size
returned mmmmmm"

Could be the installer got corrupted. Could be it was a bad build
around which the installer was wrapped. Could be you got something else
or more than just Eudora [OSE] in that download.

Uninstall, scan your host for malware, and install from a known good
download source.

 

[Paul]

After having my laptop for more than a year, I finally got around to
installing Eudora and Agent on it.

Eudora went fine, but when I tried to run a32en193.exe (Agent 1.93) I
got, "Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size
returned mmmmmm"

I know a bit about why this happened, but not much and I don't know how
to overcome it.

Originally I dl'd a copy of the program from http://mirrors.easy.....
(I can get the site if you want it.) I've never dealt with them before
and I worry about getting spyware or a virus. (Because I don't know
how these sites make a profit otherwise.)

Now that I was reminded of the file name, I found it on my desktop.
The one I just dl'd was 30 bytes shorter! That's a good sign, isn't
it??? They can't insert malicious code and make the file shorter at
the same time, can they?????

But nonetheless I wanted to use the file I'm almost sure I used before.
So I emailed it to the laptop. and I moved the file from the attachment
folder of Eudora to my download folder, overlaying the copy that I had
just downloaded. Then when I tried to run it, I got the message
above, The size it "expected" was that of the downloaded file, the
first one by that name in that folder. The size that was "returned"
was the file size of the one I overlaid the first one with.

So I deleted the whole thing, re-retrieved my email, copied it to the
downloads directory, ran it, and got the same result.

So I renamed the file, adding a 3 to a32en193, reran it, and got the
same result.

So I renamed the file in the Eudora attachment directory -- renamed it
differently from the prior renaming, that is -- ran it from that
directory, and got the same result (the same error message)

Then I thought, even though nothing in the message box attributed the
message to Avast or Security Essentials, maybe Avast was keeping track
of this, so I turned off 3 things I thought might be related, but that
didn't help. And I found maybe one thing in Security Essentials to
turn off, but that didn't help!!! Neither program had a switch to turn
off the whole thing, though AVG has that.

Googling got a few hits on the mesage, but none related to my setup. I
could google some more though.

Or, I suppose I could rename it before I sent it to the laptop, but I
don't think that will fool it.

Is there code IN the file that says how long it is? That didn't cause a
problem when I used it when I first got XP. (Though I used AVG and not
Avast or Security Essentials, and just maybe it was before SP3.)


Anyhow, for the future, I'd like to know what is happening and how to
avoid it.

Any ideas?

You verify downloads, by their MD5SUM or SHA1SUM, where SHA1 is preferred
at the moment, but MD5 is more available. File size is not a reliable
indicator of anything. The file could be entirely different inside, a
big malware, and have the exact same file size, and those guys would be
laughing at you. But to use checksums as a means of detecting changes
to the file, the originator of the file has to tell you what the checksum
was, when they made the package.

*******

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forte_Agent

"In the past a free version was offered alongside the commercial one.
The free version lacked some features of the commercial version or,
later, had them disabled until a registration key was entered.

The last free version was 3.3
"

If you can't find that on the Forte site (and people have told me they
could find it there), you can get the copy off archive.org .

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ftp3.forteinc.com/pub/agent/english/agentenu330-846.exe

7,737,912 bytes
MD5SUM = 4b80a6e3f4edab93b4e603db754ef7f9 *agentenu330-846.exe

That matches the size and MD5SUM of the one I've got. I can't say much
for that version, other than that it was installed once on some machine
here, and given a very quick test (with a free news server).

If you need an MD5SUM tool, get a copy of fciv.exe from Microsoft.
It computes MD5 and SHA1, but is less convenient than the tool I
use, as it doesn't accept wildcards all that well. You have to
spell everything out for fciv.exe, to use it. You would do this
in a Command Prompt window (meaning, you also have to know how
to use a Command Prompt window). I have to mention that, as
someone will complain bitterly if I don't give a *full(
lecture on the Command Prompt

fciv -md5 agentenu330-846.exe

*******

OK, so say the software company doesn't give an MD5SUM. What do you do ?
You use a reverse search, a form of majority voter logic. You enter
the checksum of the file you did get, and see how many other people
(who aren't infected), got the same file. If the checksum of your
file simply doesn't appear in a search engine, that's your first hint
the file is bogus. So let's try it.

I search on "4b80a6e3f4edab93b4e603db754ef7f9". I got nothing
of value. So we can't rely in this case, on the checksum computed
by other users (and posted somewhere).

That leaves a search on virustotal.com . Still not an absolutely
reliable indicator, but better than nothing. It's listed as "clean" here.

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/...8d4ff408d5dd6ad309a43af6017489f5043/analysis/

Now, what's interesting, is virustotal says "the file is signed, but
the certificate chain is broken". And indeed, when I did properties
on that file, it is signed. Which would have been another way to
vet the file, if the certificate was still usable.

The one comment on the Virustotal page says to:

"Download from http://download.forteinc.com/pub/agent/english/agentenu330-846.exe
"

And indeed, that link works, and the file has the same MD5SUM as
my other two copies. We have a winner So a thanks goes
out to that anonymous commenter.

HTH,
Paul

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, micky

Now that I was reminded of the file name, I found it on my desktop.
The one I just dl'd was 30 bytes shorter! That's a good sign, isn't
it??? They can't insert malicious code and make the file shorter at
the same time, can they?????

[]
Ho Yus, as a certain British bulldog would say. If you look at the .exe,
..dll, and so on files for many applications with a hex editor, you'll
often find long strings of (usually) nulls; these are there because at
final compile time the person who compiled them didn't turn on the
optimise setting in the compiler (or more likely, didn't turn off the
debug flags which had made their earlier compiling attempts easier to
debug). That, or just programming that leaves big buffers etc. lying
around.

And that of course is assuming the malware authors want to keep as much
of the original functionality unchanged. As another has pointed out,
what you download could only bear a passing resemblance to the original.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No matter how beautiful a girl is, no matter how much you might love her,
squeeze her tight enough and she'll fart - Joe Barron, quoted by son Fred ("My
Family" creator), RT, 15-21 March 2003

 

[micky]

Your download is corrupted and very possibly it's corrupted on the
server and the problem not on your end. Find another source.

You're right. I was sure I had used this file 3 years ago when I
started using this computer, but maybe not.

Or is it possible it got corrupted while sitting on the harddrive for 3
years??

 

[micky]

. Not a Microsoft Windows XP Sp3 Problem

Yes it was. Unless someone says otherwise, the answers I got make it
clear the error message came from XP.

By Going 100% Microsoft Windows

No chance of that. Agent is far more powerful than anything Microsoft
has, and that's vesion 1.9, which I think is 11 years old. Later
versions have even more features.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

After having my laptop for more than a year, I finally got around to
installing Eudora and Agent on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_(e-mail_client)#Eudora_OSE

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releases/2006/10/11/qualcomm-launches-proj
ect-collaboration-mozilla-foundation-develop-open

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Eudora_OSE

So just go with Thunderbird. If you feel compelled to go with the
Eudora GUI then download from a known good source, like:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/Eudora.shtml
http://download.cnet.com/Eudora-OSE/3000-2367_4-10037040.html?tag=mncol;1[/QUOTE]

Micky has (like friends of mine) got original Eudora running fine. (In
their case, even on W7. Incidentally, there are posts in the 7 'group
giving the keys to upgrade it.) As shown by his next line which you do
quote below!

For anyone else reading this and thinking of upgrading from Eudora,
consider what the last link above says about the OSE version: "Qualcomm
is no longer developing Eudora OSE. Furthermore, the last released
version is based on an old version of Thunderbird which is no longer
supported, and has known security issues." (I'm not sure it was Qualcomm
who created E-OSE anyway.) From experience with another friend: if you
can get E-OSE to work (I don't remember it being that problematic), it
might be a reasonable intermediate stage: it is indeed Thunderbird
underneath, but tricked out to look like Eudora (all the old icons, and
I think some of the shortcuts - but not all; blind friends couldn't get
on with it). My friend used it for a while, getting familiar with the
Thunderbird way of doing things, and then (prompted by some problem)
when we installed the current version of Thunderbird, she carried on
without problem. (That installation was the simplest I've ever done -
the new Thunderbird came up with all account settings, contacts, and
emails already in place, no importing etc. needed, which I suppose I
should have expected, since it was really just updating an existing
Thunderbird.)

I tend to get downloads from Softpedia, if available, than from Cnet's
download site. Some of Cnet's downloads have their own wrapper on them.

Eudora went fine, but when I tried to run a32en193.exe (Agent 1.93) I
got, "Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size
returned mmmmmm"

Could be the installer got corrupted. Could be it was a bad build
around which the installer was wrapped. Could be you got something else
or more than just Eudora [OSE] in that download.

It was Agent he was having trouble with.

Uninstall, scan your host for malware, and install from a known good
download source.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No matter how beautiful a girl is, no matter how much you might love her,
squeeze her tight enough and she'll fart - Joe Barron, quoted by son Fred ("My
Family" creator), RT, 15-21 March 2003

 

[micky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_(e-mail_client)#Eudora_OSE

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/relea...collaboration-mozilla-foundation-develop-open

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Eudora_OSE

So just go with Thunderbird. If you feel compelled to go with the
Eudora GUI then download from a known good source, like:

Exactly. I wasn't sure about mirrors.easy....

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/Eudora.shtml
http://download.cnet.com/Eudora-OSE/3000-2367_4-10037040.html?tag=mncol;1

Thanks. Both of these had the most recent version of Agent, but not
older ones.

I tend to get downloads from Softpedia, if available, than from Cnet's
download site. Some of Cnet's downloads have their own wrapper on them.

Eudora went fine, but when I tried to run a32en193.exe (Agent 1.93) I
got, "Could not initialize installation. File size expected nnnnnn, size
returned mmmmmm"

Could be the installer got corrupted. Could be it was a bad build
around which the installer was wrapped. Could be you got something else
or more than just Eudora [OSE] in that download.

My OP was probably confusing, but this was a file I already had, and
which I thought I used on this very computer (not the rather new laptop)

Do you think it could be corrupted while sitting on a harddrive for 3
years?

Uninstall, scan your host for malware, and install from a known good
download source.

Ended up getting it from archive.org. All is fine now.

 

[micky]

I made a mistake, I think, in mentioning Eudora again here. Should have
just said email program or nothing at all.


And again I mentioned Eudora. No wonder Vanguard got to thinking about
it. Sorry, Vanguard.

You verify downloads, by their MD5SUM or SHA1SUM, where SHA1 is preferred
at the moment, but MD5 is more available. File size is not a reliable
indicator of anything. The file could be entirely different inside, a
big malware, and have the exact same file size, and those guys would be
laughing at you. But to use checksums as a means of detecting changes
to the file, the originator of the file has to tell you what the checksum
was, when they made the package.

*******

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forte_Agent

"In the past a free version was offered alongside the commercial one.
The free version lacked some features of the commercial version or,
later, had them disabled until a registration key was entered.

The last free version was 3.3
"

If you can't find that on the Forte site (and people have told me they
could find it there),

3.3 is there, but I've never used that. I want 1.93!!! For one
thing, I know it backwards and forwards, I know the the setttings and
options will match up exactly, and actually I modified Agent 1.9 so that
the Insert function is always on Insert, never overlay. I tried to do
that for a later version, maybe version 6, and the instructions the guy
in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified weren't applicable to
the newer version, and try as I might, I couldn't figure out how to do
it. (I never went back to ask the helpful guy) (So after I install
the program, I have to replace agent.exe with the modified one.)

FTR, I paid for and installed version 6 on my desktop, but I still find
it very hard to use, and I use it maybe every 3 months, mostly to ask
about Firefox, which is on a different news server. I would use ver6 on
the laptop much less, maybe once every two years, since when I travel I
don't do newsgroups much. (When I had to buy a car out of town, I asked
about cars on a car group.)

you can get the copy off archive.org .

That's where I got it. Thanks a lot. I'd forgotten about them. I had
looked at oldversion.com but it didnt' have even one version. I
suppose I should send one in.

BTW, I'm not the only guy using v1.93. When I read the Agent
newsgroup, it gets quite a few posts from people who are.

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ftp3.forteinc.com/pub/agent/english/agentenu330-846.exe

7,737,912 bytes
MD5SUM = 4b80a6e3f4edab93b4e603db754ef7f9 *agentenu330-846.exe

That matches the size and MD5SUM of the one I've got. I can't say much
for that version, other than that it was installed once on some machine
here, and given a very quick test (with a free news server).

That's okay. I'm using ver 1.9. ;-)

If you need an MD5SUM tool, get a copy of fciv.exe from Microsoft.
It computes MD5 and SHA1,

Okay. I got it. I want to post before I take a bunch of time using
it.

but is less convenient than the tool I
use, as it doesn't accept wildcards all that well. You have to
spell everything out for fciv.exe, to use it. You would do this
in a Command Prompt window (meaning, you also have to know how
to use a Command Prompt window). I have to mention that, as
someone will complain bitterly if I don't give a *full(
lecture on the Command Prompt

I'm sure you would, but I've had a computer since 1984, a PC Jr. for
about 9 years.

fciv -md5 agentenu330-846.exe

*******

OK, so say the software company doesn't give an MD5SUM. What do you do ?
You use a reverse search, a form of majority voter logic. You enter
the checksum of the file you did get, and see how many other people
(who aren't infected), got the same file. If the checksum of your
file simply doesn't appear in a search engine, that's your first hint
the file is bogus. So let's try it.

I search on "4b80a6e3f4edab93b4e603db754ef7f9". I got nothing
of value. So we can't rely in this case, on the checksum computed
by other users (and posted somewhere).

That leaves a search on virustotal.com . Still not an absolutely
reliable indicator, but better than nothing. It's listed as "clean" here.

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/...8d4ff408d5dd6ad309a43af6017489f5043/analysis/

Now, what's interesting, is virustotal says "the file is signed, but
the certificate chain is broken". And indeed, when I did properties
on that file, it is signed. Which would have been another way to
vet the file, if the certificate was still usable.

The one comment on the Virustotal page says to:

"Download from http://download.forteinc.com/pub/agent/english/agentenu330-846.exe
"

And indeed, that link works, and the file has the same MD5SUM as
my other two copies. We have a winner So a thanks goes
out to that anonymous commenter.

HTH,

Yes it does. The laptop is little used and has no important data on
it, so I trusted archive.org, which I think got its file straight from
Forte years ago. But my desktop does have important stuff, and my
laptop might have stuff after the next trip.

 

[micky]

In message <[email protected]>, micky

Now that I was reminded of the file name, I found it on my desktop.
The one I just dl'd was 30 bytes shorter! That's a good sign, isn't
it??? They can't insert malicious code and make the file shorter at
the same time, can they?????

[]
Ho Yus, as a certain British bulldog would say. If you look at the .exe,
.dll, and so on files for many applications with a hex editor, you'll

Well, I did used to do that, but as a side comment, when we were all
living in DOS-land, I looked at some important dos external command in
an editor and somehow when I existed it had added a byte at the end, and
the program didnt' work anymore This was when I was 20 years younger
and alert, and I figured out what I had done, and found the original
file somewhere else and fixed things.

Since then I only use a viewer to look at executable files, and I use
LIST from TCC LE version 12 (which I think is the latest.), free for
personal use. It also has many valuable enhancements of DOS commands,
but I like that List runs so fast. If I say List *.*, I can press ESC
over and over and easily look at 12 files a minute if I'm looking for
something on the first page.

often find long strings of (usually) nulls; these are there because at
final compile time the person who compiled them didn't turn on the
optimise setting in the compiler (or more likely, didn't turn off the
debug flags which had made their earlier compiling attempts easier to
debug). That, or just programming that leaves big buffers etc. lying
around.

And that of course is assuming the malware authors want to keep as much
of the original functionality unchanged. As another has pointed out,
what you download could only bear a passing resemblance to the original.

Okay, so much for that plan.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, micky

3.3 is there, but I've never used that. I want 1.93!!! For one
thing, I know it backwards and forwards, I know the the setttings and
options will match up exactly, and actually I modified Agent 1.9 so that
the Insert function is always on Insert, never overlay. I tried to do
that for a later version, maybe version 6, and the instructions the guy
in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified weren't applicable to
the newer version, and try as I might, I couldn't figure out how to do
it. (I never went back to ask the helpful guy) (So after I install
the program, I have to replace agent.exe with the modified one.)

[]
If by the above you mean you sometimes hit the insert/overwrite key by
mistake, you may find itk - insert toggle key - useful: get it from
https://web.archive.org/web/20131108122942/http://www.mlin.net/other.shtml
(while it still remains; look at others there too). It makes that key
beep when pressed: the name is based on Toggle Keys, which is hidden
away in the control panel under disabled access, and makes the lock keys
(Caps Lock, Scroll Lock and Num Lock) do similar. I'm not disabled, but
I find them (well, the first anyway) most useful: it tells me when I've
hit the Caps Lock key by mistake, as I (and most people I know) do, not
infrequently.

Unlike toggle keys, itk doesn't give a _different_ beep for successive
presses - probably because different prog.s use the insert key different
ways up, so it'd be meaningless for Mike Lee to have designated which of
the two states is "on".

(There are also plenty of ways around for disabling keys like Insert or
Caps Lock; I haven't pursued these as I do occasionally use the
function. If you NEVER do [I did for that], you could look into them.)

 

[micky]

In message <[email protected]>, micky

3.3 is there, but I've never used that. I want 1.93!!! For one
thing, I know it backwards and forwards, I know the the setttings and
options will match up exactly, and actually I modified Agent 1.9 so that
the Insert function is always on Insert, never overlay. I tried to do
that for a later version, maybe version 6, and the instructions the guy
in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified weren't applicable to
the newer version, and try as I might, I couldn't figure out how to do
it. (I never went back to ask the helpful guy) (So after I install
the program, I have to replace agent.exe with the modified one.)

[]
If by the above you mean you sometimes hit the insert/overwrite key by

Yes, that's what I mean.

mistake, you may find itk - insert toggle key - useful: get it from
https://web.archive.org/web/20131108122942/http://www.mlin.net/other.shtml
(while it still remains; look at others there too).

Thanks. Taskbar Commander would have been very useful for my older
brother, a radiologist who doesn't really like computers**, when he was
trying to read x-rays and other images from home.

**Though at his last job, he had two monitors, two keyboards and two
mice he worked with fine.

It makes that key
beep when pressed: the name is based on Toggle Keys, which is hidden
away in the control panel under disabled access, and makes the lock keys
(Caps Lock, Scroll Lock and Num Lock) do similar. I'm not disabled, but
I find them (well, the first anyway) most useful: it tells me when I've
hit the Caps Lock key by mistake, as I (and most people I know) do, not
infrequently.

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow about the rest of this.

Unlike toggle keys, itk doesn't give a _different_ beep for successive
presses - probably because different prog.s use the insert key different
ways up, so it'd be meaningless for Mike Lee to have designated which of
the two states is "on".

(There are also plenty of ways around for disabling keys like Insert or
Caps Lock; I haven't pursued these as I do occasionally use the
function. If you NEVER do [I did for that], you could look into them.)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:37:53 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"


Yes, that's what I mean.
(Did you get itk?)

Thanks. Taskbar Commander would have been very useful for my older
brother, a radiologist who doesn't really like computers**, when he was
trying to read x-rays and other images from home.

**Though at his last job, he had two monitors, two keyboards and two
mice he worked with fine.

I think people who "don't like computers" just have too narrow a
definition of what a computer is (and can be used for). (My mother - a
language teacher - often professed technical lack of skill, but was able
to operate a quite complicated language laboratory.)

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow about the rest of this.

Start, Control Panel, Accessibility Options(, Keyboard but it comes up
in that), ToggleKeys; tick it and OK out. Now "accidentally" hit the
Caps Lock key a couple of times to see (or rather hear) the effect.

(In Windows 7, the same effect can be obtained by holding down a key -
IIRR the left Ctrl key - for five seconds.)
[]

 

[VanguardLH]

For anyone else reading this and thinking of upgrading from Eudora,
consider what the last link above says about the OSE version: "Qualcomm
is no longer developing Eudora OSE. Furthermore, the last released
version is based on an old version of Thunderbird which is no longer
supported, and has known security issues."

Wouldn't that also appy against an old version of Eudora that is also
"no longer supported" and would obviously not address any security
issues or defects in that old code (or are you claiming the old code
endowed a perfect program)?

It was Agent he was having trouble with.

Huh? What has Forte Agent got to do with a bad download of the
installer for [old] Eudora? micky was retrieving the program from
Usenet binaries? Hope not. Doesn't look like it. He mentioned an HTTP
site which means he was using a web browser to download the file.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

For anyone else reading this and thinking of upgrading from Eudora,
consider what the last link above says about the OSE version: "Qualcomm
is no longer developing Eudora OSE. Furthermore, the last released
version is based on an old version of Thunderbird which is no longer
supported, and has known security issues."

Wouldn't that also appy against an old version of Eudora that is also
Yes.

"no longer supported" and would obviously not address any security
issues or defects in that old code (or are you claiming the old code
endowed a perfect program)?[/QUOTE]

I'm not - I don't use it. I know several users who do like it though!

It was Agent he was having trouble with.

Huh? What has Forte Agent got to do with a bad download of the
installer for [old] Eudora? micky was retrieving the program from

It wasn't the installer for Eudora he was having trouble with.