Problem with OE and email "blockage"

[Krystal n chips]

I am currently experienceing a problem with OE and the receipt of emails, so I wonder if anybody can offer a simple solution please.

In essence, when I log to OE I get the "recieving mail" icon. Then I get the message "Pop3 server has not responded"......so, I check on BT / Yahoo and find there are three messages, two of which are large files and all from known sources.

Now, the problems started after an Avast anti-virus upgrade and I wonder if this is related at all ?.......I had similar problems with AVG which was one reason I binned it, but at least with AVG the issue self-rectified.

My question is though, given that all other programmes are satis, is there an easy way for me to "unblock" the OE email other than having to resort to contacting BT which I amloathe to do. Not a PC techie so simple terms would be appreciated please.

[green granite]

If you open avast there is a page for outlook/exchange just terminate the service and retry. It may be that it takes to long for the AV to scan the files and the server cuts out.

[BOAC]

You could try increasing the 'server timeout' in OE - tools/accounts/ (account) properties/advanced. If the files are large it could be as GG says.

[Krystal n chips]

My thanks for the advice guys....:ok:......however, have tried both suggestions and I still get the same result.

I reset the accounts / advanced time to 5mins...but am still getting a "timeout after 300secs" message which it is doing.

For what it's worth, I can send mails ( did a test run to my hotmail account ) and tried the BT Helpdesk (online version ) which said I had no connectivity to the internet.....so this is clearly a new form of communication I have found by posting this message!.....and the reason I do not want to involve BT if at all possible.

Any further ideas appreciated please.

[green granite]

Suggest you google "timeout after 300secs" and trawl through the hits until you find one that cures your problem. But don't get involved with TCP/IP shenanigans.

[Ancient Observer]

You may well have v good reasons for not wanting to contact BT. However, I've found them to be v helpful, (beating my expectations) about 50% of the time.
And as they do that from an 0800 number, I'm willing to cope with the 50%.

If they've been spectacularly useless in the past - and they have in my case - you might try them again.

[Capetonian]

I have to defend BT tech support. Their India based support people are unfailingly helpful, polite, and good humoured. Their procedures limit their helpfulness sometimes, but I've found that by telling them exactly what basic checks I've done, they no longer ask me to check my cables, etc etc.

As to your problem, try doing an ADSL speed check.

[Tarq57]

Ideas: Double check in the Avast Mail provider settings under "Internet Mail>customize" then the "redirect" tab, that the POP port is set to 110, the SMTP to 25. (Default).
Run the Appropriate AVG removal tool (http://www.avg.com/download-tools) (Either the 32 or the 64 bit tools) to remove any AVG remnants you may have.
Remnants of old AV's can cause problems some time after a new AV has been installed. Kernel level drivers, etc.
Make sure the process "ashMaiSv.exe" is allowed in your firewall.
Don't happen to use ZoneAlarm, do you?

[Krystal n chips]

The problem seems to be solved !.

I did contact BT and yes, the lady who rectified the issue was very competent ( interesting to watch a remote control operation taking place ) plus I also downloaded an OE repair tool.

With regard to BT however, it's the operation as whole I loathe ( and certainly anything to do with their interpretation of "customer service" ...such as the "one off" adjustment to my recent bill for reasons which are fatuous at best...but which will, quelle surprise, generate quite a lot of revenue for them and the customer has no choice other than to pay...no consultation of course, just the usual arbitary decision ) hence my reluctance to involve them.

Finally, my thanks to ALL who offered me advice....:ok:....I learnt a lot more in the process as a result, albeit basic stuff to many no doubt, but new to me.

[BOAC]

K&C - any clues for us as to what magic she weaved? Did she say what the issue was that required a 'repair tool' and which was it? Also your OS + Service pack state would be useful to know if you can tell us.

[Krystal n chips]

BOAC,

Now your asking. Any question on a/c systems or gliding....fine...with PC's it's a different matter...please bear with me :)

She first deleted the two large files...about 3.5 and 3.6 respectively...both from known sources so no suspicion on my part there although the sender of one of them has caused problems before.....then she went to OE and the tools/ accounts .....and deleted a whole load of accounts which she said shouldn't be there....only my personal email account was left. Now where these came from I have no idea as I don't ever get involved with stuff like this and I am also careful which sites I visit...how they got there I have no idea as there is only me who has access to my PC......then did a test and a mail appeared. She suggested that OE might be corrupt in some way....hence I went searching for a tool......an interesting point however....when I went to the BT / Yahoo! homepage....it wouldn't display....then I got a series of messages from spybot asking if I wanted to accept or deny the changes in start-up directories ( just had another in fact asking about Flash ) ....so I pressed the accept button and lo and behold, up came BT's page.

I did a speed test as well...c/o sites on Google and the variations went from 1.3 to 2.5.....so I am suspicious of the results.....interestingly enough....all the smilie icons on this site have suddenly reappeared as well....some had a "x" at times.....

I can't, in all honesty, answer the last part of your question as I simply don't know, but I hope the information I have supplied will be understood by you, and others.

The next issue I face is posting a pic here on the Mil site in the caption comp...I have looked at your guide so it should be an interesting excercise......or not!.

[Ancient Observer]

Just a thought - our more technically advanced colleagues will help out here. You might well have done something to either your pc or your modem/modem router to enable the remote access that helped you.
For your own security reasons, you might wish to un-do whatever you did so that remote access is turned off, if you haven't already done that.

Whenever I've enabled remote access so that technically literate folk can help me, they've always told me to turn it off.

[BOAC]

Now where these came from I have no idea as I don't ever get involved with stuff like this and I am also careful which sites I visit...how they got there I have no idea as there is only me who has access to my PC - understood:) Just hoping it might help the next 'unfortunate'. The email account thing is odd - it takes positive action by the user to either add or 'import' an email account into OE - does anyone else use the machine?

AO's advice is VERY sound!

Regarding my 'last' - if you navigate to control panel/system it will tell you your OS and Service Pack stuff.

[Krystal n chips]

AO / BOAC,

Thanks for your advice. I am not actually sure what you mean by "undo" and how I can achieve this.

As for the email accounts, there was only one and this was mine. The other contents...and here I have to admit I honestly can't remember them....included one starting with Yahoo, another was Bigfoot.....and nobody else has / had access except one person who is my geek mate....and the last time he touched it was about 18months ago.....as he has helped put bad guys away in the past with his skills, I feel he is safe with my machine. In any event, he's now 60miles from me !

The OS system page shows

128 MB RAM

Resources 52% free

File System 32 bit

Virtual Memory 32 bit

" The system is configured for optimal performance"

It's an old machine as you will have gathered...Win98 to be precise and because I only use it for emails / net access and some work documents I have not upgraded....most of the time it works perfectly....however.

If I could offer more information I would gladly do so....same principle as work after all re learning about mistakes and errors etc....but I can't so I hope this info helps. More than happy to answer..or try to...any more queries though if this helps at all.

[Ancient Observer]

Oh, dear, I'm not sure I can help. Your pc/internet link should not naturally be set to allow remote access.
I think I know how to enable and disable mine, but everyone will have different ways of doing theirs.

I should not try to help you when I know so little about your set-up.

Maybe a techie will step in..............

[BOAC]

I'm 'out of here' too! I seem to recall there was a setting in there somewhere to enable Remote Access. You could have a look at the Control Panel/system and see if there is a tab?

[Saab Dastard]

Whenever I've enabled remote access so that technically literate folk can help me, they've always told me to turn it off.

It's Win 98 so as secure as a colander. Why bother?

SD

[Jofm5]

Oh, dear, I'm not sure I can help. Your pc/internet link should not naturally be set to allow remote access.



Well yes and no !

The Yes part: Most people who have a broadband connection are hidden behind a NAT firewall.

To explain that a little better, your local network addresses have no correlation with the address you appear on the internet as thus any in bound connection attempt needs direction to the local address it is for and if it cannot figure this out/is not present it is denied.

NAT (Network address translation) is the method whereby an outgoing request is paired with the appropriate in bound request - for example if local address 192.168.1.1 is talking on port 3384 to google the router knows inbound requests on 3384 from google are for the machine on 192.168.1.1 and forwards it accordingly.

The application you were using for remote assistance is not part of windows (remote desktop was not introduced until XP) this is publishing its presence somewhere and allowing the remote user to pick up the link and connect thus bypassing a NAT firewall (basic principles on how gotomypc etc work).

Make sure whatever it was you installed is disabled or you risk the integrity of your machine.

As an aside - most routers will allow port forwarding, this is whereby you can specify a port e.g. port 80 (http) to be forwarded to a particular machine on the network - this is how you would set up a home web server to be visible on the web even tho its behind a firewall.

The No Part:

If you are directly connected to the net, e.g. via a cable modem (note: not cable router) or an analogue modem/ISDN terminal you will need to install your own protection/firewall as you will be directly visible to the net on your machine - thus any inbound requests made to your publicly exposed IP address will be forwarded direct to your PC for dealing with and if no software firewall is in place may leave you open to abuse.

[BOAC]

I think it was called 'dial-up access' or 'remote administration' or similar in W98? I seem to remember now that Control Panel/Passwords had a tab for it - if enabled?

[Saab Dastard]

NAT (Network address translation) is the method whereby an outgoing request is paired with the appropriate in bound request - for example if local address 192.168.1.1 is talking on port 3384 to google the router knows inbound requests on 3384 from google are for the machine on 192.168.1.1 and forwards it accordingly.

You are mixing up NAT and PAT (port address translation). PAT (or NAT Overload) is a subset of NAT.

NAT maps an Internal (private) IP address (e.g. 192.168.0.11) to an External registered, routable, public IP address, assigned in this case by your ISP.

NAT can be configured as a single registered address (the usual situation for a home connection), or as a pool of registered addresses (e.g. corporate environment).

With a single external address, if there is only one internal device (e.g. PC connected directly to broadband modem), there is no requirement for PAT at all - simply a 1-1 internal-external IP address mapping. Port numbers are not involved in the standard NAT process.

Where there are more internal devices then external IP addresses, then PAT becomes involved. PAT dynamically assigns a high port number to each internal address as it is translated to the external address outbound, and maintains this port-mapping in a table, so that it can track the inbound replies and map the response back to the correct internal IP address.

In TCP/IP, the combination of an IP Address and port number is called a Socket, so PAT is sockets-based, while NAT is address-based.

SD

PS - To access Remote Connections in XP, right click My Computer, choose Properties, and open the Remote tab.

[Krystal n chips]

How to induce a nightmare....watch me reading the replies on here ! :)

Thanks for all the further advice. :ok:

The issue of remote access then. I can understand the concern, however, as this was a "one off" and controlled by BT, why should this subsequently become a problem.....or is it that because BT opened up my PC to the net as it were, then as a result I am now "exposed".....albeit with safeguards in place.

I know Win98 is like a collander and always has been, but, as I said, prior to this I have had relatively little trouble....lucky maybe ?......or just prudent as to my usage.

Am off to change my shreddies ! ;)

[Jofm5]

Krystal,

Dont worry about it too much, most people on here are being anal to prove their knowledge rather than address the original question.

Just make sure what ever it was they asked you to do (BT) is now disabled and then you can go surf happy.

Cheers

[Saab Dastard]

most people on here are being anal to prove their knowledge rather than address the original question.

Jofm5, that's a rather unkind remark, whoever it is addressed to.

If to me, may I point out that it was you who introduced the topic of NAT, but got it wrong. I was merely ensuring that others who are not as technically gifted as you are weren't left with a false understanding of the subject.

Finally, I would much rather be thought anal while proving my knowledge than thought anything else while proving my ignorance. :ok:

SD