|
|
|
Unable to reply to C.K.
Showing all messages in thread #1197395509
Windows Me Annoyances Discussion Forum
The following are all of the messages in this thread (7 in all), shown in chronological order. Click any message subject to view that message by itself or to view the thread hierarchy.
|
Unable to reply to C.K.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 9:51 am
Posted by elmoticky
(52 messages posted)
C.K. Yesterday I ran a java base solution virus scan
using an on-line free Trend Micro program. I have
previoulsy used this program with good success. I
had two infected files that were automatically deleted by this type scan.
I have not seen the Kernell error that started these
postings but continue to be unable to reply to your
comments.
I tried to reply to your latest response and got the
same Mailer-Daemon error -- 'unable to send".
I scrolled back to the message that got the latest
error and clicked send again.
However, the reply went directly to Mailer-Daemon
and not to you....I did not get any message of error or anything....Is this strange
or what?
Anyway, C.K. since I checked my preferences like
you suggested, I note that my e-mail is the one that I am now using, so I will continue
to try to find
out what the deal is.
On a side note... Thanks for your help.
Elmoticky
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10:33 am
Posted by C K
(6157 messages posted)
Part of the issue looks like it isn't really pointing to yahoo so don't know what
the issue is but probably on your side with your ISP. Just got an email from annoyances
for a reply to my post on the XP forum, so that side looks OK.
As for the virus scan, keep an eye on it and post back if the error happens again.
A virus scan will not detect a lot of the malware out there. Malware scans are
a specialized detection process that Adaware or Spybot and other programs need to
run to handle spyware type infections. I've never had much luck with online scans
for deep infections. Sometimes, nothing but manual elimination will work after a
Hijack This log is posted on a malware site. They are specialists at finding those
little buggers that hide from you. Then they will tell you what you have to do and
what if any program will take care of it.
If it continues, we can point you to one of those sites. Now the question becomes,
how is your system getting infected. What programs do you run for malware/virus
protection on the computer? I know you have posted before but don't recall any of
that info if you did post it. (sometimes short memory here) ;-(
Finally, for Win 9X/ME, most of us find that it has to be reinstalled periodically
for best operation. Win 9X code seems to "rot", basically due to design, and old
16 bit code which limits what we can do with the operating system.
Just out of curiosity, are you trying to send through the annoyances website or to
my yahoo email directly?
On Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 9:51 am, elmoticky wrote:
>C.K. Yesterday I ran a java base solution virus scan
>using an on-line free Trend Micro program. I have
>previoulsy used this program with good success. I
>had two infected files that were automatically deleted by this type scan.
>
>I have not seen the Kernell error that started these
>postings but continue to be unable to reply to your
>comments.
>
>I tried to reply to your latest response and got the
>same Mailer-Daemon error -- 'unable to send".
>I scrolled back to the message that got the latest
>error and clicked send again.
>
>However, the reply went directly to Mailer-Daemon
>and not to you....I did not get any message of error or anything....Is this strange
>or what?
>
>Anyway, C.K. since I checked my preferences like
>you suggested, I note that my e-mail is the one that I am now using, so I will continue
>to try to find
>out what the deal is.
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Posted by elmoticky
(52 messages posted)
I knew that I had been away from annoyances too
long. I was typing my reply(under) your reply. I
just snapped by reading the error that I got while
trying to again post like this morning.
Let`s try it this time.
Elmoticky
On Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10:33 am, C K wrote:
>Part of the issue looks like it isn't really pointing to yahoo so don't know what
>the issue is but probably on your side with your ISP. Just got an email from annoyances
>for a reply to my post on the XP forum, so that side looks OK.
>
>As for the virus scan, keep an eye on it and post back if the error happens again.
> A virus scan will not detect a lot of the malware out there. Malware scans are
>a specialized detection process that Adaware or Spybot and other programs need to
>run to handle spyware type infections. I've never had much luck with online scans
>for deep infections. Sometimes, nothing but manual elimination will work after
a
>Hijack This log is posted on a malware site. They are specialists at finding those
>little buggers that hide from you. Then they will tell you what you have to do
and
>what if any program will take care of it.
>
>If it continues, we can point you to one of those sites. Now the question becomes,
>how is your system getting infected. What programs do you run for malware/virus
>protection on the computer? I know you have posted before but don't recall any
of
>that info if you did post it. (sometimes short memory here) ;-(
>
>Finally, for Win 9X/ME, most of us find that it has to be reinstalled periodically
>for best operation. Win 9X code seems to "rot", basically due to design, and old
>16 bit code which limits what we can do with the operating system.
>
>Just out of curiosity, are you trying to send through the annoyances website or
to
>my yahoo email directly?
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 8:26 am
Posted by C K
(6157 messages posted)
That worked.. Got the email notice of your reply! :-)
On Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm, elmoticky wrote:
>I knew that I had been away from annoyances too
>long. I was typing my reply(under) your reply. I
>just snapped by reading the error that I got while
>trying to again post like this morning.
>
>Let`s try it this time.
>
>Elmoticky
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 8:50 am
Posted by elmoticky
(52 messages posted)
C.K. My reply problem stemmed from habit I guess. Over at other forums that I have
been lately
a reply must be typed "under" a comment. Here
at annoyances, it is on top! So there was my error.
Anyway, to get back to my Kernell issue. I think I
have a pretty good idea what causes this error to
pop-up on my screen.
You see, I noticed that It pops-up wherever I click
to another page while the one I am reading has not
closed. By that I mean that I can see on the bottom left hand side of my screen the
page trying
to close while I click for another page.
I might be wrong, but since I noticed that, I have
waited until the "done" message appears before I
click for another page. The result, no more errors.
About your suggestion that you may be able to
recommend some good technicians to help me with
a problem, I think that I have a pretty good idea of
what you talk about.
While I have really appreciated the help that I have
been given here at annoyances, and elsewhere, there is one issue that I feel uncomfortable
with.
That issue is sending my computer log to anyone so
that they can scrutinize any errors and tell me what
I have to do. Make no mistake C.K. like I said, I
really depend on you guys for help. And while sending a log for inspection might
seem O.K. for
some folks, I am very uncomfortable...And it is not
in the sense of mistrust. I am positive, that folks
on the other end really trustworthy...It is just me C.K......
Tell me what you think...I went through the issue
that I just mentioned with respect to the log.
Elmoticky
On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 8:26 am, C K wrote:
>That worked.. Got the email notice of your reply! :-)
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 9:49 am
Posted by C K
(6157 messages posted)
Yes, this forum is a little different. Would be nice if there was a standard format
that everyone conformed to..
The log created by the malware scanner(s) won't contain any personal identifiable
information, and if they do, it would be spyware that you need to get rid of anyway,
but it is a good idea to always inspect it before sending it to anyone. Frankly,
spyware is changing and getting more serious all the time so it is what is leaving
your computer that you don't know about that is the more serious concern.
The logs I speak of are necessary so that the people who locate and identify spyware
and help you deal with it can see what is running on your computer. We don't specialize
in malware issues here so you wouldn't be sending the log to this site, but a few
people here do help on those other malware sites where they help people who have
been infected. It would be like a doctor trying to diagnose a problem more easily
if he can take an XRay if you let him, versus trying to diagnose something if you
wouldn't let him take that XRay. The only way that you can identify and deal with
malware on your computer is to "see" it, and the logs from utilities like HijackThis
are one way to "see" it. It is actually safer sending a log to them than having
someone physically putting their "hands on" your computer at a shop where you can't
see what they are doing to it. That, in my experience is the far more dangerious
scenerio that you can get into. I've found more viruses on shop repaired machines
than I care to think about.
Personally for Win 9X, when I run into these types of problems, I prefer to just
reload the machine with Windows and update it. I only have one machine now with
Win 9X on it (Win 98SE) for testing purposes and I have a clean install inage that
I can dump on the hard drive in about 10 minutes so that I don't have to go through
the long install process and reloading all of the software. A second physical drive
has all of my data on it so it isn't effected. If not for this recovery type of
scenerio, I would spend way to many hours on maintenance of that machine but, sadly
for Win 9X it is a necessary process as Windows 95/98/ME just doesn't maintain itself
as does the NT operating systems (NT/2000/XP) which were developed for the business/corporate
world.
As for your error, in my experience, if it happens once, it will happen again. It
will just be a matter of time. The code can't troubleshoot and repair itself. We
aren't at that point in the computer world yet, until machines are significantly
more powerful and we have developed AI to the point where it can do it itself. But
at that point, we risk computers taking over the world and doing away with people!
;-)
On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 8:50 am, elmoticky wrote:
>C.K. My reply problem stemmed from habit I guess. Over at other forums that I have
>been lately
>a reply must be typed "under" a comment. Here
>at annoyances, it is on top! So there was my error.
>
>Anyway, to get back to my Kernell issue. I think I
>have a pretty good idea what causes this error to
>pop-up on my screen.
>
>You see, I noticed that It pops-up wherever I click
>to another page while the one I am reading has not
>closed. By that I mean that I can see on the bottom left hand side of my screen
the
>page trying
>to close while I click for another page.
>
>I might be wrong, but since I noticed that, I have
>waited until the "done" message appears before I
>click for another page. The result, no more errors.
>
>About your suggestion that you may be able to
>recommend some good technicians to help me with
>a problem, I think that I have a pretty good idea of
>what you talk about.
>
>While I have really appreciated the help that I have
>been given here at annoyances, and elsewhere, there is one issue that I feel uncomfortable
>with.
>
>That issue is sending my computer log to anyone so
>that they can scrutinize any errors and tell me what
>I have to do. Make no mistake C.K. like I said, I
>really depend on you guys for help. And while sending a log for inspection might
>seem O.K. for
>some folks, I am very uncomfortable...And it is not
>in the sense of mistrust. I am positive, that folks
>on the other end really trustworthy...It is just me C.K......
>
>Tell me what you think...I went through the issue
>that I just mentioned with respect to the log.
>
>Elmoticky
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Posted by elmoticky
(52 messages posted)
C.K. Thanks for taking me to school on the lessons
of PC`s shortcomings....Seriously though C.K., you
are absolutely right from start to finish in your reply, and a very interesting explanation
to the issue of the log, for examination by pros.
Back in the Summer while a regular here at annoyances I posted a message seeking
assistance
due to a browser problem. I cannot recall the error
but it was a minor that dealt with malware. A very
nice person here at the site dealt with me for a while and recommended that I go
to a certain site
(do not know if I should name it here).
The person who took my case was located in England, for christsake!
Right off the bat the issue of the log was mentioned
and he was good -- very good. He is the person who told me to run a java based solution
using Trend Micro for a virus scan. He walked me through the whole process of downloading
HiJack this(which is now on my desktop, just in case).
In fact he showed me how to create the desktop icon, run the scan and save the log
--- and how to
paste it to his thread.
When I ran the scan using Trend Micro the result
was "one infection" that was deleted automatically
during the scan.
Instead of pasting the log after suffering a case of
uncomfortablities, I took a screen shot of the scan
results and pasted it instead. Explaining that I did
not feel it necessary to put him through all the
hassle if evidence showed an absence of serious viruses.
He understood and accepted the screen shot as
a good result....and that was that. I mean, C.K,
what you say is very sound advise, but I should
hope that you agree that this Kernell is probably
just being intrusive due to my haste in just punching the enter key...I even thought
that it
might just be the server, telling me to cool it.
The main reason that I started my question this
time around, if you go back and check, was to ask
if anyone had a quick band-aid solution to this
error, which actually I have not seen since I ran
the Trend Micro scan that I told you about...
However, C.K. if for some unknown reason, this
error starts giving me headaches, I will consider
running something that does not include sending my log(overseas), or even here in
the U.S...
I just learned from you today what the log contains
when pasted somewhere else. Unfortunately, that
does not help my belief that if for some unforsaken
reason, something terribly wrong happens to my
PC due to my reliance on unknown persons...well
I guess you know what I mean.
To bring this to a conclusion, C.K. I have read some of you replied to questions
posted here at the
site in the past. I am very grateful that you personally took this case. What I have
read is all
good.
Again, Thanks. Perhaps you can think of something
that may be usual to me with the Hijack icon. I say
this because here is the advise I got from overseas: "come back here to this thread
and paste
the log in your next reply. DO NOT have Hijack This
fix anything yet. Most of what it finds will be harmless or even required".
Your call C.K.
Elmoticky
On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 9:49 am, C K wrote:
>Yes, this forum is a little different. Would be nice if there was a standard format
>that everyone conformed to..
>
>The log created by the malware scanner(s) won't contain any personal identifiable
>information, and if they do, it would be spyware that you need to get rid of anyway,
>but it is a good idea to always inspect it before sending it to anyone. Frankly,
>spyware is changing and getting more serious all the time so it is what is leaving
>your computer that you don't know about that is the more serious concern.
>
>The logs I speak of are necessary so that the people who locate and identify spyware
>and help you deal with it can see what is running on your computer. We don't specialize
>in malware issues here so you wouldn't be sending the log to this site, but a few
>people here do help on those other malware sites where they help people who have
>been infected. It would be like a doctor trying to diagnose a problem more easily
>if he can take an XRay if you let him, versus trying to diagnose something if you
>wouldn't let him take that XRay. The only way that you can identify and deal with
>malware on your computer is to "see" it, and the logs from utilities like HijackThis
>are one way to "see" it. It is actually safer sending a log to them than having
>someone physically putting their "hands on" your computer at a shop where you can't
>see what they are doing to it. That, in my experience is the far more dangerious
>scenerio that you can get into. I've found more viruses on shop repaired machines
>than I care to think about.
>
>Personally for Win 9X, when I run into these types of problems, I prefer to just
>reload the machine with Windows and update it. I only have one machine now with
>Win 9X on it (Win 98SE) for testing purposes and I have a clean install inage that
>I can dump on the hard drive in about 10 minutes so that I don't have to go through
>the long install process and reloading all of the software. A second physical drive
>has all of my data on it so it isn't effected. If not for this recovery type of
>scenerio, I would spend way to many hours on maintenance of that machine but, sadly
>for Win 9X it is a necessary process as Windows 95/98/ME just doesn't maintain itself
>as does the NT operating systems (NT/2000/XP) which were developed for the business/corporate
>world.
>
>As for your error, in my experience, if it happens once, it will happen again.
It
>will just be a matter of time. The code can't troubleshoot and repair itself.
We
>aren't at that point in the computer world yet, until machines are significantly
>more powerful and we have developed AI to the point where it can do it itself.
But
>at that point, we risk computers taking over the world and doing away with people!
> ;-)
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
