"error while performing unknown task for <<Dominant>>"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
kam - 04 Jan 2008 21:34 GMT I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I am able to send and receive mail without problem.
I just found others with the same problem on http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&highlight=performing+unknown+task
The folks there are wondering if it is related to using sponsored mode (as I do).
Has anyone else experienced this problem?
john@disoln.com - 05 Jan 2008 00:05 GMT > I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 > on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Has anyone else experienced this problem? Yes, is happened to me, out of the blue; that is, with nothing I was doing that could apparently trigger it. I am on OS 10.4.11, with Eudora 6.2.4. I tried everything I could think of, even down to installing a brand new version of Eudora, but to no effect. This problem has apparently been around for at least 18months, judging by other postings - it is now Jan 2008.
I happen to have control of the server too on my network, and this showed that Eudora opened and then forcibly closed the read mail connection, and then complained of the lack of response after two minutes (or at least something from my Mac forcibly closed the connection.)
Fortunately, the problem now appears to have gone away by itself, just as mysteriously as it appeared.
kam - 05 Jan 2008 05:22 GMT >>I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 >>on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Fortunately, the problem now appears to have gone away by itself, just > as mysteriously as it appeared. The link to a thread that I gave in my first message recently had a post by someone who checked his log files, and found that Eudora was trying to contact adserver.eudora.com. Seems like it's trying to get ads, but there are none to get. Or something like that.
Hope mine goes away as yours did - it's annoying! Thanks for the reply, John.
ampersand - 08 Jan 2008 21:58 GMT Does anyone have a Paid Mode Registration Code they'd be willing to share? Since Eudora is not selling the product anymore I doubt there is any piracy violation. I imagine this would solve the problem since Paid Mode does not connect to the ad server.
grant.jacobs@clear.net.nz - 08 Jan 2008 23:29 GMT > Does anyone have a Paid Mode Registration Code they'd be willing to > share? Since Eudora is not selling the product anymore I doubt there is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- ampersand,
If anyone can show me a way to update, I'd be happy to see it, but AFAICT there is no way to upgrade to Paid mode from Sponsored mode; even with a registration code, attempting to update to Paid mode takes you to a web page saying they don't take paid registrations anymore. It seems truly bizzare to me. As far as I can make out (and its clear as mud to me at present), they are moving people Lite mode, forcing people to drop features. Surely a more logical thing to do would have been to make the last release allow users to click on 'Paid Mode' and get it without further ado or set to the software work permanently in Paid mode???
I need (not want) some of these features and ripping them off me while the software is still functional isn't going to generate any warm fuzzy feeling for Qualcomm from me! ;-)
There is a registration code at http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html (Qualcomm's Eudora website, note).
Daniel Cohen - 09 Jan 2008 22:15 GMT > There is a registration code at http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html But that code is for Eudora 5.2 under Windows 98 or SE.
And the reference says
Eudora stopped pushing ads to Sponsored Mode Users. If you are running Windows Eudora 7.1 or Macintosh Eudora 6.2.4 you do not have to make any changes to the Eudora program.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
John H Meyers - 10 Jan 2008 01:21 GMT On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:15:16 -0600:
>> There is a registration code at >> http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html
> But that code is for Eudora 5.2 under Windows 98 or SE. That code should work in any Eudora version 4.3.x thru 5.2.x, Windows or Mac, under any OS version, because there is one common system to all Eudora registration.
The same is true for any similar info whose code contains a later registration month, which will be accepted by correspondingly later versions (and by all older versions, each license being good for all prior versions, as well as for "future" versions at least one year beyond).
--
John H Meyers - 10 Jan 2008 02:56 GMT On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:29:45 -0600:
> If anyone can show me a way to update, I'd be happy to see it, but > AFAICT there is no way to upgrade to Paid mode from Sponsored mode; > even with a registration code, attempting to update to Paid mode takes > you to a web page saying they don't take paid registrations anymore. The product has been retired, hence you can not purchase a new registration, which is what clicking "Paid mode" attempts to do, if no code has yet been stored in the past.
However, if you have registration information which has not yet been stored in Eudora, open "Help" > "Payment & Registration" then click "Enter your Code" instead.
Entry of acceptable registration information then immediately switches into the mode specified in the registration code.
> It seems truly bizzare to me. As far as I can make out > (and it's clear as mud to me at present), > they are moving people Lite mode, > forcing people to drop features. Qualcomm has made every possible attempt to inform and encourage non-paid users to obtain a perpetual, non-expiring "Sponsored" mode version: http://www.eudora.com/faq/#Sponsored
The only feature of Mac "Paid" mode that seems not to be enabled in "Sponsored" mode would be the "SpamWatch" feature (correct me if I'm wrong, as I tend to use only Windows :)
The Mac "Sponsored" mode also does not seem to be able to completely hide the small gray square in which ads used to appear (whereas Windows versions can even make that totally disappear); this seems rather minor to me, but is a big deal to some people.
The "Light" mode will also stop looking for ads, and will erase the gray square; for those who don't need extra "Personalities" and who can spell correctly without a checker, etc., the "Light" mode may be perfect enough, anyway.
> Surely a more logical thing to do would have been > to make the last release allow users to click on 'Paid Mode' and > get it without further ado or set to the software work permanently > in Paid mode??? When "Final" versions 6.2.4 (Mac) and 7.1.0.9 (Windows) were released in October 2006, licenses were still sold, and continued to be sold for the next six months, support contracts continued for up to one year later, and "Sponsored" mode was also still fetching commercial ads, so the above was not an option at all.
As the product fades into history, people who were willing to have paid, even during the final months of sale, will become less offended by having others not having paid but getting the same thing; since feelings (and customer relations) are important, these non-technical considerations can not be dismissed, so one could hardly expect Qualcomm to ignore that side (which is the side of its paying customers, after all).
Qualcomm seems to have bent over backwards to give away all that it could, without unfairness to existing paying customers, and also without incurring financial responsibility in regard to third-party agreements and obligations (no other company whose software may be bundled into Eudora is likely to have offered to suspend its rights to royalties for distributed products enabling those features, for example).
What more can you expect, then?
> I need (not want) some of these features > and ripping them off me while the software is still functional > isn't going to generate any warm fuzzy feeling for Qualcomm from me! ;-) And how fuzzy do you want Qualcomm to be towards people who didn't purchase even the final version for 60% off, at the expense of relations with people who did?
I don't understand -- what feature not in 6.2.4 "Sponsored" mode can't you live without? ("SpamWatch" is the only one I'm aware of)
Has anyone had 6.2.4 "downgrade to light" (and not be willing to be set back to "Sponsored") for any cause?
If so, it would be instructive to know what happened, or if no such thing ever happened, it would be reassuring to know that.
Meanwhile, although publication is a sensitive matter, it is clear that anyone can privately obtain info for running as "Paid," if they feel it acceptable and suitable in their own judgment.
--
grant.jacobs@clear.net.nz - 10 Jan 2008 03:51 GMT You're confusing my reference to Paid mode with those wanted service, something I didn't ask for, nor mentioned. After I wrote it I worried that some people might read that into it, but I let it go on the hope the people here seem more moderate.
So, if you don't mind you're reading far too much into my post and reading a different tone into it too. I included in the wink in an attempt to show I was writing with a "light heart". Likewise the question marks are because I'm asking a question, not ranting. But never mind.
Thanks for your long posts explaining some of this; I'll read them in full later when I have more time.
Multiple personalities are essential for some people, e.g. if your business mail is forwarded to your private account and you're working both from the same ISP, etc., etc. Also, when I tried the first step of moving to Lite mode I was presented with a long list of features I'd loose. I haven't time to review this list right now, but there was more that just multiple personalities too lose. I can't remember all of it, but there were a number of other things I use regularly on the list.
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:29:45 -0600: > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > -- apr400 - 10 Jan 2008 09:19 GMT Qualcomm has posted on the Eudora forum thread on this problem that they are aware and working on it
see here: http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13177&page=5&pp=10
John H Meyers - 10 Jan 2008 11:09 GMT On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:51:31 -0600, grant.jacobs wrote:
> Multiple personalities are essential for some people. It won Joanne Woodward three "best actress" awards, too :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Faces_of_Eve (1958) http://www.amazon.com/Three-Faces-Eve-Joanne-Woodward/dp/B0002B15ZG http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051077/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051077/awards http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0940946/
Probably just as fine now, on its 50th anniversary.
> Also, when I tried the first step of moving to Lite mode > I was presented with a long list of features I'd lose. I gather now that what you meant was that you were trying to bypass the "Ad server" problem by switching to "Light" mode, but got spooked away by the fact that this would (temporarily) disable some features that you need.
So switch to "Paid" mode instead :)
Once you "Enter your code" with valid info, it will then be possible to switch in and out of Paid mode at will (and the "Paid" feature - SpamWatch - should continue working anyway, in other modes, merely by the continuing stored presence of the previously entered "Paid" mode registration info).
Eudora sends one off to a web page for registration only if there is no stored "Paid" mode registration at the time one presses the "Paid" button, otherwise it does just switch into "Paid" mode (isn't there also preliminary pop-up which tells you exactly where you will be transferred, and why?)
It pretty much has to work exactly this way, because the program has to refuse to change to "Paid" mode if it doesn't find a valid registration already stored; a less useful way it could do that would be simply to pop up an error message saying "sorry, you aren't registered," but a far more intelligent option is to go just one step further, and direct the user to the web page where (s)he could have registered, as of when the program was originally released.
Today, this web page is no longer functional, but it was a very smooth and easy way to register for all the time that the product was still sold.
By the way, the web registration system not only immediately displayed your registration information for printing or copying, but it also sent a special attachment to your email address, which, when received by Eudora, would automatically store your registration code for you, in case you had not already manually entered it.
All of this ingenuity is practically enough to convince me of the truth of "intelligent design," after all :)
--
grant.jacobs@clear.net.nz - 10 Jan 2008 12:50 GMT You still haven't quite got it, but never mind as the solution seems to be wait for Quallcomm to fix it. I'm quite aware of how registration normally works, btw. I'm still getting the message every time I check mail, so I guess I get to wait patiently...
Grant
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:51:31 -0600, grant.jacobs wrote: > > Multiple personalities are essential for some people. John H Meyers - 10 Jan 2008 01:51 GMT > Does anyone have a Paid Mode Registration Code > they'd be willing to share? Perhaps Matt Dudziak: http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=12832
Or perhaps "Froggie the Gremlin" (someone who posts anonymously in the Windows newsgroup), but it might be objectionable (and even harmful) to Qualcomm to do this in public, for reasons outlined above by Matt.
I will copy what I recently posted in a Eudora mailing list (with minor additions):
> Is it legal for someone who paid for 6.2.4 > to give a copy of the installer and his registration key > to someone else? Since anyone can even now freely download all the installers they want, directly from Qualcomm, the installer itself is already a "give-away" item, just as it has always been.
My installed "license" file (apparently with reference to "paid" mode) says (this is from the final Windows' version):
"LICENSE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, QUALCOMM hereby grants you a nonexclusive license to install and use the Software in machine-readable form solely for testing and evaluation purposes on a single personal computer, provided that if you are an individual, on one or more personal computers in your household or home office owned or controlled by you for use by yourself and immediate family members residing in the same household only. You may copy the Software only for backup purposes, provided that you reproduce all copyright and other proprietary notices that are on the original copy of the Software."
Qualcomm's intent regarding discontinuation of the product is not explicit, but there is an interesting section in a legal document filed by Qualcomm about the payment and registration system, in a U.S. Patent application (look up patent #7103643, issued Sept 2006), in which Qualcomm declares that if they ever decide to retire the system, they could publish a permanant registration code (presumably as paid), to enable everyone to use it thereafter.
Patent lookup: http://www.google.com/search?q=qualcomm+patent+7103643
Qualcomm has in fact actually published a paid registration code already, good for any Mac or Windows version up to 5.2.1; here it is: http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html
Here is a statement by someone still working at Qualcomm, explaining that there is an obstacle to releasing a later version as paid (particularly version 7 for Windows), because of an obligation of Qualcomm to pay a royalty to third parties whose software may be included: http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=12832
All of the above does not authorize anyone explicitly to do anything themselves, but it certainly casts the matter in a different light than when the product was still being sold, as it indicates an original intention not to "bury" the product after its discontinuation, but to make it universally available instead, now moderated by the complication of a royalty agreement with other vendors.
I believe it's irrelevant that not all of the original source code can be given to the "open source" project, because the installable product does not contain source code, and was never restricted from distribution (you can continue downloading it all you want, as mentioned earlier); the only restriction on the executable is that you may not reverse engineer it to derive the source code, but you can use the compiled code all you want, just as everyone has been doing all these years, and by continuing to offer it, and even to encourage "sponsored" users of older versions to catch up and download the latest version, Qualcomm is certainly indicating that you are more than welcome to it.
Since there is no longer any place to buy a registration, there is no means by which one can complete a purchase or compensate Qualcomm, no matter how willing and conscientious one may be; by the same token, Qualcomm can not suffer a loss of revenue by anyone pre-empting a sale that can not now take place anyway.
However, due to sensitive third-party agreements, Qualcomm could still be harmed by inappropriate action that might cause those parties to have any claim against Qualcomm.
It reminds me of a wholesale flower market area in New York City, where it's well known that every weekend, boxes of unsold flowers will be left on the street for carting away by the Sanitation department.
Other people also come and help themselves to what wasn't sold; perhaps the flowers and growers would even rather have them end up being used and appreciated by someone, rather than being trashed.
It is a hazy issue, in the hands of private personal judgement, and due to the complete evaporation of all commercial value by the product being taken off the market, there is no one who will demand satisfaction but your own self; do make sure, however, not to embarrass Qualcomm in the process.
Daniel Cohen - 05 Jan 2008 08:15 GMT > I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 > on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Has anyone else experienced this problem? I have run into the same problem starting Jan 3. I am on 10.4.11 with a new iMac. I had recently installed various updates (Security Update, Java, etc.). It is good to know that these aren't the cause.
I am a registered user with sponsored mode.
I have just tried enabling logging as suggested. So far, perhaps because I have had too few messages or the like, I can't see why that message should come up.
Connection to the adserver was achieved (the log said "connected") but perhaps the problem is at that point.
There was an odd line in the log
Rcvd: "Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown)\r\n"
I know my router is at 192.168.1.1, but there should not be anything at 192.168.1.104.
BEWARE!! This particular form of logging gives the clear text of the Eudora password, which could be an issue if anyone else has access to the log.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
john@disoln.com - 07 Jan 2008 13:58 GMT > > I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 > > on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; > mail to the From address is never read From a search of all the forums, this problem appears to have affected multitudes of users all at the same time. It all started recently on 4 Jan 2008, and has intermittently come and gone since then. However, it has been around in the past at various times as far back as years ago, but has come and disappeared.
The consensus is that it is something to do with Eudora trying but failing to get an advert, even though there are no longer any adverts to be had. Perhaps the IP address being used has been taken down, or can't be contacted. The problem does not appear to affect those with a "paid mode" version.
Since Eudora is no longer being supported by Calcomm, in any mode, maybe they tried to dispose of the ad server. Unfortunately, I installed Eudora on my very recently purchased Intel Mac, so I don't have the option of going to "paid mode".
I also keep getting a message reminding me to register every so often, and I tried to do this, but Calcomm are no longer accepting registrations. Hence I have to suffer this irritating message every so often.
I understand that is is possible to obtain a valid registration number for "paid mode" from the net, although I have not yet found a source. Using this might cure the problem. It can't really be violating any license agreement since the product officially no longer exists and is no longer being supported.
I think Calcomm have a moral duty to sort all this out. It is unreasonable to declare the product no longer supported, and wash their hands of an unstable product, and then let users suffer the consequences. One more release of a free "paid mode" version might solve the problem.
On the Mac, it might also be helpful if they fixed the bug that results in the Filter Report Window not always being launched and updated when the "notify user in report" button is checked. This is extremely irritating and makes the feature near unusable.
Peter Ceresole - 07 Jan 2008 14:17 GMT > The consensus is that it is something to do with Eudora trying but > failing to get an advert, even though there are no longer any adverts > to be had. Perhaps the IP address being used has been taken down, or > can't be contacted. The problem does not appear to affect those with a > "paid mode" version. For what it's worth, I've always used Eudora in Light mode, with a number of different mail providers, using multiple settings files. No problems of any kind.
My email needs are fairly simple; I'm still using Eudora 6.1.1 with OS 10.3.9 and at present see not a single valid reason to upgrade either.
 Signature Peter
Hauke Fath - 07 Jan 2008 16:49 GMT > For what it's worth, I've always used Eudora in Light mode, with a > number of different mail providers, using multiple settings files. No > problems of any kind. FWIW, I see the mentioned error in 6.2.3/Light Mode since yesterday. Haven't tcpdump(1)ed the connection yet, though.
hauke
 Signature Now without signature.
apr400 - 07 Jan 2008 18:30 GMT Hi
If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas previously it was every couple of minutes).
I used "little snitch" to block Eudora (actually just change the allow Eudora port 80 rule to a deny Eudora port 80 rule.
You should also be able to do the same (or similar anyway) with the IPFW firewall. You can configure that using the terminal or a GUI like WaterRoof.
As IPFW is not app specific and you don't want to block port 80 for other programs you'll want a rule like:
Deny TCP and UDP from me to 192.190.109.20:80
paintedjazz@gmail.com - 07 Jan 2008 20:59 GMT > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Deny TCP and UDP from me to 192.190.109.20:80 This doesn't seem to work: ipfw enable firewall ipfw add 12190 deny tcp from me to 192.190.109.20:80 12190 deny tcp from me to 0.0.0.16:0.0.0.80
Why does it change 192.190.109.20:80 to 0.0.0.16:0.0.0.80???
Neither does: ipfw add 12190 deny tcp and udp from 127.0.0.0/8 to 192.190.109.20:80
Thanks for any help.
None - 07 Jan 2008 21:42 GMT Hey, all ... you might want to try just hiding the background processes (settings > getting attention > uncheck "show task progress...").
It looks like it's an issue with sponsored-mode Eudora looking to the web for new ads. It seems like there may not be anymore ads, hence no ad server.
Thoughts?
On Jan 7, 3:59 pm, paintedj...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Thanks for any help. Daniel Cohen - 08 Jan 2008 21:11 GMT > It seems like there may not be anymore ads, hence no > ad server. There aren't any more ads. But I think the ad server still exists.
When I looked at my log (since deleted, so I am not exactly sure) it showed Connecting.. and then Connected to the ad server address. Since it connected, the server must have been there.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
Patty Winter - 09 Jan 2008 18:12 GMT >Hey, all ... you might want to try just hiding the background >processes (settings > getting attention > uncheck "show task >progress..."). I can't speak for other people, but I like seeing the Task Progress window, especially when I'm sending or receiving large documents.
Thanks to everyone here and on the Eudora bulletin board on Qualcomm's website for the advice about modifying the Mac OS X firewall settings. That has been working fine for me. I am, however, interested to see the postings about the adserver coming and going, so will stay tuned for updates on that.
Patty
apr400 - 08 Jan 2008 02:03 GMT You could try:
sudo ipfw add 099 deny ip from any to 192.190.109.20
Matt Simpson - 08 Jan 2008 21:35 GMT In article <44c47ac7-ffb9-4888-9cc2-4e2f11ef9759@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> If you block Eudora's access to outgoing traffic on port 80 it seems > to stop this error (although there may be long term issues if Eudora > can't contact the server for long period - but so far I have been > running for a couple of hours without the error coming up, whereas > previously it was every couple of minutes). Doesn't it eventually switch to "Lite" mode if it is unable to download ads for some long interval?
apr400 - 08 Jan 2008 22:01 GMT > In article > <44c47ac7-ffb9-4888-9cc2-4e2f11ef9...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Doesn't it eventually switch to "Lite" mode if it is unable to download > ads for some long interval? I imagine I recall that that was what the 6.2.4 update addressed - ie it allowed for not getting ads. I haven't reverted to light mode yet, but I would concede that it's a possiblity. Still if the adserver is down (and it's not responding to pings, or to Eudora) presumably that will happen if it's going to anyway.
You could interpret this page: http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2759hq.html as saying that the revert to light won't happen with 6.2.4
John H Meyers - 10 Jan 2008 01:04 GMT > Doesn't it eventually switch to "Lite" mode > if it is unable to download ads for some long interval? In "Sponsored" mode, older versions did, but "final" versions (6.2.4 Mac, 7.1.0.9 Windows) are not supposed to, which is the very reason that Qualcomm has been trying to convince all "Sponsored" users to replace any older version with a "final" version.
Here it was spelled out clearly, on October 11, 2006 http://www.eudora.com/faq/#Sponsored
The current error seems to be caused by the "live" ad server sending wrong data in a "playlist," rather than by the ad server going dead, as evidenced by the fact that people say they can shut up the error message by _blocking_ connection to the ad server, just as if it had actually "gone dead"
--
Anders Eklöf - 07 Jan 2008 22:18 GMT > > > I've been getting this error since Jan. 3 (yesterday), with Eudora 6.2.4 > > > on OSX 10.3.9. It also says "No reponse from server for 120 seconds." I [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > has been around in the past at various times as far back as years ago, > but has come and disappeared. It's much older than that, I've seen it for at least half a year. Maybe even back to when they stopped sending out ads. Now that would make sense, wouldn't it?
 Signature I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour
John H Meyers - 08 Jan 2008 03:38 GMT On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:15:45 -0600:
> Connection to the adserver was achieved (the log said "connected") > but perhaps the problem is at that point. Experimenting with Windows version 6.2.5.6, I am still seeing "playlists" downloading from the ad server (for a "pseudo ad" recommending upgrading to the "final" version, which was being served to all non-final versions in "sponsored" mode)
Directory of C:\user\EUv6b\EudPriv\Ads
12/26/2007 07:34 PM 5,940 1161709645.mfs 12/26/2007 07:34 PM 3,140 1180419112.mfs 01/07/2008 08:55 PM 3,140 1188976880.mfs [playlists] 01/05/2008 11:27 PM <DIR> AdCache 01/07/2008 08:55 PM 1,288 CInfo.dat 01/07/2008 08:55 PM 1,020 Eudora.idx 5 File(s) 14,528 bytes
DNS resolutions point to the same server for both "playlists" and "ad" images (although the server itself could be discriminating as to whether it replies to each HTTP request):
# nslookup adserver.eudora.com adserver.eudora.com canonical name = pipes-vip.qualcomm.com. Name: pipes-vip.qualcomm.com Address: 192.190.109.20
# nslookup ads.eudora.com ads.eudora.com canonical name = pipes-vip.qualcomm.com. Name: pipes-vip.qualcomm.com Address: 192.190.109.20
The various posted observations seem to suggest not that the "ad" server is down, but that it is returning a "404" (not found) error, which indicates that it's very much "alive," just not supplying the expected "ad"
The most recent "ad" image in my "AdCache" (above) is dated Dec 21, but that might be normal, if there was no change in what's being "played"
At any rate, the "final" Eudora versions of October 2006 (both Windows and Mac) were supposed to have been adjusted to stop "nagging" about registering, profiling, or failing to contact any "ad" server in Sponsored mode, but they do still keep downloading "playlists" anyway, and for some reason (seemingly to keep urging sponsored users of non-final versions to update, using an "ad" to do this), Qualcomm has kept its Eudora "ad" and web servers running all this while, anyway (except for registration).
The DNS lookups for the Eudora servers are still as was posted here: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.eudora.mac/msg/68350ba1b292371f
bing - 07 Jan 2008 22:05 GMT I was getting the same error. As a quick-n-dirty patch, I put an entry in my Mac's /etc/hosts file for "adserver.eudora.com" with an IP number that belongs to one of our local web servers and restarted Eudora. I haven't received the error since then. The access log on the web server shows that my Mac is requesting:
"POST /adjoin/playlists HTTP/1.0" 404 285
The web server is obviously replying with a 404 error, but at least Eudora doesn't timeout now.
Sander Tekelenburg - 08 Jan 2008 00:33 GMT In article <5a5c5c62-15c2-4877-9327-7cd7768bfed5@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> I was getting the same error. As a quick-n-dirty patch, I put an entry > in my Mac's /etc/hosts file for "adserver.eudora.com" with an IP > number that belongs to one of our local web servers and restarted > Eudora. If you have Apache running locally, you could redirect it to 127.0.0.1. That way you wouldn't be dependant on some other machine always being available. Useful on laptops. (If this would the single reason to have Apache running, you should probably make sure your firewall blocks all access to it.)
> I haven't received the error since then. The access log on the > web server shows that my Mac is requesting: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The web server is obviously replying with a 404 error, but at least > Eudora doesn't timeout now. <x-eudora-setting:13711> Timeout for pinging the ad server.
Possibly setting this to a very high value helps? Or who knows, zero might mean no time-out. (I'm using Paid Mode myself, so I don't see the problem here.)
 Signature Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"
apr400 - 08 Jan 2008 02:05 GMT x-eudora-setting:13711 Timeout for pinging the ad server.
Possibly setting this to a very high value helps? Or who knows, zero might mean no time-out. (I'm using Paid Mode myself, so I don't see the problem here.)
That setting didn't seem to make any difference regardless of the value
Harvey Waxman - 08 Jan 2008 02:50 GMT Because two different computers had the same issue on the network I guessed it couldn't be a Eudora problem at all.
I was about to do a reset on the Airport when the symptoms stopped. Telepathy perhaps? In any case I appreciate the conversation and learned how little I know about ports even though I live right on Narragansett Bay.
Thanks
In article <182851a0-e868-4ee7-aa0c-219e7e97a765@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> x-eudora-setting:13711 Timeout for pinging the ad server. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That setting didn't seem to make any difference regardless of the value
 Signature Harvey Waxman remove spam to email http://righttax.org/
Harvey Waxman - 08 Jan 2008 12:02 GMT Update. It's back. I'm getting the feeling that since so many others have the same problem, that it could be a Qualcom issue.
> Because two different computers had the same issue on the network I guessed > it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Telepathy > perhaps? Harvey Waxman remove spam to email http://righttax.org/
David Ryeburn - 08 Jan 2008 18:16 GMT In article <spamhwaxman-B269B0.07023008012008@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
> Update. It's back. And it's back for me again too. Maybe it takes (west coast) afternoons and evenings off, but it's morning again here.
David
 Signature David Ryeburn ryeburn@sfu.caz To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz".
paintedjazz@gmail.com - 09 Jan 2008 19:03 GMT > I was getting the same error. As a quick-n-dirty patch, I put an entry > in my Mac's /etc/hosts file for "adserver.eudora.com" with an IP [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The web server is obviously replying with a 404 error, but at least > Eudora doesn't timeout now. Thanks! This solved the problem. Don't know why I didn't think of it myself.
David Ryeburn - 08 Jan 2008 05:07 GMT I was getting these messages earlier today, on two different computers (my wife's G5 iMac 2nd generation and my Digital Audio G4, both running Mac OS 10.4.11 and both using Eudora 6.2.4). They were enough of an annoyance on the Digital Audio G4 that instead of leaving Eudora running, I quit it and fired it up only when I wanted to use it. Then I shut the computer down for a number of hours. Here are slightly edited portions of the Digital Audio G4's Eudora Log. Eudora has been running since 18:49:30 without any more complaints.
Mon Jan 07 13:27:16 2008 26225664 8:60.4.27 120 26225664 8:0.0.1 ³No response from server after 120 seconds.² ³²
Mon Jan 07 18:49:30 2008 MAIN 8:4.52.33 «Dominant» MAIN 8:0.0.1 wwwwwwwwww MAIN 8:0.0.1 pop.telus.net MAIN 8:0.0.1 enter the MAIN 8:0.6.11 Dismissed with 1. 25968640 2:0.8.27 pop.telus.net 110 (1) 25968640 2:0.8.41 Successfully received xxxxxxxxxx, 1/7/08 7:20 PM -0500, Re: yyyyy yyyyy yyyyy (1)
Examination of the G5 iMac's Eudora Log (also shut down for about the same period of time) shows the same behaviour.
Has Qualcomm undone whatever they did to that server?
David
 Signature David Ryeburn ryeburn@sfu.caz To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz".
|
|
|