|
Look for either "Windows-essentials-2012-en.exe" or "wlsetup-all.exe" - they are the same file, I believe, and should be 130MB.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I found it, downloaded it, and installed it - not! Despite all sorts of magical rites, slaughtered chickens and diabolical incantations it absolutely refused to install multiple times - although the icons did manage to show up on the desktop. I subsequently went on a hunt and found Claws-Mail - reputably with a very small footprint.
It installed right away, and I will get back to y'all later about whether it was worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention: download the file, disconnect the network, install, reconnect the network.
Apparently the installer tries to check for a updated version with MS, gets a "no such page" response and decides to kill itself. No internet, no update, no problem!
Sorry about that - it's been a while since I installed it!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I ran into a problem with thunderbird on my, I admit nearly 5 year old, windows 10 machine. Every now and again it was unable to get my gmail stuff although I could see emails were received on the gmail web page. In essence on some days it worked while at least 1 or 2 days during the week it did not.
I played around with various email clients but none of them met what I needed.
In the end I tried the built in mail client in Windows 10.
It took a while to sync the 400MB of email data accumulated over the years but in the end it does exactly what I need it to do: a simple basic email client without any bells or whistles which in contrast to thunderbird has not missed a beat yet ( 3 weeks or so ).
I do not know how much the footprint is but it is built in so it probably does not add all that much once you activate it. Reportedly it has a lot less functionality than Outlook so it may require less memory.
Not sure if it will meet your needs but personally I like it for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris C-B wrote: I bought the thing to replace a Windows XP netbook from 2003 which is loosing its puff even faster!
That'd be a great candidate for a lightweight Linux distribution. I've used Lubuntu on mine for a while...then Fedora...then, one of the lesser-known ones...Zorin I think...?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm - not a bad idea. I think I might just do that! I actually gave it a bit of a speed boost five years ago by giving it an SSD.
I guess it's either that or MS-DOS! 
|
|
|
|
|
So yesterday I go up in the morning to find that I was getting an Authentication Error on my home Wifi. Sure enough, my password that I had for at least 2 years didn't work.
I called up my ISP which rhymes with Denture-y Fink. To make a long story short, they changed something and now they do not allow spaces to be in a password phrase. They had to reset my password because I couldn't get in with my disallowed passwords any more.
My question to you who deal with security is, do you restrict what characters can be in a password? and why?
Thanks for letting me gripe.
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but not for security, for usability.
There is nothing worse than a user raising a support issue because their "password doesn't work". 99% of the time they just don't remember it.
Allowing a password to have spaces is more prone to user error, especially when it starts or ends with a space. So I can see why they might not want to allow spaces.
But don't go too far... one site I used recently doesn't allow special characters at all! Only letters or numbers, so this means your password cannot be as complex as you might want it to be (which is definitely a security concern).
|
|
|
|
|
I have found a several places don't allow you to end the password with a number which increases when reset Password01, becomes Password02 etc. back to the Dilbert Cartoon where you have to have squirrel noises in your password...
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree - no spaces, but any other printable character in the Unicode set is fine (including hieroglyphs, squirrel noises, and the blood of a virgin (only available in the "Cthulhu" font).)
Only spaces and control codes are forbidden.
What annoys me more is people who decide that only "." and a single "@" is allowed in email addresses. Domains can legitimately contain "-", and mine does. Some sites just puke up at the sight of one ... which means a trip to mailinator to sign up (then change the email address and it generally works)
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: What annoys me more is people who decide that only "." and a single "@" is allowed in email addresses.
More evil - the morons who create email address input and decide that .info (and who know how many others) are not legitimate email addresses. My primary business-use email is a .info (catch-all) so everyplace has its own addresses. So I just don't do business with them. If they have a contact . . . oh wait - they won't accept my email there, either.
All that comes to mind is that they probably outsourced the interface to . . .
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
A study was done that claims a 3-word password is MORE secure than the arbitrary password rules used by 99% of the business entities out there because it's harder to use brute force them.
A space is a valid character and should not be disallowed.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
"let me in"
Yep... ain't nobody cracking that bad boy 
Anyway, I don't disagree about the study, but a good site shouldn't allow brute force attacks, so it shouldn't matter. Not difficult to lock an account after 5 or so failed attempts, right?
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: Not difficult to lock an account after 5 or so failed attempts, right?
Hackers are not brute forcing on the site; they already have the encrypted password in a file and are brute forcing until the result matches. There are tools to set up all this and even guessing salt values.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would they already have the encrypted password?
|
|
|
|
|
Ever heard of Equifax?
Or Ashley Madison?
Well - That's why they have them.
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the idea is that you don't use that sort of 3-word sequence...
|
|
|
|
|
Sort of reminds me of a site I was on earlier this week that had a "contact us" page. In the Comment box, I asked my question, and properly terminated it with a question mark. Clicking the Submit button produced a "The comment field does not allow special characters" message. I spent several minutes fiddling with the characters, spacing, etc, only to eventually remove the question mark and it went through. 
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Smart... that way when you never hear back from them they have a solid defence:
"Well, you didn't technically ask us a question to reply to"
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you added a polite comment at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
So I cannot use 'correct horse battery staple' as my password? Awwww
|
|
|
|
|
At which point the system (assuming any competent developer wrote it) should respond with:
Sorry, that password is already is use. Why not try "Tr0ub4dor&3" instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, you have to make your password just a bit more "hackable".
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
I had one some years ago: a friends mother had signed up with a password she could remember - her daughter's first pet, a cat called "PEPSI". And this worked for ages, until the company was bought out by one with more restrictive passwords. When she replaced the computer, she couldn't sign in to her email any more because the password was wrong. And she couldn't change it because they required her old password to set a new one and that wasn't valid under their new rules ... It took some long drawn out phone conversations to sort that one out.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Just when you think you're getting used to all the stupid in the world, something comes along and breaks the mould.
Why would anybody put validation on the login password. It just belongs on the "new" and "confirm" fields! 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
