kazaa lite connection problem in xp

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Greetings

I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version of
Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise) on
my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the 'connecting...'
notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and am
not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
machine.

Any ideas?

Many thanks

Mat
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,721
0
19,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Mat" <buffaloes@DELETE2REPLYbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:cbn2f8$8gk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Greetings
>
> I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version
> of
> Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise)
> on
> my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the
> 'connecting...'
> notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and
> am
> not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> machine.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Mat
>

Most here are not going to help you with Kazaa of any flavor.

Anyway, try this latest version before Kazaa went to selling their services.
this is a good version that I use from time to time.

http://home.insightbb.com/~guesswho192/klitekpp242e.exe
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version
of
> Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise)
on
> my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the
'connecting...'
> notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and
am
> not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> machine.

I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
hackers and vulnerabilities.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cboo9f$fcv$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version
> of
> > Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise)
> on
> > my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the
> 'connecting...'
> > notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> > turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and
> am
> > not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> > machine.
>
> I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
> hackers and vulnerabilities.
>
He is referring to Kazaa lite which has no nasty extras.

This NG seems full of anti Kazaa people. I have a fantastic collection
thanks to Kazaa, Even the original Kazaa with it's adware and spyware wasn't
a problem as long as you ran a good firewall. If you are downloading music
or movies then virus's don't come into it. If you download an application
from any peer to peer application then there is a risk of a virus, but as
there is plenty of good free anti virus software available on line, that is
no problem either.

That said. If you don't like Kazaa then don't run it, but there is no need
to continually run it or any other P2P application down.

In short: GROW UP.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
> hackers and vulnerabilities.

Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.

Tom
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <QZmdnU4i0rAxAX3dRVn-jA@comcast.com>, "tgeer43[AT]yahoo
[DOTcom" <"tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOTcom"> says...
>
> > I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
> > hackers and vulnerabilities.
>
> Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
> wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
> perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
> Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
> BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
> other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.

Smart users? Those are the ones that are not stealing things that others
have copywrited, ones that the RIAA is not after, ones that only share
public works, etc...

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

I tried it. Then I fixed all the problems, and adjusted firewalls, and
tried it again. I fixed more problems, deleted it, cleaned things up and
went to WinMX and have never looked back. I would NOT have kazaa, or AOL,
or anything with "REAL" in the name.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4a6f7b749712b798a6d2@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <QZmdnU4i0rAxAX3dRVn-jA@comcast.com>, "tgeer43[AT]yahoo
> [DOTcom" <"tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOTcom"> says...
> >
> > > I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses,
fakes,
> > > hackers and vulnerabilities.
> >
> > Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
> > wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
> > perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
> > Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
> > BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
> > other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.
>
> Smart users? Those are the ones that are not stealing things that others
> have copywrited, ones that the RIAA is not after, ones that only share
> public works, etc...
>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <uR5EvpWXEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
says...
> I tried it. Then I fixed all the problems, and adjusted firewalls, and
> tried it again. I fixed more problems, deleted it, cleaned things up and
> went to WinMX and have never looked back. I would NOT have kazaa, or AOL,
> or anything with "REAL" in the name.

Not sure if your top posting reply was to me or not, hard to follow top-
posters when the world is full of proper bottom posters.

>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b4a6f7b749712b798a6d2@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <QZmdnU4i0rAxAX3dRVn-jA@comcast.com>, "tgeer43[AT]yahoo
> > [DOTcom" <"tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOTcom"> says...
> > >
> > > > I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses,
> fakes,
> > > > hackers and vulnerabilities.
> > >
> > > Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
> > > wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
> > > perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
> > > Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
> > > BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
> > > other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.
> >
> > Smart users? Those are the ones that are not stealing things that others
> > have copywrited, ones that the RIAA is not after, ones that only share
> > public works, etc...
> >
> > --
> > --
> > spamfree999@rrohio.com
> > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
>
>
>

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not. Top posting is
the only way to go. No, that's wrong. It's one of many ways to go, and a
matter of personal choice.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4a828ef5f1a3e498a6d3@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uR5EvpWXEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
> says...
> > I tried it. Then I fixed all the problems, and adjusted firewalls, and
> > tried it again. I fixed more problems, deleted it, cleaned things up
and
> > went to WinMX and have never looked back. I would NOT have kazaa, or
AOL,
> > or anything with "REAL" in the name.
>
> Not sure if your top posting reply was to me or not, hard to follow top-
> posters when the world is full of proper bottom posters.
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:50:50 -0500, Jone Doe wrote:
> Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not.


FYI: Topposting aggravates lots of the people from whom you are asking help.
I am not one, but I also try to discourage its use because it
makes reading search engine results much easier.
As a matter of fact, this paragraph is a top post example.

You may want to read http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
and/or http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
Please use "alt.test" or any of the 400+ test groups ending in
.test to adjust/test your news reader to make it quit top posting.

Before anyone responds about this FYI, do read the following
results from about 1,820,000+ top posting responses found at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=top+posting&spell=1>
so as not to repeat anyone.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <O20lEvXXEHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
says...
> Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not.

Actually, it has nothing to do with me - it's the norm on Usenet and is
also the suggested method since Usenet was created. Read about it if you
don't believe me.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> Spoken like someone who has never tried it.

I have tried it you idiot, that is why I will not touch it again. There are
better p2p programs. Yes, i'll accept they also have problems, but Kazaa is
the worst
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> He is referring to Kazaa lite which has no nasty extras.

So lite is free of hackers and fakes is it?

> This NG seems full of anti Kazaa people. I have a fantastic collection
> thanks to Kazaa, Even the original Kazaa with it's adware and spyware
wasn't
> a problem as long as you ran a good firewall. If you are downloading music
> or movies then virus's don't come into it. If you download an application
> from any peer to peer application then there is a risk of a virus, but as
> there is plenty of good free anti virus software available on line, that
is
> no problem either.

Perhaps if you tried other p2p programs, you will find better p2p program

> That said. If you don't like Kazaa then don't run it, but there is no need
> to continually run it or any other P2P application down.

I don't use it you idiot. Should have guessed that one from my original
posting. BTW I don't continually run Kazaa down but it's my opinion that it
is a terrible program but certainly by no means the worst. If you don't like
peoples' opinions then go and live in China

> In short: GROW UP.
>
In short GROW UP and stop judging people on 2 sentences
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Erm, so ashamedly attempting to get seek advice on my original query...


"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbr3on$rp6$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Spoken like someone who has never tried it.
>
> I have tried it you idiot, that is why I will not touch it again. There
are
> better p2p programs. Yes, i'll accept they also have problems, but Kazaa
is
> the worst
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbr476$s44$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > He is referring to Kazaa lite which has no nasty extras.
>
> So lite is free of hackers and fakes is it?
>
> > This NG seems full of anti Kazaa people. I have a fantastic collection
> > thanks to Kazaa, Even the original Kazaa with it's adware and spyware
> wasn't
> > a problem as long as you ran a good firewall. If you are downloading
music
> > or movies then virus's don't come into it. If you download an
application
> > from any peer to peer application then there is a risk of a virus, but
as
> > there is plenty of good free anti virus software available on line, that
> is
> > no problem either.
>
> Perhaps if you tried other p2p programs, you will find better p2p program
>
> > That said. If you don't like Kazaa then don't run it, but there is no
need
> > to continually run it or any other P2P application down.
>
> I don't use it you idiot. Should have guessed that one from my original
> posting. BTW I don't continually run Kazaa down but it's my opinion that
it
> is a terrible program but certainly by no means the worst. If you don't
like
> peoples' opinions then go and live in China
>
> > In short: GROW UP.
> >
> In short GROW UP and stop judging people on 2 sentences
>
I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of posting you
find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of posting
you
> find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......

What are you talking about?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
@hotmail.con says...
> As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
> wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change

Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.

Imagine people reading usenet like you do a book - it starts at the top,
progresses down the page, with new content at the bottom. At least in
most English based groups.

You don't have to like it, but if you are going to use something
properly then you should follow the basic directions. If you have no
intention of following the directions then don't complain when others
point it out to you - or stop using something you don't intend on using
properly.

Not only wasn't it the norm in the past, it's not the norm now.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

<snip>

Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.

<snip>

Lol..what bullshit. Some of the most experienced and informed users top
post. What a self righteous idiot.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4ba43db2629b8598a6e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
> @hotmail.con says...
> > As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
> > wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change
>
> Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
> is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.

I'll put it down here, just to make you happy, although I prefer and most
often top post. New, and uninformed. Well, the first operating system I
played with was DOS 1.25 (a). I even managed to to get a 10 meg hard drive
going with that system. Before that of course I had the "play" computers,
both Timex Sinclair and the Radio Shack version. At college we had the main
frame, which we accessed via IBM punch cards. I could probably still
program in COBOL if I had to.

Again, it's a matter of choice. Top post or bottom post as you prefer.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
 

Jax

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2002
213
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

If top posting is not acceptable, why is it the default method when you
click on reply to group??? I prefer to read a top posted message response. I
have already read the rest of the thread. Why wade through it again just to
see what one poster has to say?

JAX
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4ba43db2629b8598a6e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
> @hotmail.con says...
>> As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
>> wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change
>
> Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
> is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.
>
> Imagine people reading usenet like you do a book - it starts at the top,
> progresses down the page, with new content at the bottom. At least in
> most English based groups.
>
> You don't have to like it, but if you are going to use something
> properly then you should follow the basic directions. If you have no
> intention of following the directions then don't complain when others
> point it out to you - or stop using something you don't intend on using
> properly.
>
> Not only wasn't it the norm in the past, it's not the norm now.

Are you a netcop? Who cares if someone top or bottom posts. The problem
should be with one's inability to read. I simply reply in kind, and neither
format matters to me!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <OF4$mEiXEHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
hilarykarp@comcast.nospam.net says...
>
> Lol..what bullshit. Some of the most experienced and informed users top
> post. What a self righteous idiot.

Think what you like, but having many people doing it doesn't change the
fact that it does not follow the standard and norms. I don't really care
if "Experienced" or "Informed" users top post, since the early 80's the
accepted practice has been to bottom post and snip properly.

Top posters generally don't snip and are usually too full of their own
self importance to follow the accepted practices on Usenet.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <eb849f2792922119eec907ff6b70b7c6@news.teranews.com>,
billly@yahoooo.net says...
> Are you a netcop? Who cares if someone top or bottom posts. The problem
> should be with one's inability to read. I simply reply in kind, and neither
> format matters to me!

So, what are you saying, that people posting in a manner that is not
consistent with the norm should not be informed of it? Are you saying
that anyone on usenet should stand back and watch as the tried and true
standard, while still working perfectly, is changed by people to lazy to
take the time to properly post?

Many people do reply by following the format used by the first reply,
but, others tend to top post no matter what form is being used.

Top posters generally don't snip and are usually too full of their own
self importance to follow the accepted practices on Usenet.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <uYMYLeiXEHA.3476@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b4ba43db2629b8598a6e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
> > @hotmail.con says...
> > > As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
> > > wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change
> >
> > Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
> > is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.
>
> I'll put it down here, just to make you happy, although I prefer and most
> often top post. New, and uninformed. Well, the first operating system I
> played with was DOS 1.25 (a). I even managed to to get a 10 meg hard drive
> going with that system. Before that of course I had the "play" computers,
> both Timex Sinclair and the Radio Shack version. At college we had the main
> frame, which we accessed via IBM punch cards. I could probably still
> program in COBOL if I had to.
>
> Again, it's a matter of choice. Top post or bottom post as you prefer.

I'm not trying to start a flame fest, I was hoping this would just be a
simple discussion and not lead to anything other than simple
conversation.

I've been working with systems since the 70's and started when we had to
write your own boot-strap loader, COBOL was the 4th language I learned.
I've been on Usenet since the early 80's and have seen it grow in size,
remain mostly the same, and seen "users" try to change it.

You are correct, it's a matter of choice, as many things are, but, there
is an accepted norm for Usenet, it's in all the guidelines for Usenet,
and it's also the easiest way to follow a thread.

If a post is only going to get one reply, a simple one liner, and no
additional replies, then I would agree that a top-post and snipping all
the remaining would be practical.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <genEc.1695$876.1530@fed1read07>, slipslide@pop.not says...
> If top posting is not acceptable, why is it the default method when you
> click on reply to group??? I prefer to read a top posted message response. I
> have already read the rest of the thread. Why wade through it again just to
> see what one poster has to say?

It's not the default on any real Usenet reader. All of the ones I've
used (non-MS ones) start at the bottom by default.

You don't have to wade through anything if you [snip] the parts that are
not needed in the reply.

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409

shows that you posted via OE, which is not a news reader, it's a email
client that had the ability to read news added to it - and as usual, it
was setup and designed for mail only.

Get something like Gravity or other quality news readers and you'll be a
lot happier.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY