PDA

View Full Version : Win 98SE and Eudora 7.1



Robin S_
13-03-2007, 09:42 PM
As from 1/4/07 anyone using Eudora email client in Sponsored mode will be 'demoted' to Eudora Lite unless using v. 7.1 or higher. I have a cptr running Win 98SE with the SESP21a update installed but Eudora v. 7.0 and 7.1 will not work on it. Both give the Error 610 when trying to download email. It involves dial-up failure but the error message occurs even when the cptr is already online. It is a well-documented problem with the Eudora 7.x and Win 98(SE) combination but I have not been able to find a legitimate fix for it - even on the Eudora users' forum. I have found a "dirty" fix which I am sure Eudora would not approve (it involves using a script to thwart Eudora's ad-checking procedure and reputedly allows v. 6.x to continue working in Sponsored mode) but would like a legit one. I and numerous others have sent bug reports to Qualcomm but they don't seem to have been stirred to act. Before anyone jumps in to say that the Readme.1st file on the 7.1 download page gives a minimum requirement of Win 2000/XP, this is true but with typical Eudora sloppiness the Readme.1st file included in the 7.x installation files is at variance with this and gives a minimum requirement of Win 98/ME/2000/XP. I have seen no statement from Qualcomm that they are deliberately abandoning Win 98.

Does anyone know of a work-round for this problem?

TIA.

Robin S_
14-03-2007, 09:35 PM
What has happened to the Edit button? I'm sure one used to be able to edit a post after it had been posted, but maybe I'm wrong.

An addendum to my earlier post.

Could the problem be anything to do with ports? In my installation of 7.1, in the Tools, Options, Ports category, the port defaults given are POP (110), SMTP (25) and IMAP (143); the box for IMAP has 143 filled in but those for POP and SMTP are empty. Should the empty boxes have something in them, and if the default values are not suitable what ones are? I tried putting the default values in but it didn't fix the problem.

Another thing I noticed was that the 610 error message contains the sentence "Check the name of the p
Could the problem be anything to do with ports? In my installation of 7.1, in the Tools, Options, Ports category, the port defaults given are POP (110), SMTP (25) and IMAP (143); the box for IMAP has 143 filled in but those for POP and SMTP are empty. Should the empty boxes have something in them, and if the default values are not suitable what ones are? I tried putting the default values in but it didn't fix the problem.

Another thing I noticed was that the 610 error message contains the sentence "Check the name of the phonebook entry in the Advanced Network category of the Options dialog." There is no such entry in that dialogue but somewhere I came across a reference that said that 'phonebook' is a term used in Win NT4 for a non-N

Robin S_
14-03-2007, 10:05 PM
I give up on trying to use the Edit function. It keeps truncating bits and duplicating bits.

Here (I hope) is the part that Edit kept messing up.

Another thing I noticed was that the 610 error message contains the sentence "Check the name of the phonebook entry in the Advanced Network category of the Options dialog." There is no such entry in that dialogue but somewhere I came across a reference that said that 'phonebook' is a term used in Win NT4 for a non-NT4 term that I cannot remember (? addressbook entry). Could it be that the dial-up system in 7.x (7.0 has the same problem) "thinks" it is operating in NT4 and is not programmed to recognise alternative systems?

Any ideas, folks?

Robin S_
17-03-2007, 10:42 AM
Hopeful bump.

Speedy Gonzales
17-03-2007, 10:49 AM
Might be a bug (http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=6716)

Youre not the only one with this prob.

Laura
17-03-2007, 11:18 AM
As for the Edit function -

We used to be able to edit our posts within 15 minutes of sending. After that, it was necessary to start again.
Possibly recent changes to this website have altered that time frame?

It would be helpful if a Mod would confirm or deny that... so that we all know.

Robin S_
18-03-2007, 07:56 AM
Laura - good comment.
Speedy - yes, it probably is, but I and numerous others have sent in bug reports without response. Typical Qualcomm - their minimum requirements differ according to which readme.1st file you read. They have been advised of this and don't have the courtesy or consideration to reply or post an explanation on their home page.