OE continues to pop up - but it's 'gone'

  • Thread starter chimed_life
  • Start date Views 976
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chimed_life

My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with it, but
that's another issue.

Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative account,
hubby's is limited. When his account is signed into, there is a continuous
pop-up that OE can compress files, with the option to click Yes or Cancel. It
doesn't matter what is clicked, it continues to pop up. Often there isn't
even time to click, it just pops out. It is more than extremely annoying.

I was going to delete it, since it is no longer listed in add/remove
programs. In the delete attempt I got a message saying it cannot be deleted
because some files are being used by another program. And this is with
nothing open.

PLEASE help!

Thank you.
 
B

BillW50

In news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com,
chimed_life typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:26:01 -0700:
> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with
> it, but that's another issue.


My Asus EeePC netbooks came with both OE6 and WLM on them. And you could
use them individually from each other. Although I don't like WLM either.

> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative account,
> hubby's is limited. When his account is signed into, there is a
> continuous pop-up that OE can compress files, with the option to
> click Yes or Cancel. It doesn't matter what is clicked, it continues
> to pop up. Often there isn't even time to click, it just pops out. It
> is more than extremely annoying.


This is controlled through the registry.

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Identities\{...}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook
Express\5.0]
"Compact Check Count"=dword:00000000

Reset this to zero and it will stop for a while. That is until the
counter climbs back up to 100 once again.

> I was going to delete it, since it is no longer listed in add/remove
> programs. In the delete attempt I got a message saying it cannot be
> deleted because some files are being used by another program. And
> this is with nothing open.
>
> PLEASE help!
>
> Thank you.


I don't know exactly what you are trying to delete? But the free utility
called Unlocker will delete anything.

http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/

Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

 
B

Bruce Hagen

Is Windows Search installed?

In Windows Search, you have to tell it to stop indexing OE.

Windows Search. Set Desktop Search Options:
http://www.microsoft.com/australia/windows/desktopsearch/search/options.mspx

In the Windows Control Panel | Indexing Options | Modify. Clear the check
box for Outlook Express.

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA

"chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in message
news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with it,
> but
> that's another issue.
>
> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative account,
> hubby's is limited. When his account is signed into, there is a continuous
> pop-up that OE can compress files, with the option to click Yes or Cancel.
> It
> doesn't matter what is clicked, it continues to pop up. Often there isn't
> even time to click, it just pops out. It is more than extremely annoying.
>
> I was going to delete it, since it is no longer listed in add/remove
> programs. In the delete attempt I got a message saying it cannot be
> deleted
> because some files are being used by another program. And this is with
> nothing open.
>
> PLEASE help!
>
> Thank you.


 
F

FromTheRafters

"chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in message
news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with
> it, but
> that's another issue.
>
> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative account,
> hubby's is limited.


[...]

You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator account
that is only used when what you are trying to do requires it.

....but that's another issue. :eek:)

 
B

BillW50

In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in message
> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with
>> it, but
>> that's another issue.
>>
>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>> account, hubby's is limited.

>
> [...]
>
> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires it.
>
> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)


It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to keep
idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited accounts here and
I never had a problem. Although I do recommend sandbox environments and
good backup and recovery plans. Never needed them either, but they are
there. ;-)

Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

 
F

FromTheRafters

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:OiGyU5zTKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
>> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in
>> message
>> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with
>>> it, but
>>> that's another issue.
>>>
>>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>>> account, hubby's is limited.

>>
>> [...]
>>
>> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
>> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires it.
>>
>> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)

>
> It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to keep
> idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited accounts here
> and I never had a problem. Although I do recommend sandbox
> environments and good backup and recovery plans. Never needed them
> either, but they are there. ;-)


That's good for you, but any malware you contract during a session will
affect the rest of us (depending on it's capabilities of course). You
can recover and then just reinfect yourself again next time.

Sandboxes are a good idea if they can limit the malware further than
they limit the privileged user. If the sandbox allows the program to do
what the privileged user can do, session malware can thrive. Least
privilege is an important security concept.

 
B

BillW50

FromTheRafters wrote on, 17 Oct 2009 13:59:59 -0400:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:OiGyU5zTKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>> FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
>>> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>>>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy with
>>>> it, but
>>>> that's another issue.
>>>>
>>>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>>>> account, hubby's is limited.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
>>> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires it.
>>>
>>> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)

>> It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to keep
>> idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited accounts here
>> and I never had a problem. Although I do recommend sandbox
>> environments and good backup and recovery plans. Never needed them
>> either, but they are there. ;-)

>
> That's good for you, but any malware you contract during a session will
> affect the rest of us (depending on it's capabilities of course). You
> can recover and then just reinfect yourself again next time.
>
> Sandboxes are a good idea if they can limit the malware further than
> they limit the privileged user. If the sandbox allows the program to do
> what the privileged user can do, session malware can thrive. Least
> privilege is an important security concept.


I have never been infected, nor infected others. Although I did setup a
test bed to see how easy it is for an unexperienced user to get
infected. And it only had taken 90 seconds online to do so. ;-)

Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
 
F

FromTheRafters

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:OLCkjW1TKHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> FromTheRafters wrote on, 17 Oct 2009 13:59:59 -0400:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>> news:OiGyU5zTKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>> FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
>>>> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>>>>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy
>>>>> with
>>>>> it, but
>>>>> that's another issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>>>>> account, hubby's is limited.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
>>>> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)
>>> It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to
>>> keep idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited accounts
>>> here and I never had a problem. Although I do recommend sandbox
>>> environments and good backup and recovery plans. Never needed them
>>> either, but they are there. ;-)

>>
>> That's good for you, but any malware you contract during a session
>> will affect the rest of us (depending on it's capabilities of
>> course). You can recover and then just reinfect yourself again next
>> time.
>>
>> Sandboxes are a good idea if they can limit the malware further than
>> they limit the privileged user. If the sandbox allows the program to
>> do what the privileged user can do, session malware can thrive. Least
>> privilege is an important security concept.

>
> I have never been infected, nor infected others. Although I did setup
> a test bed to see how easy it is for an unexperienced user to get
> infected. And it only had taken 90 seconds online to do so. ;-)


Yep, it's a jungle out there. :eek:\

My point is (in regard to limited user accounts) that *if* an internet
facing autoworm were to attack your session, and it required admin
privileges to operate, you would be distributing it to others
unwittingly by running the supposed faulty program as administrator. You
may have a good recovery plan, but you still present a rich environment
for malware during a session.

Userland is for everybody, which is why the more privileged
"Administrator" account was disabled and hidden during the final stages
of installation of Windows Vista (and probably Windows 7) - to avoid
people settling for the situation you (and the OP) describe.

 
B

BillW50

FromTheRafters wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:38:03 -0400:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:OLCkjW1TKHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> FromTheRafters wrote on, 17 Oct 2009 13:59:59 -0400:
>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>>> news:OiGyU5zTKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>> FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
>>>>> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> it, but
>>>>>> that's another issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>>>>>> account, hubby's is limited.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
>>>>> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)
>>>> It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to
>>>> keep idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited accounts
>>>> here and I never had a problem. Although I do recommend sandbox
>>>> environments and good backup and recovery plans. Never needed them
>>>> either, but they are there. ;-)
>>> That's good for you, but any malware you contract during a session
>>> will affect the rest of us (depending on it's capabilities of
>>> course). You can recover and then just reinfect yourself again next
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Sandboxes are a good idea if they can limit the malware further than
>>> they limit the privileged user. If the sandbox allows the program to
>>> do what the privileged user can do, session malware can thrive. Least
>>> privilege is an important security concept.

>> I have never been infected, nor infected others. Although I did setup
>> a test bed to see how easy it is for an unexperienced user to get
>> infected. And it only had taken 90 seconds online to do so. ;-)

>
> Yep, it's a jungle out there. :eek:\
>
> My point is (in regard to limited user accounts) that *if* an internet
> facing autoworm were to attack your session, and it required admin
> privileges to operate, you would be distributing it to others
> unwittingly by running the supposed faulty program as administrator. You
> may have a good recovery plan, but you still present a rich environment
> for malware during a session.
>
> Userland is for everybody, which is why the more privileged
> "Administrator" account was disabled and hidden during the final stages
> of installation of Windows Vista (and probably Windows 7) - to avoid
> people settling for the situation you (and the OP) describe.


Yes I understand what could happen. But I never seen any harm
whatsoever. I can see inexperienced users getting into lots of trouble.
But for experienced users, limited user accounts are just plain annoying.

Here is what I do and it has been working. Just use a firewall (or a
router) and a good anti-virus active resident checker and you should be
in good shape. Of course, just in case make reliable backups. ;-)

Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
 
F

FromTheRafters

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:efxrRy1TKHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> FromTheRafters wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:38:03 -0400:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>> news:OLCkjW1TKHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> FromTheRafters wrote on, 17 Oct 2009 13:59:59 -0400:
>>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>>>> news:OiGyU5zTKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>>> FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
>>>>>> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> it, but
>>>>>>> that's another issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>>>>>>> account, hubby's is limited.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
>>>>>> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)
>>>>> It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to
>>>>> keep idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited
>>>>> accounts here and I never had a problem. Although I do recommend
>>>>> sandbox environments and good backup and recovery plans. Never
>>>>> needed them either, but they are there. ;-)
>>>> That's good for you, but any malware you contract during a session
>>>> will affect the rest of us (depending on it's capabilities of
>>>> course). You can recover and then just reinfect yourself again next
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> Sandboxes are a good idea if they can limit the malware further
>>>> than they limit the privileged user. If the sandbox allows the
>>>> program to do what the privileged user can do, session malware can
>>>> thrive. Least privilege is an important security concept.
>>> I have never been infected, nor infected others. Although I did
>>> setup a test bed to see how easy it is for an unexperienced user to
>>> get infected. And it only had taken 90 seconds online to do so. ;-)

>>
>> Yep, it's a jungle out there. :eek:\
>>
>> My point is (in regard to limited user accounts) that *if* an
>> internet facing autoworm were to attack your session, and it required
>> admin privileges to operate, you would be distributing it to others
>> unwittingly by running the supposed faulty program as administrator.
>> You may have a good recovery plan, but you still present a rich
>> environment for malware during a session.
>>
>> Userland is for everybody, which is why the more privileged
>> "Administrator" account was disabled and hidden during the final
>> stages of installation of Windows Vista (and probably Windows 7) - to
>> avoid people settling for the situation you (and the OP) describe.

>
> Yes I understand what could happen. But I never seen any harm
> whatsoever. I can see inexperienced users getting into lots of
> trouble. But for experienced users, limited user accounts are just
> plain annoying.


I can accept that really experienced users that are *always* doing
things that require admin privileges may want to run as administrator.

The majority of all of the really experienced users I know, run as
limited users (and many don't run Windows). Running as admin (or root)
shows inexperience - or that most of their experience was with
Microsoft's home line of Windows OSes that offered almost no security
which equates to inexperience.

> Here is what I do and it has been working. Just use a firewall (or a
> router) and a good anti-virus active resident checker and you should
> be in good shape. Of course, just in case make reliable backups. ;-)


There are still exploit based worms to consider, and *new* trojans, and
viruses.

If you stop to consider what fighting malware is all about, the thing
that puts the "mal" in "malware" is that it steals computing power.
Running as admin dangles low hanging fruit for malware's consumption.
It's all about protecting your clock pulses from being misused - not
about protecting your data and/or programs from some payload.

I know my thoughts won't disuade you from running as admin, but they may
help others to understand why it is still a bad idea.

 
B

BillW50

FromTheRafters wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:10:55 -0400:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:efxrRy1TKHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> FromTheRafters wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:38:03 -0400:
>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>>> news:OLCkjW1TKHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote on, 17 Oct 2009 13:59:59 -0400:
>>>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OiGyU5zTKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> In news:%23JVsepzTKHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> FromTheRafters typed on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:59:00 -0400:
>>>>>>> "chimed_life" <chimed_life> wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> news:07403FEF-A57E-4FBE-9A3C-7E5257BA277E@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>> My OE was changed to "live" quite some time ago. I'm not happy
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> it, but
>>>>>>>> that's another issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using XP with 2 separate accounts. Mine is the administrative
>>>>>>>> account, hubby's is limited.
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should *both* have limited accounts...*and* an administrator
>>>>>>> account that is only used when what you are trying to do requires
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...but that's another issue. :eek:)
>>>>>> It isn't really necessary and limited accounts are only useful to
>>>>>> keep idiots from getting into trouble. I never use limited
>>>>>> accounts here and I never had a problem. Although I do recommend
>>>>>> sandbox environments and good backup and recovery plans. Never
>>>>>> needed them either, but they are there. ;-)
>>>>> That's good for you, but any malware you contract during a session
>>>>> will affect the rest of us (depending on it's capabilities of
>>>>> course). You can recover and then just reinfect yourself again next
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandboxes are a good idea if they can limit the malware further
>>>>> than they limit the privileged user. If the sandbox allows the
>>>>> program to do what the privileged user can do, session malware can
>>>>> thrive. Least privilege is an important security concept.
>>>> I have never been infected, nor infected others. Although I did
>>>> setup a test bed to see how easy it is for an unexperienced user to
>>>> get infected. And it only had taken 90 seconds online to do so. ;-)
>>> Yep, it's a jungle out there. :eek:\
>>>
>>> My point is (in regard to limited user accounts) that *if* an
>>> internet facing autoworm were to attack your session, and it required
>>> admin privileges to operate, you would be distributing it to others
>>> unwittingly by running the supposed faulty program as administrator.
>>> You may have a good recovery plan, but you still present a rich
>>> environment for malware during a session.
>>>
>>> Userland is for everybody, which is why the more privileged
>>> "Administrator" account was disabled and hidden during the final
>>> stages of installation of Windows Vista (and probably Windows 7) - to
>>> avoid people settling for the situation you (and the OP) describe.

>> Yes I understand what could happen. But I never seen any harm
>> whatsoever. I can see inexperienced users getting into lots of
>> trouble. But for experienced users, limited user accounts are just
>> plain annoying.

>
> I can accept that really experienced users that are *always* doing
> things that require admin privileges may want to run as administrator.
>
> The majority of all of the really experienced users I know, run as
> limited users (and many don't run Windows).


Funny! As I am not running under Windows right now.

> Running as admin (or root)
> shows inexperience - or that most of their experience was with
> Microsoft's home line of Windows OSes that offered almost no security
> which equates to inexperience.


I have been running as administrator since the 70's. Well they didn't
call it administrator back then, but it was. And I have never been
infected at all. So claiming inexperience is pure BS! It is those whom
live in fear are the ones that are inexperienced. And those who actually
knows what they are doing lives in no fear at all.

>> Here is what I do and it has been working. Just use a firewall (or a
>> router) and a good anti-virus active resident checker and you should
>> be in good shape. Of course, just in case make reliable backups. ;-)

>
> There are still exploit based worms to consider, and *new* trojans, and
> viruses.


Yeah so? Decades of no problems I don't see the need to change anything.

> If you stop to consider what fighting malware is all about, the thing
> that puts the "mal" in "malware" is that it steals computing power.
> Running as admin dangles low hanging fruit for malware's consumption.
> It's all about protecting your clock pulses from being misused - not
> about protecting your data and/or programs from some payload.
>
> I know my thoughts won't disuade you from running as admin, but they may
> help others to understand why it is still a bad idea.


I am all for education. And there is nothing that hackers can do to the
truly educated, trust me.

Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top