Browse incomplete PQI file

[Joop]

I have tried to make an image of a partition, using Drive Image
version 5.0

The process of making an image broke down because of a "checksum
error".
Therefore, Drive Image never reached the end, where it (I presume)
usually writes some "closing bits" it will look for during
reconstruction/unpacking/browsing

Yet it had produced a .pqi file of some 175 MB

Since I have, in the meantime, lost access to the entire partition, I
would like to browse these 175 MB, to see whether I can recover some
valuable files.
Chances are that there is quite some information there, if I only
could access/browse it.

However, both when running the Dos version of Drive Image, or the
ImageExplorer in Windows, it keeps asking for the the last CD of the
image.
So it apparently is looking for these 'closing bits".

Is there a way to access and browse the incomplete image file?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I have tried to make an image of a partition, using Drive Image
version 5.0

The process of making an image broke down because of a "checksum
error".

Aha, another piece of malware.

Therefore, Drive Image never reached the end, where it (I presume)
usually writes some "closing bits" it will look for during
reconstruction/unpacking/browsing

Yet it had produced a .pqi file of some 175 MB

Since I have, in the meantime, lost access to the entire partition, I
would like to browse these 175 MB,

Why not restore access to the partition instead

to see whether I can recover some valuable files.

and then there is no need to recover anything.

 

[Joep]

Aha, another piece of malware.

Stumper.

 

[Joop]

Stumper.

Are there any people out there with constructive comments?
JK

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Are there any people out there with constructive comments?

Maybe there are, but when poster can't bother to come back and answer
2 simple questions or even say thanks after someone took quite a bit of
time to help him out and educate him, on an earlier post of his, maybe,
just maybe, poster then doesn't *deserve* to get "constructive comments".

 

[Joop]

Maybe there are, but when poster can't bother to come back and answer
2 simple questions or even say thanks after someone took quite a bit of
time to help him out and educate him, on an earlier post of his, maybe,
just maybe, poster then doesn't *deserve* to get "constructive comments".

When I klick on: send a reply by e-mail, I get the following address:
(e-mail address removed)

I translated that to read (e-mail address removed)

That is the address I sent you an extensive answer to on August 3rd
about the posting you refer to

Have you maybe changed your e-mailadress recently and forgot to
correct your newsreader?
JK

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

When I klick on: send a reply by e-mail, I get the following address:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I translated that to read xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And why do you think that that was concealed for?
Guess what you just did: You posted a valid email address for every
spammer to see.

That is the address I sent you an extensive answer to on August 3rd
about the posting you refer to

I haven't seen it and neither did I ask you to do that.
It is even considered impolite to do that.

I did get an email message from Spam Weasel yesterday though, saying:

18:23:18 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013f1 (e-mail address removed) postmaster Is dit een goed e-mailadres?
meaning that Spam Weasel considered it to be 'likely spam'.
I take it that that came from you too?

And on further checking a bunch of Spam Weasel logfiles I found
22:08:06 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013b4 (e-mail address removed) postmaster HD 1024 cyl

18:23:21 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013f7 (e-mail address removed) postmaster Browse incomplete PQI file?

I will guess that Forte 'Stupid' Agent is using my sender address in it's
reply header. That is one of my spam markers.
I used OE to reply to my messages and it doesn't do that (well, at least
it doesn't on the saved message).

Have you maybe changed your e-mailadress recently and forgot to
correct your newsreader?

Because of your braindead action I now have to. Thanks a lot.

 

[John Turco]

And why do you think that that was concealed for?
Guess what you just did: You posted a valid email address for every
spammer to see.


I haven't seen it and neither did I ask you to do that.
It is even considered impolite to do that.

I did get an email message from Spam Weasel yesterday though, saying:

18:23:18 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013f1 (e-mail address removed) postmaster Is dit een goed e-mailadres?
meaning that Spam Weasel considered it to be 'likely spam'.
I take it that that came from you too?

And on further checking a bunch of Spam Weasel logfiles I found
22:08:06 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013b4 (e-mail address removed) postmaster HD 1024 cyl

18:23:21 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013f7 (e-mail address removed) postmaster Browse incomplete PQI file?

I will guess that Forte 'Stupid' Agent is using my sender address in it's
reply header. That is one of my spam markers.
I used OE to reply to my messages and it doesn't do that (well, at least
it doesn't on the saved message).


Because of your braindead action I now have to. Thanks a lot.

Hello, Folkert:

My mail server receives hundreds of spam e-mails, daily. I use
MailWasher (a freeware program) to delete them, right at the source, so
I don't even need to download any of the junk. "Spam Weasel" seems very
similar, but I've been quite happy with MailWasher, for over a year,
now.

Plus, its author is based in Australia -- land of your "idol," the
erstwhile Rod Speed! <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>


PS: You see, >I< didn't expose your "Reply-To" address, did I? :-J

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

"Folkert Rienstra" (e-mail address removed)> wrote in message

[snip]
I did get an email message from Spam Weasel yesterday though, saying:

18:23:18 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013f1 (e-mail address removed) postmaster Is dit een goed e-mailadres?
meaning that Spam Weasel considered it to be 'likely spam'.
I take it that that came from you too?

And on further checking a bunch of Spam Weasel logfiles I found
22:08:06 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013b4 (e-mail address removed) postmaster HD 1024 cyl

18:23:21 Rule "Check header for matches listed in 'Likely Spam Markers'"
msg013f7 (e-mail address removed) postmaster Browse incomplete PQI file?

I will guess that Forte 'Stupid' Agent is using my sender address in it's
reply header. That is one of my spam markers.
I used OE to reply to my messages and it doesn't do that (well, at least
it doesn't on the saved message).

I found out later that some providers add different info of their own to the header
of received mail when I found that the same message that sailed by the same rules
from one mail account didn't make it through another. I had a rule that classed
"from unkown" as a likely spam marker. It now appears that Freeler adds this when
it doesn't see something in the header that some mail clients send but others don't.

[snip]

Hello, Folkert:

My mail server receives hundreds of spam e-mails, daily.

So does my "MyWeb" account. I have disabled it from scanning by Spam
Weasel as downloading just the headers already takes forever. I use
ScanMail on it manually from time to time to download only size on the first
run and delete everything over 160kB which is the Microsoft update worm.
That clears a considerable amount so that I then can do a second run *with
headers* and run the rules again. What spam still remains I delete by hand.

I use MailWasher (a freeware program) to delete them, right at the source, so
I don't even need to download any of the junk.

So does SpamWeasel but it still has to download 'something' (the header
at a minimum) to base its decision on.
Even that takes 'ages' when you have a hundred or so messages waiting.
I don't believe Mail Washer works any differently so I can't see how
it will be any better.

"Spam Weasel" seems very similar,

It's not self learning on the decisions that you take but you can forget it
when emailing whereas MailWasher, iirc, is interactive and requires you to
make decisions while you are online.

but I've been quite happy with MailWasher, for over a year, now.

Plus, its author is based in Australia

That can't be good.

-- land of your "idol," the erstwhile Rod Speed! <g>
See!



Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>


PS: You see, >I< didn't expose your "Reply-To" address, did I? :-J

And why would you.

If only Al Dykes could be made to learn new tricks, I'd be happy.

 

[John Turco]

So does my "MyWeb" account. I have disabled it from scanning by Spam
Weasel as downloading just the headers already takes forever. I use
ScanMail on it manually from time to time to download only size on the first
run and delete everything over 160kB which is the Microsoft update worm.
That clears a considerable amount so that I then can do a second run *with
headers* and run the rules again. What spam still remains I delete by hand.

Hello, Folkert:

It's a hassle, but, I always download >all< the headers (to keep from
accidentally deleting good messages). Luckily, MailWasher features a
"Blacklist & friends list" tool, which makes it a lot easier to
distinguish wheat from chaff, so to speak.

Regardless, I normally wade through the whole list of crud, in case any
nuggets may be "hiding," somewhere.

So does SpamWeasel but it still has to download 'something' (the header
at a minimum) to base its decision on.
Even that takes 'ages' when you have a hundred or so messages waiting.
I don't believe Mail Washer works any differently so I can't see how
it will be any better.

Perhaps, not; yet, is it any worse? They're both freeware, hence, we

It's not self learning on the decisions that you take but you can forget it
when emailing whereas MailWasher, iirc, is interactive and requires you to
make decisions while you are online.

That's one of the reasons I like MailWasher...it gives me total control
of the situation. Otherwise, it might "decide" to trash non-spam e-mail,
without my knowledge.

That can't be good.


See!

Please, don't condemn an entire country, due to the actions of one of
its citizens.

And why would you.

If only Al Dykes could be made to learn new tricks, I'd be happy.

Maybe you could persuade him to killfile you? <G>


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hello, Folkert:

It's a hassle, but, I always download >all< the headers (to keep from accidentally
deleting good messages). Luckily, MailWasher features a "Blacklist & friends
list" tool, which makes it a lot easier to distinguish wheat from chaff, so to speak.

Regardless, I normally wade through the whole list of crud, in case any
nuggets may be "hiding," somewhere.

For me that defeats the purpose I have it for: spending as little time online
as possible when picking up mail and synchronizing with newsgroup messages.

Perhaps, not; yet, is it any worse? They're both freeware, hence, we


That's one of the reasons I like MailWasher...

.... and why I dislike it.

it gives me total control of the situation. Otherwise, it might "decide" to
trash non-spam e-mail, without my knowledge.
[snip]

And why would you.

If only Al Dykes could be made to learn new tricks, I'd be happy.

Maybe you could persuade him to killfile you? <G>

Well, it's not that I didn't try but it appears that that would be a
'new trick' for him too. Maybe he could hire back some staff, as from
some of his messages it appears that he had some working for him.
Maybe that explains a few things about his 'abilities'.

 

[John Turco]

For me that defeats the purpose I have it for: spending as little time online
as possible when picking up mail and synchronizing with newsgroup messages.

Hello, Folkert:

Okay, your needs differ from mine, evidently. I worry about
inadvertently dumping an important letter, which is why I'm so cautious.

In fact, only Tuesday, I noticed an e-mail response, by Panasonic.
Waited for it, since 7-30-04; if I hadn't been browsing MailWasher,
manually, I'd have missed it. (I couldn't put it on my "Friends list,"
beforehand, as I was unaware of what specific e-mail address Panasonic
would be using.)

Incidentally, I can't recall, precisely, when everything got out of
hand. I do remember that, in October of 2000, I spent four days in the
hospital (gallbladder removal), and was without Internet access, during
this period. Once home, I was greeted with a relatively-paltry 50+ spam
messages. (Of course, I still considered it excessive.)

Back then, I favored Netscape Communicator, as my main Web browser.
Sometime in 2001, I switched to Internet Explorer...do you think there's
a connection (pun intended), between IE and e-mail spam? Its "cousin,"
Outlook Express, has certainly gained its share of notoriety, so I tend
to wonder. (I've stuck with Netscape, for e-mail and newsgroups.)

... and why I dislike it.

To each, his own. ;-)

it gives me total control of the situation. Otherwise, it might "decide" to
trash non-spam e-mail, without my knowledge.
[snip]

PS: You see, >I< didn't expose your "Reply-To" address, did I? :-J

And why would you.

If only Al Dykes could be made to learn new tricks, I'd be happy.

Maybe you could persuade him to killfile you? <G>

Well, it's not that I didn't try but it appears that that would be a
'new trick' for him too. Maybe he could hire back some staff, as from
some of his messages it appears that he had some working for him.
Maybe that explains a few things about his 'abilities'.

Some people are "Usenet challenged," apparently. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[DickXP666]

maybe you 2 need to open a new thread on email handlers instead of
wasting posts here and not even trying to answer the origianl
question (which is why I came here because I have a similar problem)

 

[John Turco]

maybe you 2 need to open a new thread on email handlers instead of
wasting posts here and not even trying to answer the origianl
question (which is why I came here because I have a similar problem)

Hello, Dick:

Folkert Rienstra did just that, 'way back on 8-15-04. Look up "OT: Re:
Browse incomplete PQI file," on Google Groups <http://groups.google.com>.


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>