Need Access TO "Properties / Header" info, and the use of a "peek-a-boo" feature that allows an undesignated opening of an e-mail. BOTH are necessary .
When the list of "Incoming mails is received, some times an e-mail will have a familiar name, BUT the message is NOT from the person I am familiar with. A header would reveal who is MASQUERADING under the familiar name. This is found on the right clicking of an incoming e-mail under "properties.", for those using Windows Mail service. Upon activation, two panels are available: The "General," base line info; and the "Details" board. notifications@support.mozilla.org
Here is the "Details" on your recent request:
Return-Path: <8fd.10.Ragingmt=rochester.rr.com@mxsp4.email-od.com> Received: from dnvrco-pub-iedge-vip.email.rr.com ([107.14.70.244])
by dnvrco-fep24.email.rr.com (InterMail vM.8.04.01.13 201-2343-100-167-20131028) with ESMTP id <20150527165815.TQBS12014.dnvrco-fep24.email.rr.com@dnvrco-pub-iedge-vip.email.rr.com> for <Ragingmt@rochester.rr.com>; Wed, 27 May 2015 16:58:15 +0000
Return-Path: <8fd.10.Ragingmt=rochester.rr.com@mxsp4.email-od.com> Received: from [64.151.119.54] ([64.151.119.54:45118] helo=mail24.smtprelayserver.com) by dnvrco-iedge04 (envelope-from <8fd.10.Ragingmt=rochester.rr.com@mxsp4.email-od.com>) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 05/42-22770-6A7F5655; Wed, 27 May 2015 16:58:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=email-od.com;i=@email-od.com;s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; t=1432745904; x=1435337904; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:to:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BorokUNlliKkKGt/h0t9J5QZRXM=; b=ivSHJkJVgtIuuPbdKelm8wrP9MTDBOfWi38tURaeWYyE7irIYrzg8PjdIXA/r9B3Uc8l1gJJ9blRBU2jcN+jKV4C2+/5tSrQSrfiqa9l5xBx81Fm8Winq6uvCxyTCUwioUwJ21eUR7FDAXlDmcg7fbRBoG2b4+f0CvQLBrdPNxU= X-Thread-Info: OGZkLjEyLjhhMDAwMDA3NmJmNzIzLlJhZ2luZ210PXJvY2hlc3Rlci5yci5jb20= Received: from r2.us-west-2a.aws.in.socketlabs.com ([54.186.58.227]) by mail30.email-od.com with ESMTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 12:58:23 -0400 Received: from support3.webapp.phx1.mozilla.com ([63.245.216.223]) by r2.us-west-2a.aws.in.socketlabs.com with ESMTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 12:58:14 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;.
I do NOT have this option on the right-clicked menu.
Yes, I have been fooled, BUT, with a name of an extended family member, who questions such? However, the message came from an unknown party, pushing some product from Oprah. I check now.
There are also e-mails I may NOT wish to indicate that I have "read" them via the formal opening process. I call this the "peek-a-boo" method of opening an e-mail, as it is NOT a formal opening, per my research. The point is that NOT all you see on the screen IS what you ARE seeing. Thus the old saying: "Seeing IS believing.", is NOT true. This is a more current peeking process, an advancement on the old "300 watt bulb behind the envelope" method of finding out contents withOUT opening the letter. This applies to a sender I am familiar with BUT, the current topic is NOT of interest to me. Thus, I can use the "Delete" function with complete satisfaction.
Therefore I wish to know HOW I can gain these two features on THUNDER BIRD e-mails?
Thomas J. Baglin Ragingmt@rochester.rr.com 05-27-2015
Solução escolhida
R.M. said
Thank, you, Matt. As for the "peek-a-boo," about 15 years back, it was somewhat revealed on the web that certain senders had the ability to detect IF you had opened their missive.
This is managed through web bugs. Thunderbird blocks remote images by default. Web bugs only work if you enable remote images in the specific email.
As of THIS time frame, it is the GOVERNMENT that has the ability to detect whether you open all, or part of your "Incoming" receipts.
Interesting perspective, but not entirely corr4ect. f they have access to an IMAP mail server they "could" determine the status of the mail on that server. In the case of POP mail that could determine if it was downloaded. While I do not trust government surveillance. About the only time they would be doing that would be when they are already investigating you as an individual. It is a nit late then.
Thus, WHY WOULD Windows Mail offer this feature, and T-bird mail, NOT?
I played with Visual basic using embedded Internet Explorer about 15 years ago and it was a simple toggle to change the display from rendered HTML to the source. So I would suggest it is in windows mail because it was already in Internet explorer and it made for a very simple to implement feature. Just expose the existing functionality. After all composition and rendering in Windows mail used Internet explorer.
Although the Header helps enormously, still, what I SEE is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT TRULY is the content of the e-letter.
That is a feature of Thunderbird. It uses the display names from your address book on incoming mail. You can turn it off in Tools menu (alt+T) > options > Advanced > Reading and display.
If tracking can be accomplished via the "key stroke method," and YOU NOT know of it, then a "peek-a-boo" feature is worth having, eh?
Keyloggers are just as capable of capturing screens and mouse clicks. So your no further ahead.
It makes me feel I have SOME C-O-N-T-R-O-L as to what I CHOOSE to read, and what I don't based on content and subject.
Seriously. encrypting email with s/mime and free email certificates will do more to protect your mail than any sort of spurious checking it before you read it. Most people apparently can not cope with having a personal mail certificate to encrypt their mail and like most internet technologies we get the lowest common denominator. That is plain text that traverses the internet in plain human readable text.
Please when using these forums do not indent your text. It is what causes it to become very hard to read and not wrap. I am sure it is how you were taught in school. I was taught the same. But we have to bend to the exigencies of the occasion.
Todas as respostas (5)
lets get a couple of things clear.
No one but you know if you open a mail or not. so I fail totally to understand your desire of some sort of clandestine peek-a-boo thing.
What your showing is the message source. Ctrl +U displays it in Thunderbird.
Thank, you, Matt.
I am very new to T-bird mail, so I have a LOT of catching up to do.
I appreciate the Ctrl + "u" tip. very helpful.
As for the "peek-a-boo," about 15 years back, it was somewhat revealed on the web that certain senders had the ability to detect IF you had opened their missive.
As of THIS time frame, it is the GOVERNMENT that has the ability to detect whether you open all, or part of your "Incoming" receipts.
Thus, WHY WOULD Windows Mail offer this feature, and T-bird mail, NOT?
Although the Header helps enormously, still, what I SEE is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT TRULY is the content of the e-letter. If tracking can be accomplished via the "key stroke method," and YOU NOT know of it, then a "peek-a-boo" feature is worth having, eh? It makes me feel I have SOME C-O-N-T-R-O-L as to what I CHOOSE to read, and what I don't based on content and subject.
Thanks again for your input regards the Header.
R.M. Ragingmt@rochester.rr.com 05-28-2015
Please don't indent your postings with spaces. This forum's software takes a leading space as an indicator that the following text is code to be printed verbatim in a fixed width font. It makes your message unreadable.
Solução escolhida
R.M. said
Thank, you, Matt. As for the "peek-a-boo," about 15 years back, it was somewhat revealed on the web that certain senders had the ability to detect IF you had opened their missive.
This is managed through web bugs. Thunderbird blocks remote images by default. Web bugs only work if you enable remote images in the specific email.
As of THIS time frame, it is the GOVERNMENT that has the ability to detect whether you open all, or part of your "Incoming" receipts.
Interesting perspective, but not entirely corr4ect. f they have access to an IMAP mail server they "could" determine the status of the mail on that server. In the case of POP mail that could determine if it was downloaded. While I do not trust government surveillance. About the only time they would be doing that would be when they are already investigating you as an individual. It is a nit late then.
Thus, WHY WOULD Windows Mail offer this feature, and T-bird mail, NOT?
I played with Visual basic using embedded Internet Explorer about 15 years ago and it was a simple toggle to change the display from rendered HTML to the source. So I would suggest it is in windows mail because it was already in Internet explorer and it made for a very simple to implement feature. Just expose the existing functionality. After all composition and rendering in Windows mail used Internet explorer.
Although the Header helps enormously, still, what I SEE is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT TRULY is the content of the e-letter.
That is a feature of Thunderbird. It uses the display names from your address book on incoming mail. You can turn it off in Tools menu (alt+T) > options > Advanced > Reading and display.
If tracking can be accomplished via the "key stroke method," and YOU NOT know of it, then a "peek-a-boo" feature is worth having, eh?
Keyloggers are just as capable of capturing screens and mouse clicks. So your no further ahead.
It makes me feel I have SOME C-O-N-T-R-O-L as to what I CHOOSE to read, and what I don't based on content and subject.
Seriously. encrypting email with s/mime and free email certificates will do more to protect your mail than any sort of spurious checking it before you read it. Most people apparently can not cope with having a personal mail certificate to encrypt their mail and like most internet technologies we get the lowest common denominator. That is plain text that traverses the internet in plain human readable text.
Please when using these forums do not indent your text. It is what causes it to become very hard to read and not wrap. I am sure it is how you were taught in school. I was taught the same. But we have to bend to the exigencies of the occasion.
Thanks again. I will have to get some coaching on this as I am all thumbs when it comes to computer etiquette.
As for being investigated, I have no clue if they do, or don't.
As for "proper" composition writing, I do agree; just not ready to chuck 60+ years of training due to technology. BUT, in the interest of clarity, and efficiency, I will try to be more "in step" with the current mode.
Again, my thanks.
R.M. Ragingmt@rochester.rr.com 05-28-2015
