Esumsoft Forums

Been happening for the last 2 days Bad Connectios on all accounts
Gmail
outlook
yahoo
etc

Server info is
=============
Messages: -4
Server size: 0 bytes
Mem size: 0 bytes
File size: 0 bytes

Last DB Maint (global): 03/14/18 08:54:56 (53 days)

Last success: -
Last error: 05/06/18 17:11:10 (7 minutes ago)
- Bad Connection
Consecutive errors: 1

CAPABILITIES:




all other internet functions work OK on PC

I have reinstall POP Peeper. same problem exists


any quick solutions?

Hello tomigun,

Sorry to hear of the issue you are having. Please post back with the entire error message text by following the instructions at the link below:

PP error messages: How to view them & copy/paste into your post

**Be sure to read the CAUTION note near the bottom of the Sticky, regarding editing/obscuring personally-identifiable information!

Also, please provide your responses to the following:

1. Are you able to log-in to each of your accounts via your browser without any problem?

2. Are you getting these 'Bad Connection' errors all of the time, or are there occasions when you do not get them?

Providing the above requested info will enable members of The Esumsoft Team & forum community to better assist you.

Thank you and best regards.

I only download the headers for pop3, webmail, imap.

The results of the error log, I have not posted the whole log as there are 66 errors,
I have 66 email account that are active.
The pop peeper folder is on a network machine that 2 PC have access to, one is having these Bad Connections and the other is OK so yes I can access all these email accounts via the 2nd PC that looks at the pop peeper network folder.

Each of the accounts has Dad Connection on them when you go into the edit account see https://i.imgur.com/bn41OHS.png

There seems to be a problem with the network functionality in pop peeper that seems to be broken on this PC.

Is there a way to check the network for this pop peeper program


I don't have any other firewall other then the windows one.
I have disable the windows one with out any effect.

If a resolution is not fount I will have to do a system restore, this will mean a 2-3 hour system update that will be need to be done, which I am trying to avoid




--- Version ---
OS: Windows 10 (x64)
POP Peeper: 4.5.0.0
Webmail: 4.4.12.0
SSL: 1.0.2.11
IMAP: 4.5.0.0
SendMail: 4.5.0.0
Profile Picture: 4.5.0.0 (disabled)
AntiJunk: 4.5.0.0 (disabled)
Spell Checker: 4.5.0.0 (disabled)
Web of Trust: 4.5.0.0 (disabled)

--- Error ---
2 gmail gmail.com [1000: IMAP] ['imap.gmail.com' (993) SSL: 1] [Smtp: 'smtp.gmail.com' (465) SSL: 1] [Consec: 4]
- Bad Connection

2 outlook.com [1000: IMAP] ['imap.outlook.com' (993) SSL: 1] [Smtp: 'smtp-mail.outlook.com' (587) SSL: 2] [Consec: 4]
- Bad Connection

Thanks for posting back with additional info, tomigun!

One suggestion I have (after looking at the screenshot of your Outlook account), is you might try changing the Incoming Server on only ONE of your Outlook accounts to:

outlook.office365.com

Be sure to click the [UPDATE] button after doing so. Then do a manual mail check of that one account to see if the change has any effect.
Please post back with the results.

I believe there is more to the problem than I'm seeing at the moment, since you are experiencing issues with all your email accounts, and are on a network. So the Incoming Server change I suggested above may not have any effect at all.

I would recommend holding-off on doing a System Restore until other members of The Esumsoft Team can review your issues and respond to you.
[I have contacted Jeff about your topic].

Best regards.

tomigun - while waiting for Jeff to look into this you could do a simple "ping" test and post the screen-shot here in this topic for us.

On the PC with the "bad" connection accounts -- open the Windows Command Prompt interface and ping any one of your accounts as pointed out by the red pointer i.e. here is an example "ping" for "outlook.com" as illustrated in the screen-shot below (entered at prompt "ping outlook.com" w/out quotes): Note: in my case for "outlook.com" all 4 packets "Sent" are "Received" (as well as other data).


ADDENDUM: (Btw, as an afterthought --- I wasn't sure whether to go into such detail, but, if interested, there is a way to copy the "ping" data to paste into topic as illustrated below).
Rather than capturing a screen-shot you can easily copy/paste the data by doing the following steps:
Step 1) After doing the above to get the ping results you can right-click in the "frame" of the Command Prompt window to get this: Step 2) After selecting "Mark" you can then drag your mouse over the data to be copied (as illustrated in the screen-shot below). Once the data is selected then right-click in the "frame" as before to "Copy" the selected data. Then after doing a right-click and selecting "Paste" from the context menu in your reply in this topic --- you will get as illustrated below (my copied data in this example doing the two steps above):

C:\Users\user>ping outlook.com

Pinging outlook.com [40.97.164.146] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 40.97.164.146: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=236
Reply from 40.97.164.146: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=236
Reply from 40.97.164.146: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=236
Reply from 40.97.164.146: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 40.97.164.146:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 72ms, Maximum = 74ms, Average = 73ms

Just thought I'd go ahead and include this if interested....

Hi

it is not necessary to explanation of how to do thing I am very fluent in this stuff. it will save you all that typing.


Ping results
===========
Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17134.1]
(c) 2018 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Q>ping imap.gmail.com

Pinging gmail-imap.l.google.com [74.125.130.108] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.130.108: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=41
Reply from 74.125.130.108: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=41
Reply from 74.125.130.108: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=41
Reply from 74.125.130.108: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=41

Ping statistics for 74.125.130.108:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 228ms, Maximum = 230ms, Average = 229ms

C:\Users\Q>ping imap.outlook.com

Pinging outlook.ms-acdc.office.com [40.100.149.178] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 40.100.149.178: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=239
Reply from 40.100.149.178: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=239
Reply from 40.100.149.178: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=239
Reply from 40.100.149.178: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 40.100.149.178:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 51ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 52ms

C:\Users\Q>ping imap.mail.yahoo.com

Pinging internal.imap.mail.g03.yahoodns.net [106.10.231.25] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 106.10.231.25: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=48
Reply from 106.10.231.25: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=48
Reply from 106.10.231.25: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=48
Reply from 106.10.231.25: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 106.10.231.25:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 59ms, Maximum = 66ms, Average = 62ms

C:\Users\Q>


also see this
https://i.imgur.com/3xmLO74.png


Also need more info on what exactly the bad connection is.
is there a log file that has more info in it?

of to sleep now will get on in the morning.

tomigun wrote:... is there a log file that has more info in it?

... yes - however you will need to wait for Jeff to get in contact with you since the log will have sensitive/personal information included in it...

no problem, I would have vetted it anyhow .

A "bad connection" is the same as a "connection failed" and the logs *probably* won't give us any insight.

The most likely reason is that something is blocking the SSL connection.

Since ping works, try telnet:
telnet imap.gmail.com 993

A "success" would be that the dos window clears and the cursor is at top-left (it's expecting the SSL negotiation which you won't be able to fake, so just close the dos window).

This will tell us if the blocker is generically blocking the port (in the event that telnet fails to connect), or if there's something that's blocking POP Peeper specifically (if telnet succeeds).

The hard part is figuring out what's causing the block. You've already said you're not using any other firewalls and it happens with Windows firewall disabled. What about other security programs, in particular, AntiVirus with email scanning? Disabling AV may or may not work; some of them really put their hooks in and can cause issues even when disabled, so if disabling the AV itself doesn't work, try disabling the email scanning feature (which, again, is not a fool-proof test).

Also, have you tried turning it off and on again?

Hi Guys

I have discovered what the problem is.

I have simulated the problem on my other PC-2.

On PC-2 I access pop peeper locally and through the network on to a shared folder, all works fine.
on PC-2 the windows version was 1709 when I upgraded to 1803 the local pop peeper worked but the network location gave me the bad connection error.

My Update History
Feature Update (1)
Feature update to Windows 10, version 1803
Successfully installed on ‎7/‎05/‎2018


pop peeper does not work on windows 1803 using network access.


jeff or someone, can you verify this bug
Thanks

You'll need to provide more details on how you have your "network access" configured.

I have 2 computers:
PC1 has 1803
PC2 has 1709 (but it's currently updating)

I copied PP to a shared folder on PC2 (a random folder that wouldn't be under the influence of UAC)
I run PP on PC1 using the shared folder
I check a few imap accounts and they work
exit PP

I then map a network drive to the shared folder
I run PP using the mapped drive
I check an imap account and it works

I'm not sure if the Windows version on PC2 will matter or not, but it's still updating so I can't test that yet (I'll post once tested). When you run from a mapped network drive, it will use the network connections on the local computer so I'm not sure why it would make a difference. This is not something that I do very often and I will not be able to provide much help on the matter. I do know that MS nixed the Homegroup in this release, so I don't know if that's relevant or not. Otherwise, the only other thing I can think of is that it may be a permissions-related issue (e.g. if the source folder is in "Program Files"). Try installing a fresh copy of PP (I'd avoid copying an existing installation as it might copy permissions) into a neutral folder (ie. c:\PP\) and testing from the other computer using that folder.

(still updating to 1803...)

PC2 has updated to 1803.

My mapped drive on PC1 was still viable, so simply ran it from that existing mapped drive and it still worked.

So the conclusion to be made is that there's not anything inherently wrong with PP and 1803 using shared folders, so there must be something specific on your network configuration causing the problem.

I don't use homegroupe and it seems to have been removed from 1803

I don't use mapping just a link to the exe file.

I use a server 2003 R2 that I use as a file server this has the pop peeper folder on it that can be accessed on the network by those other pc's
yes I know that it is old and unsupported but hay it still works great and just needs to store files

I tried it on another 2003 server with the same results Bad Connection error.
I have tested it out on server 2016 and it works fine.
Did not have a server 2008 to test it on.
Had to fire up these 2 servers as they are not been use for anything at the moment

It even works on a XP PC as a file server if it has not got windows 10 v1803

I wonder what happened in windows 10 v1803 to break it.

Could it have something to do with timing like what happened with viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6975&p=35346#p35346

I thought I was following what you were saying until you said this:
> It even works on a XP PC as a file server if it has not got windows 10 v1803

I don't know how to make sense of that.

Perhaps you can clarify which scenarios have a problem and which work? ie. if PP is installed on OS-a and PP is accessed from OS-b

Do you have 2 computers that have win10 v1803? Or even 2 computers that have Win10 of varying builds (because I tested 1803 accessing 1709 with success)?

If you're suggesting that win10v1803 works except on certain (older) OS's then I'm afraid that's just not something I can help with, it's out of my expertise. I would assume that there's a technical reason such as, like I mentioned before, a permissions based issue. Did you try my aforementioned experiment of installing to a different folder, or is that how you conducted the experiments on other OS's?

Hi jeff

sorry about the confusion hope this helps.

All the machines are the network
I have pp installed on a folder on a server 2003 (original). it was install from a win 10 pc through the network to the 2003 server (original)

For testing I copied the pp folder from the server 2003 (original) to a win XP PC (that is acting as a simple server), and to another server 2003, and to a server 2008(not 2012) ,and a server 2016, these machines now have a copy of pp in them and are acceded by any machines over the network.

I call a machine a server that has copy of pp folder that was copped from the server 2003(original).

Win 10 PC is v1709 and can access all the servers with no errors.
Win 10 PC v1803 has a bad connection on the XP server and 2 server 2003 machines,

I still have machines that are on 1709 so am able to test that pp it still working from all the servers that have a copy of pp.

You might be wondering why I have so many PC, answer, every family member has one, and the TV has one, and if the dog didn't sleep all day long he would have one also. plus 4 server for stuff.

Wikipedia says that server 2008 is based on the same code that Vista uses. So, the fact that 2008 works and older OS's don't (XP and server 2003), sounds intentional. That is, Vista has security features that the older OS's didn't have. So I still think that my permissions guess is on the right track.

If running PP from one of the newer server-OS's is a viable option, that's probably the easiest solution.

However, I do have to say that running multiple instances of PP using the same data path (which it sounds like you're probably doing) is not recommended. PP is not designed for simultaneously sharing data and could cause issues. It's not something that's tested for so you run at your own risk It might be better if everyone had their own local configuration, anyway. Except for the dog, of course, it sounds like he's too lazy to read it himself.

Hi jeff

I am the only one that uses pp on 2 computers.

I thought that this problem might be something that has possibly occurred before and been fixed.
But it seem that it's a hard one to rectify with the current software in use.

I'll bug Microsoft about this one and see what they have to say, you never know. (they probably will say use 1703 or speak to the software maker)

Thanks for you effort and input.

I'm pretty sure that they won't suggest going back to 1703 as a viable solution

I think that figuring out why there's a problem would be a good start. There are other avenues of support as well, such as the win 10 forums (note: it's not an official MS support forum, but there are a lot of knowledgeable people there).

I probably haven't made this clear, but when I was talking about "permissions" I've been referring to the "permissions" that you can set on files yourself. ie. right-click on poppeeper.exe, select "properties" and then "security" tab. As far as I know, these permissions are for read/write access, which isn't really the problem you're experiencing. I would more tend to think that this kind of special "permission" would fall under the jurisdiction of Windows Firewall, but you've said you've tried disabling that, so... But regardless, when I look at the permissions of poppeeper.exe on a remote server, the permissions are set to "allow" everything except "special permissions" (there's nothing for that line) for all the listed usernames/groups.

Here's an idea, and I wouldn't necessarily suggest it as a permanent solution (well, maybe...), but it might be interesting if it worked -- have you tried running POP Peeper as admin? (ie. right-click and "run as admin")

You might also try: right-click / properties / compatibility