Computing desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 14[edit]

Word Press Form Generating Emails[edit]

Hi All

I am not a developer, but I have a paid a dev team to build a Word Press site for me, but I'm having issues with a form that they have created.

Newsletter Subscription: Enter email address field, two check boxes, submit button

In the Word Press backend, there is a special mailing list field, where I enter the email address where the list of new subscribers should be sent - currently set to "optin@xxxxx.com

When a website visitor completes the newsletter form, an email is generated from & to the optin@xxxxx.com with the visitor receiving a notification that they have subscribed.

During testing and before I had set up the proper email addresses for the site, I was just using my personal email xxxxx@gmail.com as the address for the newsletter in the backend, and this worked fine, but what I found astonishing was that not only did I receive an email in my gmail inbox advising of a new subscriber, but the generated email was also listed in my gmail SENT items!

How can this be possible, surely this is open to massive abuse, as a form could be created to make threats etc. and then it would look like an innocent person had sent it - and the proof of sending would be in their sent items!

Please be aware there is no feature in the back-end where I enter my gmail password and in fact I have 2-step verification set anyway.

I was discussing this with a friend tonight and he couldn't believe it was possible, and to prove it, I entered one of HIS email addresses from his website in my Word Press backend for the subscribers list, and he was amazed to see that the form had generated an email that appeared both in the inbox AND sent items of his email account.

Before anyone asks, I don't know how they have done it, but if someone can advise me where to look in the backend, I will happily advise further.

The reason I am posting this, is that I don't see how this activity is legal, and surely it is a massive bug/security hole - as there are huge implications for email privacy.

Maybe I have got this wrong, and this is something that people are aware of, but I have never heard of someone being able to generate an email and have it placed in the sent items of an account without having the correct login credentials.

I certainly would feel extremely uncomfortable, if I checked my sent items and saw emails relating to illegal activity - and of course the first thing I would do would be to change my password, which would have no effect, as the password seemingly is not required to generate these emails via a form!

Can anyone advise about this, as I don't want to have a problematic form/code on my site, and I just want some more information before I go back to the developers and complain about it Jaseywasey (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've interpreted, you've done email spoofing. Did you use Reply-to: or To:? The latter may appear in the "sent" email box with some clients, even if it was delivered somewhere else than the To: address listed. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an SMTP server or PHP mail running on the xxxxx.com domain or your host to send the confirmation emails and the newsletters? It's actually quite common to use Gmail's SMTP service to send emails from WordPress where your host may not allow bulk emails or is not reliable enough—there are WordPress plugins to do exactly this. You said your Gmail address was used for testing, so it's likely your credentials are still stored somewhere in the WordPress settings, and the site is using Gmail SMTP as it is set to do that or there may be no other option. I believe it is quite secure and uses OAuth 2.0 rather than sending your credentials in the clear, and it doesn't mean that anyone receiving a notification email will also have it appear in their Sent box. --Canley (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVI or VGA[edit]

A normal PC built in 2017
Windows 10
A normal flat-screen TV
A normal, say, 3GB MP4 movie playing on VLC

If the connector/wire from the PC to the TV is DVI, will the movie play better than if it were coming through a VGA connector?

And if the connector at the back of the computer is DVI, and an adapter (pictured) is used, how would that change things?

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second question[edit]

Should the man who installed the new motherboard with DVI notice that the old motherboard had a VGA socket and not let you go all the way home only to discover that your monitor plug won't fit into the back of the computer? If yes, what word would appropriately describe that man? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor salesman. He should have sold you a new monitor as well.196.213.35.146 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have a graphics card that adds more outputs, so if he only saw the old motherboard, then no. If he saw both, it might be nice if he made this leap, but I certainly wouldn't expect it. Also, there are cables that will convert from one format to another, so he might have just assumed you had, or would get, one of those. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answers[edit]

DVI can carry digital signals or analog (latter for compatibility reasons), but VGA can only carry an analog signal. Analog signals over VGA or DVI may be limited to lower resolutions and refresh rates. Analog signals copy any noise that is in the transmission, which may progressively degrade the signal-to-noise ratio. Digital signals (using DVI-to-DVI in example) should have less issues, and converting digital-to-analog has some of the same issues as any analog signal. The short opinion is using DVI may be preferable where possible. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For modern computer displays, digital is optimal. The video signal in the computer is digital. The display on modern monitors is actually digital - every pixel has a limited set of color values and a limited set of brightness values. Because modern monitors are digital, using VGA means that you go from digital in the computer to analog in the transmission to digital in the display. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree DVI-D is the better bet. And this isn't just a theoretical thing. I tried with 1920x1080 new Samsung monitor last year or so with a relatively new computer using the Intel iGPU and it was definitely noticable when using VGA instead of DVI. That said, if you are genuinely talking about a normal flat-screen TV instead of a normal computer monitor, while I can't say for sure what things are like in China, these rarely have DVI. They will normally only have HDMI perhaps with VGA. You will need a simple passive DVI to HDMI adapter if your computer doesn't have HDMI out and for any modern computer everything including audio should work fine. However by the same token, most desktop computers built in 2017 will have a HDMI out. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVI in 2017? Why isn't it HDMI? DVI is (to most purposes) obsolete these days. Fortunately this means that cheap monitors for it are around and gathering dust. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phase-out of DVI began a few years ago, but it is a very slow phase-out. HDMI and DisplayPort are the standards adopted in the phase-out. So, it doesn't have to be HDMI. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Okay, they took out the motherboard with the DVI port and put in one with VGA and DVI. Will the absence of a HDMI port be a problem soon? Should they have given me one with an HDMI and/or DisplayPort port? Which port will still stick out of TVs and computers in 15 years? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVI is a not a problem because it carries an analog signal along with digital one (as was mentioned above). So, you can use a cheap passive DVI to VGA adapter. You did not need to change your motherboard. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik0, the people in the shop said changing the motherboard was needed because the adapter would cause funny lines on the screen. They swapped in the new motherboard free. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) As I said above, if your computer has DVI-D (this includes DVI-I) you should generally have few problems simply using a passive adapter probably available in China for under 50 US cents to get HDMI out. Whether or not you will have HDMI 2.0 may be less certain but that doesn't depend on the adapter. I'd note by the same token if you have a single link DVI-D monitor you will generally have no problem simply using a passive adapter to connect to it with HDMI. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, the port just says DVI, so no clue if it's D or I etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way to tell is whether or not the large pin is a cross or just straight, and whether the are four pins around it. [1] Anyway, if you can plug a VGA adapter into it then it must be DVI-D or DVI-A. But I've never seen a display out with DVI-A and don't see why you'd do that. Even DVI-D is unlikely. Some cards do have them but generally only when they already have another DVI-I or perhaps a VGA out. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Nil Einne. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One final comment while as I said above, you can generally notice the difference between VGA and digital, you IMO more likely to notice it with text etc rather than watching a video file. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been an oversight, but look at it this way. With a simple DVI to VGA converter, you will still be able to use your VGA at VGA quality. In the future, you may be able to use DVI. There have been several times with TVs, DVRs, DVDs, etc, where I thought "I don't need that connector", which was true at the time, but later I needed it after I replaced some other component. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba73, I will make sure the next TV we buy will have HDMI and all upcoming port possibilities. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume HDMI will be superseded by HHVIDD-J Mark IV in ten years? How long till HDMI is phased out?

Thank you all! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. We've had analog antenna, digital antenna, cable, digital cable, and HDTV as well as flat Twin-lead, coaxial cable, S-video, composite video, component video, HDMI, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba73, thank you. I think they should just make a big fat plug with extra holes/pins for future improvements. We're just talking about wires going from A to B, right? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to see the unique amount of plays of a youtube video?[edit]

Is there a way to see the unique amount of plays of a youtube video?

Just as some example, some people use youtube to listen to music, and so the amount of IPs and/or users that watched a video will be way smaller than the amount of plays the page will show, this because people will watch the same video more than once, because they will listen the same song more than once.177.92.128.26 (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not be counterbalanced by a number of people listening/watching the first few seconds of a video and then stopping because they didn't like it? (I presume that such a brief running would be counted in the "views" count, though I may be mistaken.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.11.214.76 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For there to be a way to display that number, there would first need to be a way to measure it implemented by the folks at Youtube. As your post and the first answer show, it is not exactly easy to define "unique views", and even if you had a particular definition in mind (if so, please tell) there would be no guarantee that it is technically measurable server-side. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Windows 12"[edit]

For some reason or another, I didn't know this until today.

Several sources dating to April 2017 reveal that Google will release "Windows 12" in early 2019. Do you think these sources are reliable?? I'm sure that if they were, Wikipedia's own Windows 10 article would reveal it. Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What day in April? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the individual source. Doing a Google search on "Windows 12" 2019 will reveal sources with different dates. Are any of them reliable?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want us to comment on the reliability of sources, show them to us. Specific sources, not Google searches. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first source revealed by the appropriate Google search:

http://windowsreport.com/microsoft-windows-12/

Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article specifically states that Microsoft will release Windows 12, not Google. It might change by 2019, but as of 2017, Microsoft and Google are two very different and unrelated companies. I'd say that you are the unreliable resource, not the original article. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I made a mistake when I said Google. Georgia guy (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, there's a reason Finlay McWalter asked what date. The very article you linked to doesn't even need you to pay close attention to the dates. It actually says:

To conclude this surprising piece of news, we remind you that today is April Fools’ Day. Microsoft is indeed trying to make VR accessible and affordable to the general public, but we have no clue as to what features Windows 12 will bring — and if there will be a Windows 12 OS.

(link added)

Further it's always going to be a bad idea to trust any site which has links all over telling you to download this tool to fix Windows issues. But if you are going to trust such sources, maybe at least read them properly?

Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't thinking of the possibility that it might have been an April fool. Georgia guy (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Microsoft is releasing "a" Windows 12 - awhile ago they stated that Windows 10 was the last Windows release and that they won't release another version so why change minds about it? Regards, PrimeArgon Φ 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wantamang[edit]

what is wantamang mean ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennett molemohi (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamang is a city and semi-common name in Taiwan. Wan is a more popular name in Taiwan. Wan Tamang is the name of multiple people with social media accounts. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wantamang meaning on the web nor on google, could you clarify what you mean properly so people like me can understand. Plus I don't think the meaning means a City I don't know how you got that meaning. Regards PrimeArgon Φ 15:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]