Anyone used the ChilKat activex component for emails?

[GriffMG]

Been using WestWind tech. for donkeys years, but they only really support SSL/TLS if you have a .net framework installed, which my customer doesn't want.

Looking at ChilKat it seems like a good, inexpensive, alternative, has anyone on here tried it?

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​

 

[Olaf Doschke]

Even if your customer doesn't want a .NET Framework installed, he surely has! It's part of the OS in one or anther version anyway. So why this rejection?
Many .NET versions can coexist without problems. What exactly do they criticize? Do you need a too old version of it for the West Wind stuff? So are there security concerns?
I'm sure Rick Strahl would be able to address that or maybe already haas in the most recent WebConnectr version.

As farr as I see this feature of SSL/TSL usage is documented here, indeed as .NET mode:

https://west-wind.com/webconnection/docs/_2ql0tv6k4.htm

It uses wwdotnetbridge for that, and that can pick any .NET Framework versio. He sepcifies 4.0 as minimum, for security reasons you should use latest versions anyway. In that regard some things VFP itself depend on would also be a reason to reject your whole sofware. eg MSXML3 and MSXML4 for VFPs XML features. You can only disregard that when not using them, but then also the core C++ runtime is older.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[GriffMG]

No .NET frameworks allowed. Period, no negotiation.

Yes, I use quite an old version of WestWind stuff, until now that has been fine, because they were able to communicate with an SMTP host without being encrypted - but the world moves on and encryption is no longer an option for them, so I'm looking for alternatives which will open a conversation on a TLS/SSL port - preferably without rewriting the whole thing.

The ChilKat stuff looks good, and with a tiny bit of a wrapper I think I have it working, at least in terms of a proof of concept.

The dll is a bit of a lump and needs to be registered to work, but it's very easy to code and not massively expensive for a single developer.

Has anyone else used it?

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​

 

[GriffMG]

Oh, do you I would need perhaps .NET ver 2 to work with WestWind, not that I have an old copy of WW...

To be fair I don't know which version of .NET the more recent versions of WW would need, but I can see that no .NET framework is installed on his servers.



Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​

 

[Olaf Doschke]

I edited my post above, as far as I see you need .NET 4 or higher for WW .NET Mail mode

Bye, Olaf.

 

[Mike Gagnon]

I have tested ChilKat's for SSL/TLS email and it works correctly in both cases.
We ended up not using not because it did not work, for other reasons.

https://www.example-code.com/foxpro/smtp_starttls.asp

https://www.example-code.com/foxpro/smtp_ssl_port465.asp

You can download a 30 days DLL for testing.




Mike Gagnon

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ184-2483 first.

 

[GriffMG]

I notice that both pieces of example code miss one vital step - they have a CloseSmtpConnection() but no OpenSmtpConnection()

B-)

I have bought the package, it seems to work well.

I get the impression it is slightly slower than WestWind, but that might be the overhead of TLS/SSL

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​

 

[Olaf Doschke]

This just makes me wonder if you now find another newer or older .NET framework after the Chilkat installation. I don't know whether Chilkats software is C++ or .NET, different components of them might be different things.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[GriffMG]

It needs the C runtimes, the install is no more than the registration of a DLL, which is generally easy from VFP.

No .NET required, customer is happy.

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​

 

[Olaf Doschke]

Okay, sounds good.

Nevertheless, I don't really understand the rejection of a .NET framework install. They could then also deny using Microsoft at all. It would have been perfect real world satire, if that would have depended on .NET

As far as I know, any internet access on windows goes through Wininet or WinHTTP API functions, for managed code. And the .NET equivalents are in System.Net and System.Web namespaces, so you still have two major pillars of Windows OS base functionalities in classic C++ API DLLs and Assemblies.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[strongm]

>No .NET frameworks allowed. Period, no negotiation.

Want to bet?

Neither add/remove programs nor programs & features control panels show .NET frameworks that ship as part of the OS (since you can't mess with them). Nor do tools such as the .NET Framework Repair Tool nor the .NET Framework Cleanup Tool. SO on my W10 box frameworks 2,3, and 3.5 are never listed, although versions of each of them are installed.

A quick glance at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\NET Framework Setup\NDP might be enlightening.

 

[Olaf Doschke]

strongm,

For any obscure reason they want to avoid .NET, Griff you said they have none installed, what Server are we talking of here?

I'm still amused by that naivety and stance, but whatever makes the customer happy. At least it's not the refusal of updates, firewall, antivirus, but I wouldn't be surprised, if they have a misinformed stance on such topics, too. And having no .NET framework - either you looked at the wrong places or they use a very questionable old Windows Server version.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[GriffMG]

Let me put it another way then, no .NET was required, I didn't install anything, he can't see anything and on top of all that good news he has system working again.

I have had some customers who disable the right hand mouse button 'for security reasons' and some who don't like shares as they are the work of the devil, you just have to live with your customers foibles.

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​

 

[jongoad]

Yes, I've been using it for a few years now, and I've been very pleased with it. It's been considerably more reliable and more configurable than wwIPSTUFF and/or CDO2000 for sending e-mail from a VFP application.

 

[GriffMG]

Thank you

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm trying to cut down on the use of shrieks (exclamation marks), I'm told they are !good for you. ​