blocks Outlook 2000 in/out

Running WinXP SP2 Home edition, cable, Admin, CA Antivirus & AVG Antivirus (they play well together), various anti-spyware apps, no security-related apps removed/disabled before/after installing CFP, no custom rules.

I had been running before uninstalling it to install I immediately was unable to send or receive email via Outlook 2000, and nothing I did – including disabling both parts of CFP – got Outlook 2000 working. I finally uninstalled and reinstalled, whereupon Outlook 2000 was again able to send and receive.

I know my way around software, but I’m no expert. I don’t think that I should have to dig into the guts of the program to get it working properly. It isn’t necessary with, and it shouldn’t be necessary with, which should be labeled BETA, because it’s not ready for prime time. I read several other strings about email problems, and none of the suggestions seem to have solved anyone’s problems. They certainly didn’t solve mine.

My computer is a production machine, so I won’t be reinstalling If a future version works with Outlook 2000 without requiring extensive adjustments after installation, I might consider installing it. Until then, I’ll keep running Or I may switch to another firewall. Right now I’m feeling very disillusioned about CFP.

Hello erwaxman

Welcome to the Comodo Forums

I don’t use Outlook myself so am not quite sure what the problem would be here, but would guess that it may have something to do with the ports used for Outlook. Can you check to see what ports are used and make sure they are included in the firewall portset. In Firewall → advanced → network security policy → application rules be sure that you have a rule there either to be an e-mail client or to allow IP out from IP any to IP any. Other than that Maybe someone who has Outlook will help you with the rules that they have.


Had a similar problem, had to:

Firewall>My Port Sets> within POP3/SMTP Ports make sure I had 25, 80, 110 ( for GoDaddy), 465 & 995 (for Gmail).
Firewall>Advanced>Predefined Firewall Policies>Email Client>Add>Allow TCP or UDP Out>Any>Any>Any>POP3/SMTP Ports (tried everything shy of this but this seemed to do it)

Then I double-checked to make sure Outlook was defined as an Email Client and it finally worked.

Sorry if this does nothing for you, just thought I’d share.

Comofo and JJasper:

Thank you for responding to my post and suggesting solutions to my problem. The fact that neither one of you is entirely sure what the problem is or what the solution is only confirms the correctness of my decision not to reinstall

Email is one of the most basic of computer functions. A firewall should be designed to work with all email apps, especially one as widely used as Outlook, without any adjustments, without any rules, without any policies – is designed that way, isn’t. That deficiency in needs to be addressed. It shouldn’t take a Rube Goldberg construction like Comofo’s “Firewall>Advanced>Predefined Firewall Policies>Email Client>Add>Allow IP in>Any>Any>Any>POP3/SMTP Ports” to enable Outlook to send and receive email.

The Outlook ports are 25 (outgoing, SMTP) and 110 (incoming, POP3), which I believe are the standard email ports.

Going back to has meant constant pop-ups as the app learns my system all over again, but I prefer that to not having Outlook functioning.

Hi erwaxman,

I can well understand your frustration and your decision to return to CFP 2.4, given the problems you’ve been having. If it’s any help, I can confirm from my own experience that CFP 3.0 does support Outlook 2000, out of the box with no tweaking required. You shouldn’t have to change any settings in CFP 3.0 to get email clients that use the standard POP3/SMTP ports to work.

I’m using Outlook 2000 SP3, CFP, Windows XP SP2 Media Center, and haven’t experienced a problem. My guess is that if it’s not working, no amount of tweaking is going to make a difference. The fact that you still didn’t have connectivity after disabling both the Firewall and D+ suggests a possible conflict between CFP 3.0 and one of your other programs.

For example, I know from my own experience that CFP 3.0 has an issue with Webroot Spy Sweeper. If the Spy Sweeper email attachment shield is enabled, email connectivity is lost; if the shield is disabled, email connectivity is restored. I wonder if CFP 3.0 is conflicting with one of your other security applications that may also be trying to filter email.

Best wishes



Your comment about no amount of tweaking making a difference sounds right to me. So does your comment about Spy Sweeper. I’m running Spy Sweeper with the email attachment shield enabled. Now you’ve got me wondering whether I should give another look. Would I lose email attachment protection with the Spy Sweeper email attachment shield disabled and running?

I’m also running AVG Anti-Virus Pro, CA Anti-Virus, BOClean and SpywareBlaster. I periodically run the free versions of Ad-Aware 2007, AVG Anti-Rootkit, AVG Anti-Spyware, Panda Anti-Rootkit and Rootkit Revealer. Do you know of any conflicts with any of them?


For the record; after reading peterg’s post there I reset the email client rules to default and Outlook '03 was able to rend/receive without incident (subsequent to .304 update).

“Rube Goldberg”…you’re funny.

You just confused the hell out of me.

Are you saying that your Rube Goldberg rule was necessary before the .304 update but isn’t necessary now? Or that you have Spy Sweeper, disabled the email attachment shield and no longer need the rule? Both? Something else?

Prior to the most recent update (I only mentioned this because it is the only variable to change my configuration since I myself went through the same personal email nightmare roughly two weeks ago) I was NOT able to send/receive in Outlook without punching holes here and there. Simply adding it as an Email Client did not work at that time.

It occurred to me that the recent update gave me somewhat of a clean slate (by somewhat I mean it completely wiped all of my settings) after which I had impetuously created the very same rules (ala Rube Goldman) that I originally settled on to fix the Outlook problem. When I read peterg’s post I realized it was conceivable that whatever was causing my problems before could potentially have been fixed.

Whether or not the update is solely responsible for my relief I cannot say with certainty - but it appears to be so. I’m merely a forum member sharing my experience with this particular issue.

I do not use Spy Sweeper.

Thanks for the clarification, Comofo. That’s what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure.

You’ve helped to confirm that a conflict between CFP and Spy Sweeper is the likely culprit where my problem is concerned.

This whole business is giving me a roaring headache.


If you disable the Spy Sweeper E-mail Attachment shield, you should not lose email attachment protection. The File System shield should scan the attachment when the attachment is initially written to the file system and again when it is read on access. The E-mail Attachment shield is nice-to-have additional belt-and-braces protection, but IMHO not strictly necessary.

As for conflicts with other programs, I am using SpywareBlaster, AVG Anti-Spyware, and Panda Anti-Rootkit without any issues. I don’t use the other programs that you mention, so I can’t say for sure, but the only conflict I’m aware of is the one with Spy Sweeper’s E-mail attachment shield, so the likelihood is that everything will be OK.


Thanks, Peter, I appreciate the information.

If it makes you feel any better; I’ve disabled my mail guard in Avira AntiVir Premium (one of the only benefits of the paid version) in an effort to ensure issue-free emailing.
I took the liberty of perusing some threads and noticed that some folks were at least suspecting that S.S. Email Attachment Shield was possibly conflicting with:
Zone Alarm
McAfee VirusScan Enterprise
…and one or two others. I also saw some posts like this:


July 4, 2007
“I had been happy with Spy Sweeper for some time until v. 5.5 came out. I downloaded the free upgrade and immediately found that incoming email in Outlook Express was blocked. Not some of it - all of it. I removed Spy Sweeper and went back to SpyBot Search and Destroy.”

I hope that you are closer to a solution, as I truly empathize with your situation.

I’m getting there, ■■■■, slowly but surely.

Spy Sweeper is notorious for conflicting with other apps. I’m probably not going to renew my Spy Sweeper license when it expires later this year. Spybot Search & Destroy isn’t a suitable alternative – it’s better than nothing, but not by much. Spyware Doctor is highly rated; I might try it. Or I might go with NOD32 Anti-Virus and forgo separate anti-spyware programs altogether.

As for a firewall, I’m probably going to stick with CFP 2.4 for the time being. If I find the time, I might try CFP 3.0 again, with the Spy Sweeper email attachment shield disabled. Or I might switch to Online Armor.

I want an anti-malware setup that works right out of the box, without any tweaking, and that doesn’t bother me every ten seconds with a pop-up that requires a decision that I may not know enough to make intelligently. That isn’t too much to ask, is it?

IMHO both CFP 2.4 and CFP 3.0 are excellent choices. From what you are saying, it does sound as though you might be better off sticking with CFP 2.4, at least until some of the teething problems in CFP 3.0 have been ironed out before upgrading.

In terms of effectiveness, Online Armor is generally reckoned to be on a par with CFP; but when I tried OA, I had trouble installing it … OA does have issues with some other security applications. When I did finally manage to install it, the boot time on my PC lengthened by several seconds. Everybody’s experience is different of course, but just things to be aware of if you are thinking of trying OA.

NOD32 is a very good choice. Not only is it one of the best antivirus programs with excellent heuristics, but it is very light on resources and has very few conflicts with other software on most machines. I use NOD32 and it runs just fine alongside both CFP 2.4 and CFP 3.0. As NOD32 is both an antivirus and an antispyware application, rather than running a separate signature-based antispyware program alongside NOD32 and CFP 2.4, it might be better to consider adding a quiet HIPS program such as ThreatFire or Prevx, if you feel the need for additional real-time protection.

As for Spyware Doctor, both Spy Sweeper and Spyware Doctor are notorious resource hogs, with known conflicts with other security applications and performance issues, if run with their real-time protection enabled. Both are fine though if run only as on-demand scanners. Rather than paying for Spyware Doctor, why not consider the Starter Edition, which is free. Its detection and cleaning capabilities are the same as the paid version. What you lose in the free version are most of the real-time guards, which doesn’t matter if you are only going to use it as a scanner. Although officially only available as part of the Google Pack, you can get the Starter Edition as a standalone download if you hunt around.

Hope this is of use.


It is, Peter, it is. Thank you.

I’ve used Outlook 2003 (and Exchange) with every Beta of v3, and 2007 with every version since the final release. I have not yet experienced any issues with either one connecting.

Email scanning is a different matter, but Outlook itself should not be a problem.


I am a newbie, but I am just putting my 2 cents in because I have done hours of lurking on forums reading about things like this before I jumped to install CFP xx.304. Having more than one antivirus has been discouraged in every post I’ve read. Having different spyware and/or firewalls running active protection simultaneously also asking for it. With this in mind, I chose Kaspersky AV and Comodo because of their reputations. But, In my instance, CFP had to be installed after KAV otherwise they don’t play well. Additionally, Spysweeper is used on demand only, no real time protection activated as it will conflict with KAV AND CFP. On my system, I also have Lavasoft Adaware also on demand so everything thus far plays well together. However, I do not have two antivirus’s running together as with your setup. Perhaps that, along with your other defensive programs as suggeseted earlier, finally throws your system over the edge with CFP xx.304. I would have to agree with the post about NOD32…very well reviwed, but wasn’t on sale like KAV when I got it.

LM - I think that we’ve pretty much pinpointed the Spy Sweeper email attachment shield as the source of the problem. Outlook is the victim.

afpj - AVG Anti-Virus and CA Anti-Virus never conflict with each other or, as far as I can tell, with any other app. It has occurred to me on occasion that they may not conflict with anything because they aren’t very active, but they do identify infected files of one sort or another every now and then, so they certainly aren’t just icons decorating my system tray. Spy Sweeper can be very active at times and is known for conflicting with other apps. I’m not entirely sure what BOClean is doing, aside from its system tray icon flashing every so often; I’ve never received any kind of notification from it. As for SpywareBlaster, it doesn’t actually “run” at all – it’s just a list of restricted sites. The other anti-malware apps that I mentioned – Ad-Aware 2007, AVG Anti-Rootkit, AVG Anti-Spyware, Panda Anti-Rootkit and Rootkit Revealer – I run only on an on-demand basis. I’ve never had any problems when running them. Everything seems to come back to the Spy Sweeper email attachment shield being the villain. When my Spy Sweeper and CA Anti-Virus licenses expire, I’ll most likely replace them (and AVG Anti-Virus and AVG Anti-Spyware) with NOD32. At that time I may toss the three anti-rootkit apps as well. By then I may have figured out what, if anything, BOClean adds to the equation. I’ll keep SpywareBlaster. But I’m talking about a year or so from now, and there’s no knowing what the anti-malware situation will be like at that time. As for a firewall, I don’t know yet whether I’ll stick with CFP 2.4, switch to CFP 3.0 (or a future version) or switch to Online Armor. Mostly I wish that I didn’t have to spend so much time on security matters.

That’s alot of stuff. I’m curious if you turned off Adaware’s running process/service. They added one with that version as opposed to Adaware personal SE which did not load a service at Windows startup. I set that to on- demand only to reduce potential conflicts…knock on wood…