PDA

View Full Version : Confirm leaving a page?



Gabber
12-26-2004, 05:49 AM
how can I make a confirmation button upon leaving a page? I just want to display some text in the alert message, then a ok and cancel buttons...

when ok is pressed, one leaves the page
when cancel is pressed, one stays in the page

how can I do this?

ps: there is a way that shows "aditional text" rather than only the alert message text I want to put. it says also something like this: "Something is trying to close this window. Are you sure you want to close the window?"
I don't want this to appear

mwinter
12-26-2004, 08:00 PM
how can I make a confirmation button upon leaving a page?You can't.


ps: there is a way that shows "aditional text" rather than only the alert message text I want to put. it says also something like this: "Something is trying to close this window. Are you sure you want to close the window?"
I don't want this to appearEven the approach you describe here is only supported in a limited number of user agents, and they must have scripting enabled for it to occur.

Why do you need this? Answering that might be more productive.

Mike

Gabber
12-26-2004, 09:54 PM
I know the one that says the "extra" text works I've done it myself, but confirm only does not work (cancel button still leaves the page). When a person leaves my site, it is informed of time they entered the site, time they left, and a bye message. I want people to be able to go on and exit or just return if they did nto intended to leave the site...

so, how can I solve this issue?

greetz


ps: I know javascript must be enabled, but for people without javascript won't need this too, since it does not show anything anyway

Gabber
01-02-2005, 03:29 AM
can you answer this?

mwinter
01-02-2005, 12:51 PM
can you answer this?I already told you: you can't[1]. Only the proprietary beforeunload event can be used to stop a page from closing and, by the very nature of proprietary features, it's support is limited.

If you're trying to perform some kind of logging, do it server-side and show the information on a log out page.

Mike


[1] I asked for more information to see if there was an alternative approach. My first answer was always final with regard to doing something on the unload event.

Gabber
01-05-2005, 04:11 AM
Well... I'll show you what I mean, and you will understand...
check this (it's another version of the homepage)

http://gabber.no.sapo.pt/indexframe666.htm

now try to quit. the page is heavuly loaded with scripts, but you will find out quickly what I have done...
now the problem is that I don't want that "extra" text above and below my owm message...

Do you see any solution?

mwinter
01-05-2005, 04:16 PM
http://gabber.no.sapo.pt/indexframe666.htmSo in other words, this is just another flaky feature which has no useful purpose other than to bulk up an already bloated page?

Seriously, you have more pressing concerns than whether a pointless script runs just the way you want it to. For a start, ditch Frontpage (one of the worst authoring tools in existence) and learn to write HTML properly. Validate (http://validator.w3.org/) your mark-up and view your page in more than just IE.

Mike

Gabber
01-07-2005, 01:33 AM
ermm.. I don't give a damn about Firefox if that is your concern. I don't like their policy any better than Microsoft (imagine seeing websites asking me to install Firefox and not allowing me to see the content in other browser than FF! This happens! If Microcrap did this, everyone would claim them Satan!). And seriously, any browser than needs 100 add-ons for simple things others do in automatic mode is obsolete. Damn, the latest version does not even "color" the scroll bars.

I use frontpage for editing tables/iframes, somewhat is faster than Dreamweaver for simple things. I use notepad for the rest.

The feature is flaky, but fun. and this still does not solve the issue. as you see, it worked! but I just don't want the extra text.
Any clues?


ps: what is a bloated page? A bit heavy, but I have seen much heavier, specially with flash! all scripts work in IE, Netscape is ok, does now show weird stuff... And it has quite some scripts. even in FF, which shows all very weird, you can still navigate and see content.

Minos
01-07-2005, 04:32 AM
...the author of the site is responsible for forcing a user to download a specific browser, not the browser itself. Its kind of pointless to simply ignore it, especially since there is a vast majority using it.

Javascript should definately be used sparingly, even in IE, some users disable it, and SP2 has a conniption with Javascript on its default setting.

That being said, some people need to realize that not everyone out there is a web designer, and as long as it isn't a professional/business site, it doesn't matter. It pains me to say it, as this seemed to be Microsoft's idea with Frontpage (such horrible code!)...but it's true. If your target audience is only a few, who cares if everyone under the sun can view it, and if it's perfectly validated?

mwinter
01-07-2005, 11:22 AM
I don't give a damn about Firefox if that is your concern.I was thinking about any browser other than IE.


I don't like their policy any better than MicrosoftWhat policy is that?


(imagine seeing websites asking me to install Firefox and not allowing me to see the content in other browser than FF! This happens! If Microcrap did this, everyone would claim them Satan!)There are sites that require IE and IE only.


And seriously, any browser than needs 100 add-ons for simple thingsI only have one add-on for Firefox (a user agent spoofer).


Damn, the latest version does not even "color" the scroll bars.If you mean allowing a style sheet to alter the colours, there's no reason to implement it. I find it annoying so it's disabled in Opera. Besides, why do you feel it's your right to mess with the browser chrome?


I use frontpageOther than Microsoft Office components, Frontpage is the worst HTML editor in existence.


The feature is flaky, but fun.Umm, how is showing an alert after I've left your site fun? Most would argue that it's annoying. I equate it to pop-unders.


Any clues?I've said it twice already: you can't. Not in IE. Not in any browser. That much is stated clearly in Microsoft's documentation.

Mike

Gabber
01-07-2005, 03:42 PM
"I was thinking about any browser other than IE."

People with netscape can browser the site, and most scripts work in Netscape. The site works fine there. Netscape + IE... that already over 90% of people. even with firefox, you can navigate on all of the site... won't be so pretty, but you can use it for sure. I stat when you enter the site it is optimized for IE.
by the way, most sites today can't be seen in 640x480 and evem 800x600. that is also discrimination.



"There are sites that require IE and IE only."

Never seen a site claiming with a nice popup or div that my browser sucks and that I should embrace Interner Explorer and install it... and not allowing me to see the site, not because it won't be compatible, but simply by using another browser. when one site is only compatible with IE, that is it. it is different if I make a script to ban people with IE. now THIS is their policy and the policy of many Firefox fans. and that is as bad as Microsoft's policy. Just because it is open source, does not mean it is good. The world is not black and white. So I don't like either's policy and right now I just prefer the one with more options for all stuff. When Firefox has all IE suports, I'll change just because it is safer. simple as that.


"If you mean allowing a style sheet to alter the colours, there's no reason to implement it. I find it annoying so it's disabled in Opera. Besides, why do you feel it's your right to mess with the browser chrome?"

If they come into my site, tit's their free will. What right do you have of offering a person a personalized submit button? What right have you got to show a picture? it's basically the same. ridiculous to go by that way to defend a Firefox defect.


"Other than Microsoft Office components, Frontpage is the worst HTML editor in existence."

not when i comes to doing something simple fast. And I've seen many people using it for this matter. I don't go in trends. Frontpage has some utility if you want fast stuff or a simple alteration that requires visualization of things. And for some options only I.E. has. And has you may have read I also use Notepad (most often) and Dreamweaver. Shall I delete them too?


"Umm, how is showing an alert after I've left your site fun? Most would argue that it's annoying. I equate it to pop-unders"

annoying to you, but I had people commenting they find it nice and funny... I am not giving publicity, just a farewell and some curiosity elements. If that is bad, well, you got the whole internet thing wrong my friend. I have seen sites who show my ip, but just because designer nerds kiss those webmaster's bottoms, they accept it.


"I've said it twice already: you can't. Not in IE. Not in any browser. That much is stated clearly in Microsoft's documentation"

ok thanks... altough you said I could not do the cancel stuff and I did... just not the way I want it. thanks for you attention and time.
You were very helpfull. :)
greetz

mwinter
01-08-2005, 12:43 AM
People with netscape can browser the siteThey can, but it looks far from good. With obsolete browsers, I could understand it, but not those which are up-to-date.


optimized for IE.I hate that phrase, whatever browser it applies to.


by the way, most sites today can't be seen in 640x480 and evem 800x600.Not that statistics for other sites can be considered reliable, but many still show a substantial number of users which have a resolution of 800x600. Designing (exclusively) for anything larger is lunacy[1].


Never seen a site claiming with a nice popup or div that my browser sucks and that I should embrace Interner Explorer and install it...Perhaps you haven't seen as many badly designed sites as I have then.


now THIS is their [The Mozilla Organisation] policy and the policy of many Firefox fans.The Mozilla Organisation evangelises standards-compliant design, not a war against Microsoft. As I don't use IE (except for testing) I couldn't comment on your allegations towards "Firefox fans", but even if they are true, you cannot hold Mozilla responsible.

The only anti-IE policies I've seen is standards-compliant design itself. All versions of IE are severely out-dated and cannot handle modern CSS. However, this tactic is nothing more than a wakeup call for those people that still think IE is good.


What right do you have of offering a person a personalized submit button? What right have you got to show a picture? it's basically the same.Like hell it is. Don't be daft. The author's domain is the canvas, not the browser or it's chrome.


[unable to style scrollbars in Firefox]It is not a defect. If scrollbar styling was a standardised ability then omitting it might be classifiable as a defect. However, this isn't the case. IE has many more problems and blatent specification violations. Firefox's shortcomings are mild by comparison: get some perspective.


not when i comes to doing something simple fast.It creates junk code, most of which is only functional for IE. Whether it's improved since I last saw it I'm not sure. However, authors I trust continue to bash it when mentioned, so I doubt it.


you said I could not do the cancel stuff and I didMy answers were in the context of reliability, which I originally thought you required. If you don't state conditions, I have to make assumptions.

Mike


[1] In my view, designs should be fluid so resolution/viewport size is irrelevant anyway.

Minos
01-08-2005, 07:20 AM
Frontpage has improved quite dramtically with v2003, eliminating a lot of junk code and becoming more powerful, but nonetheless Dreamweaver/Notepad/GoLive is still the way to go.

Gabber
01-09-2005, 10:03 PM
Yes, my opinion too... Frontpage is only good for quick updates when you know it won't generate junk code...

Notepad is very usefull... Macromedia is good, but it's quite complex to use, and should be improved that way. :)


"However, authors I trust continue to bash it when mentioned, so I doubt it."
I trust my own opinions, after reading others. One can think by himself.

"The Mozilla Organisation evangelises standards-compliant design, not a war against Microsoft. "

this is equal to saying Microsoft evangelises windows-compliant design, not a war against Mozilla!
I bet a cent that the persons behind w3 hold a share at mozilla corp!
Still, I like the standards concept, but they can't be very strict, or else no innovation is allowed. and it's quite dangerous to have a single organization dictating what is or what is or what is not standart. undemocratic at least.



"Not that statistics for other sites can be considered reliable, but many still show a substantial number of users which have a resolution of 800x600. Designing (exclusively) for anything larger is lunacy[1]."

that is why my site is also desgined for 800x600, altough it gave me 3x the trouble.


"standards-compliant design itself"
Using your way of thinking, standards are defined by majority. Since IE is clearly the majority, IE holds the standards. and not a w3 organization!
I don't belive that sentence, but I think if IE brings something new others don't support, others must do everything do make that something new compatible with all.... not denying it (unless is very strict... and scrollbars are not the case!).
and you haven't said nothing about those SPECIFIC anti I.E., pro-Firefox scripts I have seen in many webpages. it's a form of illegal and non-ethic promotion (just like Microsoft uses). Hence, I won't go for either.

"The author's domain is the canvas, not the browser or it's chrome."
then my friend, you cannot rezise windows! Or move them, or hide them, or make pop ups!

Thanks for the discussion... :) Few people actually discuss thsi matters in the foruns I usually speak.
Don't take harm of the replies, nothing against you, just talking.

mwinter
01-09-2005, 11:36 PM
Yes, my opinion too... Frontpage is only good for quick updates when you know it won't generate junk code...I prefer a simple syntax-highlighting text editor. I currently use jEdit (http://www.jedit.org/) which is freeware written in Java. There are plenty of others though.


Notepad is very usefull...Notepad's just a little too simple for my tastes.


Macromedia [Dreamweaver?] is good,Never used it and I have little need to. Besides, I really don't think it's worth over 300.


I trust my own opinions, after reading others. One can think by himself.I hope you aren't implying I can't form my own opinions. I decided that Frontpage was a terrible product years ago. I haven't used it since (nor do I want to) so I have little recourse than to trust others that have used it more recently.


"The Mozilla Organisation evangelises standards-compliant design, not a war against Microsoft. "

this is equal to saying Microsoft evangelises windows-compliant design, not a war against Mozilla!No it isn't. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a not-for-profit group consisting of numerous corporations and research groups which, for your information, includes Microsoft. Rather than a single vendor taking unilateral action, the Consortium reviews and consults new standards. The goal is to create an accessible Web, not a browser-specific Web: exactly the opposite of what you just proposed. Perhaps you should read about the W3C (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/) before you slag it off[1].


I bet a cent that the persons behind w3 hold a share at mozilla corp!Nonsense.


and it's quite dangerous to have a single organization dictating what is or what is or what is not standart. undemocratic at least.Proof, it seems, that you don't know what you're talking about. Not only are there over 350 member organisations involved in the W3C, but the public are also allowed to contribute and review proceedings at virtually every level.


Using your way of thinking, standards are defined by majority.They are!


Since IE is clearly the majority, IE holds the standards.No they don't. They implement W3C standards just like everyone else. However, Microsoft don't bother to release versions with enough frequency to keep up with the rest of the competition. Unfortunately, they also seem to arbitrarily decide when to violate those same standards. Microsoft are quite the paradox.


I think if IE brings something new others don't support, others must do everything do make that something new compatible with allNot at all. The point of fair competition is that everyone brings something unique to the table, and it's that which differentiates them from everyone else. I have no problem with Microsoft developing proprietary features, but I do object when they appear to concentrate on their own features rather than adequate support for the basics (the current situation). I also object to authors using browser-specific features in such a way that they force a particular browser. Sure, add extra features for those that can use it (that's how Javascript should be used), but anyone should be capable of using a site regardless of their choice of browser.


"The author's domain is the canvas, not the browser or it's chrome."
then my friend, you cannot rezise windows! Or move them, or hide them, or make pop ups!Precisely. You shouldn't do any of those things.

Mike


[1] Don't get me wrong: I don't think the W3C is perfect. However, I do believe it's better for both authors and users than a vendor free-for-all.

Minos
01-10-2005, 04:26 AM
and you haven't said nothing about those SPECIFIC anti I.E., pro-Firefox scripts I have seen in many webpages.

But I have. You cannot pin the actions of a webmaster or designer onto Mozilla. Actually, I think Mike touched on that as well. If I wrote a script on my site telling you to bugger off or get IE, would you then say IE is horrible and out to get you? (It may be, but that isn't the point, it's rhetorical ;))

Mr. Winter is not trying to push Firefox on you, he is trying to get you to see that part of designing a web page is to ensure anyone who comes to your site can view it. If you know that your target audience will not be using Firefox, fine. But, if you design it incompatible NOW, and your site grows and you decide you DO want to go cross-browser, I guarantee it will be a b!tch to overhaul.

Gabber
01-10-2005, 04:30 PM
"Notepad's just a little too simple for my tastes." - not simple... brute force! lol Reminds me of old DOS edit stuff...

"I really don't think it's worth over 300" - what is 300..euh... ok! (glup!)

"I hope you aren't implying I can't form my own opinions. " - I was saying the opposite. that I can also make my own opinions. lol

"Unfortunately, they also seem to arbitrarily decide when to violate those same standards. Microsoft are quite the paradox."
and still the majority! hence, since the standard is defined by majority... it's a real paradox. for logic, Microsoft would be the one defining this kind of stuff... I am glad reality is more complex.

"I also object to authors using browser-specific features in such a way that they force a particular browser. Sure, add extra features for those that can use it (that's how Javascript should be used), but anyone should be capable of using a site regardless of their choice of browser"
nowadays, this is impossible. only for very old sites. still, I keep changing little things in order to let people with any browser and javascript disabled to visit my site. All browsers can, some better than others. Javascript people can, but it's not very funny...viewable but not funny. javascript is an option today. I can decide to view a website in a text browser. should they be adapted to that too? most by far aren't.
I think javascript should be a basic today...
Altough some browsers (IE cough cough) should offer more security...
I can actually move my win.ini file and write folders in my desktop with some javascripts...!


"Precisely. You shouldn't do any of those things."
lol then most websites would suck. I just don't liek one thing...making a new site open in a new window without anything to control, or open in fullscreen (this is awfull). the rest is fine. and even for some sites, I understand new windows without controls when they have controls in other way (which is funny and original).


"But, if you design it incompatible NOW, and your site grows and you decide you DO want to go cross-browser, I guarantee it will be a b!tch to overhaul."
you bet... by the way, I changed the party of my site that actually had the major problem with firefox... now works 100% (the main page).... now I added a few other stuff... but I can't get the sound control in firebox... I use embed since bgsound is IE stuff... still, why do other browsers work and not firefox?

and by the way, other question: how do I push the volume to 100% in I.E. with embed tag? (somewhat it seems it is not supported, altough in netscape it works). the sound is half of the one used with bgsound.

greetz


ps: I also agree w3 is necessary, I just don't like to see it as a dogma...
by the way, I think I had left this link before, but here it is... imagine if all followed w3! This site would not exist, and is probably one of the most brilliant sites I have ever seen...
pure art. www.dhteumeuleu.com

mwinter
01-10-2005, 09:12 PM
Reminds me of old DOS edit stuff...The MSDOS Editor was a godsend for me. I needed a plain editor that could handle large files. Notepad (at least on Win'98) couldn't handle the latter and Word was too much of a pain in the ass. Unfortunately, console applications are extremely sluggish on NT-based systems so I wouldn't use it anymore.


"Unfortunately, they also seem to arbitrarily decide when to violate those same standards. Microsoft are quite the paradox."
and still the majority!IE is only a major player because of the success of the Windows operating system and the inherent cluelessness of computer users in general. There are a great many people that don't even know that there are alternatives. Some of those that do aren't all that computer literate and so they wouldn't feel comfortable installing software. There's also the problem of sites that render badly, if at all, in browsers other than IE (because those sites use - unknowingly - bugs in IE). It's not because IE is superior.


"I also object to authors using browser-specific features in such a way that they force a particular browser. Sure, add extra features for those that can use it (that's how Javascript should be used), but anyone should be capable of using a site regardless of their choice of browser"
nowadays, this is impossible.Are you trying to say that it's impossible to design for all browsers, or that the Web has degenerated to such a point that it's impossible to use any browser you'd want. I certainly don't agree with the former.


I can decide to view a website in a text browser. should they be adapted to that too?Designing for a text browser is fairly simple as long as you use HTML the way it's meant to be. With the accessibility laws in place in various countries, checking a site using a text browser like Lynx, or Opera in its text browser emulation mode, is a simple way to see if you're close to meeting the required guidelines.


most by far aren't.True, but it doesn't mean everyone should follow suit. Creating a site that's usable for all makes sense, particularly in the business world. Would a company be happy knowing that they automatically lose 10% (or more) of they potential e-commerce revenue because of design decisions made for the website? No, but I bet most companies that are in that situation don't even know it. You can bet that the "developer" in charge didn't tell management, "I want to make this pretty, but doing so will prevent 20% of your potential visitors from using this site".


I think javascript should be a basic today...But it isn't, and I doubt it will ever be. It's not just security or privacy concerns, but that of user control and feasibility on some platforms.


"Precisely. You shouldn't do any of those things."
lol then most websites would suck.Many do. :D

There is no reason for an author to play about with the positioning or the size of any browser window. Operating systems know the preferences of that user and the true extent of the available screen real estate. Let the window manager do its thing and manage windows.

As for pop-ups, these are mired in issues. Users distrust and dislike them (you can thank pop-up ads and author abuse for that). Pop-up blockers range from the "smart" to the indiscriminate which makes pop-ups unreliable in any form. Users can also be confused by them. All in all, they aren't suitable for use on the Web.

There are some legitimate uses for pop-ups, but with server-side support it should be possible to avoid them in every case.


www.dhteumeuleu.comHowever, that sort of site isn't meant for general purpose use. It's just for fun. If you really couldn't give a damn about any other browser than IE (or any other limited selection), and your users will be fine with that, then go ahead. But, as Minos pointed out, if you ever need to change this choice, you're probably going to have to rewrite the entire site from the ground up. In my opinion, that simply isn't worth it.


Mr. WinterStick to Mike. :p

Mike

Gabber
01-11-2005, 04:45 PM
"The MSDOS Editor was a godsend for me. I needed a plain editor that could handle large files. Notepad (at least on Win'98) couldn't handle the latter and Word was too much of a pain in the ass. Unfortunately, console applications are extremely sluggish on NT-based systems so I wouldn't use it anymore."

it was a good proggie!


"IE is only a major player because of the success of the Windows operating system and the inherent cluelessness of computer users in general. There are a great many people that don't even know that there are alternatives. Some of those that do aren't all that computer literate and so they wouldn't feel comfortable installing software. There's also the problem of sites that render badly, if at all, in browsers other than IE (because those sites use - unknowingly - bugs in IE). It's not because IE is superior."

Microsoft is the mark of the beast... lol :P
True, monopolies suck..


"No, but I bet most companies that are in that situation don't even know it. You can bet that the "developer" in charge didn't tell management, "I want to make this pretty, but doing so will prevent 20% of your potential visitors from using this site"."

In those cases yes. but simply, this internet business (taking appart a few companies) is broke. People just don't but stuff over the internet as much as they would like.
We're human, we need material hold on things...
but for a company site it's diferent. if this was a site for my company, I would make it 100% or close compatible...


"But it isn't, and I doubt it will ever be. It's not just security or privacy concerns, but that of user control and feasibility on some platforms."

well it's a standard now, amost all sites need i for some detail. why should it be any less than php? most browsers if not all have javascript enabled... and soon java will be a standard too... if flash new innovations don't take over... flash is becomin ga stadard and is much elss internet friendly and restritive that javascript.



!Users distrust and dislike them (you can thank pop-up ads and author abuse for that). Pop-up blockers range from the "smart" to the indiscriminate which makes pop-ups unreliable in any form. Users can also be confused by them. All in all, they aren't suitable for use on the Web.

There are some legitimate uses for pop-ups, but with server-side support it should be possible to avoid them in every case.!!"

People distrust them, when they have reasons for it (enlarge you penis, win 1000000 dolars). And when you need to show highrez photos, and polls... it is very usefull. Pop ups are a good invention...
And I don't have server side...altough I am not getting why I need popus for something server side

mwinter
01-11-2005, 08:33 PM
well [Javascript is] a standard now, amost all sites need i for some detail.Many sites use Javascript, but few that I've seen truly need it for what they're doing and that's part of the problem: overuse.


why should it be any less than php?PHP imposes no requirements on the client other than proper support for HTTP and HTML, which are entirely reasonable. It's not reasonable to impose support of a client-side language as they have always been optional.


most browsers if not all have javascript enabled...Certainly not all, and that doesn't preclude a user from disabling it.


and soon java will be a standard too...I'm not sure about that. Haven't Microsoft stopped supplying a default implementation of the Java virtual machine (or have things changed again)?


flash is becomin ga stadardFlash is used a lot, but it isn't a standard feature. More importantly, in the majority of cases where it is used, that use isn't critical.


And when you need to show highrez photos, and polls... it is very usefull.But not necessary.


I am not getting why I need popus for something server sideThe main legitimate use for pop-ups is to maintain the current position and show additional information. With a server-side script, the current page could be served again with that information included in the necessary location meaning that whilst a pop-up would be more convenient, it isn't necessary.

Mike

Minos
01-12-2005, 09:15 PM
I'm not sure about that. Haven't Microsoft stopped supplying a default implementation of the Java virtual machine (or have things changed again)?


I think it's still the case. It 'could' be a standard if Sun and Microsoft could settle their differences...but I don't see that happening.

FPit
01-12-2005, 10:56 PM
yes, it's gonna go on.

marinay
11-10-2008, 12:25 PM
From:Marina Koffi
Abidjan, Ivory Coast
West Africa.
marina_koffi1@yahoo.cn
APPEAL FOR URGENT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.
Dearest,

Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you. I got your name and contact from love-town.com. And after going through your profile, I prayed over it and selected your name among other names due to its esteeming nature and the recommendations given to me as a reputable and trust worthy person that I can do business with and by the recommendation , I must not hesitate to confide in you for this simple and sincere business .
I am Marina Koffi the only daughter of late Mr and Mrs Dilko Koffi.My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan , the economic capital of Ivory coast, my father was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their outings on a business trip. My mother died when I was a baby and since then my father took me so special. Before the death of my father on January 2006 in a private hospital here in Abidjan he secretly called me on his bed side and told me that he has the sum of Twelve million,five hundred thousand United State Dollars. USD (12.500,000) left in fixed / suspense account in one o the prime bank here in Abidjan ,that he used my name as his only daughter for the next of Kin in depositing of the fund. He also explained to me that it was because of this wealth that he was poisoned by his business associates.
That I should seek for a foreign partner in a country of my choice where i will transfer this money and use it for investment purpose such as real estate management or hotel management .
Sir, I am honourably seeking your assistance in the following ways:
(1) To provide a bank account into which this money would be transferred to .
(2) To serve as a guardian of this fund since I am only 22years.
(3) To make arrangement for me to come over to your country to further my education and to secure a resident permit in your country. Moreover, sir i am willing to offer you 10% of the total sum as compensation for your effort/ input after the successful transfer of this fund into your nominated account overseas. Furthermore, you indicate your options towards assisting me as I believe that this transaction would be concluded within fourteen (14) days you signify interest to assist me.
Anticipating to hear from you soon.
Thanks and God bless.
Best Regards,
Marina Koffi