Re: Outlook import

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Paul,

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:17:40 -0500 GMT (29/10/02, 04:17 +0700 GMT),
Paul Cartwright wrote:

> I can confirm that importing messages from OL IS a problem. The mail
> import wizard crashes after every folder is imported. SO, my sequence
> for importing mail from OL
> is:
> start wizard, select OL, UNSELECT all folders. scroll down and select
> ONE folder. hit OK, it crashed,

Make smaller folders and import them one-by-one.

IMHO the crash is caused by what I think is a not-so-perfect design of
the import wizard: it appears to make heavy use of RAM, and when
that's full, it'll crash on you. So, if you divide your OL folders
into smaller folders, it'll import those without problems, if done
one-by-one.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Was langsam faehrt, hat einen Hut.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Allie C Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In ,
Joseph N. [JN] wrote:'

JN> I wonder if the reason is commercial or technical. That is, has
JN> HTML become so popular because it offers the sellers of the
JN> world more billboard space, or is it that there is no
JN> alternative technique which displays reliably on different
JN> systems. If an alternative, albeit limited, formatting technique
JN> exists, I'll vote for it over HTML in my email.

My educated guess would be that it the reason was one of
convenience. If you have a widely used medium that can already
display enriched text, i.e., an HTML renderer, then why not focus on
editing to use that same format if you wish to create enriched
e-mail?

It may have been convenient but the convenience was clearly at a
cost. :(

- -- 
Allie C Martin \  TB! v1.62/Beta7 & WinXP Pro (SP1)
 List Moderator/   PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com
 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Win32) - GPGshell v2.60

iD8DBQE9vgylV8nrYCsHF+IRAp9XAKDfPN69ptra42B7NuDIQg+ATrkrNwCgg0O8
hfMDYNseP1NK5NdOqr+RqS8=
=oBJd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[6]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

Mark,

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
:

MW> You may want just bold and underlining. Someone else may want
MW> tables. Yet another may want to embed a spreadsheet (I have a
MW> client who steadfastly refuses to move from Outlook because it
MW> allows her to do just that).

This does all raise an interesting issue, though: Given the focus on
doing so much electronically, is it desirable and possible to develop
a set of standards that would allow different MUA's to utilize text
attributes and tables in a uniform manner while avoiding the
program-related dangers and resource-related deficits of HTML?

I can see a real use for information right up front in the body of
emails, which is laid out and organized in a way that would allow for
multiple uses. It seems to me that MUA's do a lot more complicated
things than what would be necessary to agree on protocols for, as I've
said, a limited set of common typographical conventions, plus the
spacing or tabbing requirements for a reliable table.

Certainly in a short time, perhaps years, it will seem unnecessary and
cumbersome to have to deal with attachments when the message itself
would do. We'd all be better off to use something other than HTML, at
least with its current deficiencies. Eudora and Notes both have
something along these lines, but Eudora's used to render unreliably (I
don't know about its status now), and a recent post suggested that
Notes uses too much space; perhaps a better mousetrap is waiting to be
invented. (Ah, and RITlabs could lead the way)

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

"Enriched" text

[Mark Wieder]

Joseph-

Monday, October 28, 2002, 2:46:13 PM, you wrote:

JN>On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
JN> :

MW>> Ah... so nothing else would be transmitted, but the email client
MW>> would simply interpret the received text if the proper hints were
MW>> present... that's something quite different from RTF. Maybe I
MW>> misunderstood the original intent here.

JN> Mark,

JN> I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated the
JN> subject.  I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a MS
JN> format.  What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally referred to
JN> as "enriched text," and you paraphrased it well in the excerpt above.

Thanks for clearing that up. I think we should change the title of
this thread in that case.

Unfortunately, the standard for sending "styled" or "enriched" text is
HTML. That's the way Outlook does it. It's one thing to wish TB had
the means of sending or receiving "enriched" text, but quite another
to have to consider sending or receiving messages from other email
clients.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Scott McNay]

Hi Paul!

In message mid:11959072812.20021028101746@;pcartwright.com 
on Monday, October 28, 2002, 9:17:46 AM, you wrote:

PC> who has the latest, best-easiest method to import Outlook folders???

I just email them to myself; that way I get all the headers, aside
from the Received: headers, which appear to get tossed.

I just create an email to myself, attach a few hundred emails from
whatever folder I'm in, and send.  I have receive disabled (broken) in
Outlook, so that it doesn't try to grab the attached emails or other
new emails.

-- 
--Scott.
mailto:Wizard@;local.nu

Using The Bat! 1.61 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 on an AMD Athlon
XP 1900 (1.6G real, 1.9G effective) with 512MB.




Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[5]: RTF

[Mark Wieder]

Joseph-

Monday, October 28, 2002, 3:14:37 PM, you wrote:

JN> (I know I really oughta let this slide) Do you really think, I
JN> mean, inside your head do you really really think, that providing for
JN> a limited set of universally used typographical conventions is the
JN> same thing as providing for the automatic launching of an external
JN> program??

Oh, I oughta let it slide too, but... no, I wasn't making the argument
that they're the same thing. All I was saying there is that following
the line of "what other bells and whistles can we throw in there"
thinking reaches its sorry end in executable emails. I see the train
at the end of tunnel and its name is Outlook. You may want just bold
and underlining. Someone else may want tables. Yet another may want to
embed a spreadsheet (I have a client who steadfastly refuses to move
from Outlook because it allows her to do just that).

OK - I'm ready to put this part of the discussion to rest. I'm not
opposed to adding features to TB if it'll bring in paying users, as
long as I don't have to use them.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[4]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Alec Burgess wrote in
:

> As does *Outlook Express* with /OE-QuoteFix/ ;-)
> I thought _theBat_ did this too (I'm not using it yet). From this
> conversation I gather it does *NOT* ?

Alec,

Correct, TB! cannot compose with those attributes.  The only way it
can show them currently is if they are in HTML and the message is
viewed through TB!'s HTML viewer.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Allie C Martin wrote in
:

JN>> I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated
JN>> the subject. I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a
JN>> MS format. What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally
JN>> referred to as "enriched text," and you paraphrased it well in
JN>> the excerpt above.

> I've always thought that this would have been a better way to go
> than HTML as a means for text enrichment. However, besides sending
> an attachment, HTML seems to have taken off as the only widely
> supported means to convey text formatting that goes beyond that of
> being simple plain text.

Allie,

I wonder if the reason is commercial or technical. That is, has HTML
become so popular because it offers the sellers of the world more
billboard space, or is it that there is no alternative technique which
displays reliably on different systems. If an alternative, albeit
limited, formatting technique exists, I'll vote for it over HTML in my
email.

(My template didn't pick up your initials for this reply, and your
headers don't indicate what you're using: TB! or not TB!, that is the
question.)

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Allie C Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In ,
Joseph N. [JN] wrote:'

JN> I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated
JN> the subject. I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a
JN> MS format. What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally
JN> referred to as "enriched text," and you paraphrased it well in
JN> the excerpt above.

I've always thought that this would have been a better way to go
than HTML as a means for text enrichment. However, besides sending
an attachment, HTML seems to have taken off as the only widely
supported means to convey text formatting that goes beyond that of
being simple plain text.

- -- 
Allie C Martin \  TB! v1.62/Beta7 & WinXP Pro (SP1)
 List Moderator/   PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com
 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Win32) - GPGshell v2.60

iD8DBQE9ve41V8nrYCsHF+IRAoz3AKDuK6eENzaytMhO94Ij5BO+texUtQCgmDio
eEZBECRSzRrN/2kdBuReYfs=
=MmOf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Paul Wilson]

Monday, 10/28/2002, 5:37 PM

Hi Mark,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, at 12:13:04 [GMT -0800] (which was 12:13 PM where I live) 
you wrote about: 'RTF'


MW> There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
MW> that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
MW> often simple text can get the point across much better than visual
MW> crutches.

MW> * Actually text supports bullet points quite well.
MW> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. If
MW>   necessary, I can even SHOUT.

My company uses Lotus Notes, (No Choice), I made a simple suggestion 3
months ago to set the default to text only.

Three weeks ago I received a bonus check for the suggestion, because
the company is saving so much on bandwidth and storage space now.

Rich text and HTML only serve to pretty up what is usually a mundane
or poorly written piece of text. INHO.
-- 
 Your communication is greatly appreciated,
   Paul
IBM Pollyanna Principle:  Machines should work.  People should think.

Powered by  v1.62/Beta7 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Re[2]: RTF

[Alec Burgess]

On Mon, 28-Oct-2002 17:54 [GMT-0500]
 myob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Richard,
> Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote:
>>> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them.
>>> If necessary, I can even SHOUT.
>
>> Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize*
>> would actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy
>> needed, just the capability to have bold, italic etc as my
>> newsreader Ameol already does.
>
> And that's one of the ways Ameol - which I use too - /does/ score
> over The Bat!  It's a small feature, but one I find very valuable.

As does *Outlook Express* with /OE-QuoteFix/ ;-)
I thought _theBat_ did this too (I'm not using it yet). From this
conversation I gather it does *NOT* ?



Regards ... Alec
--
-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[3]: RTF

[Vishal Nakra]

Monday, October 28, 2002, 12:55:14 PM, you wrote:

JN> There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't
JN> turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with
JN> HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree
JN> that HTML is not the way to go. As for the decisions on how much
JN> enrichment to provide, I guess it's a functionality analysis, how much
JN> would be beneficial for the users and the product. I think that
JN> tables, bold, underlining and italics would be a sensible package, in
JN> that it would not only be very functional but also be set of
JN> attributes that generally go together (except for tables). I think
JN> color and size variations, and other fancy fonts, are all things that
JN> could be reserved for attachments if necessary; but others might have
JN> their own views. The fact that a decision or cutoff would be
JN> necessary, though, seems like a poor reason not to undertake the
JN> effort.

Just in so that TB developers realize more people want this, I happen
to think the suggestion of limited support for text enhancements is a
good one, provided it is done in a way that allows it to show up alike
universally. Enriched text of the *bold* kind goes a long way towards
easing comprehension.

-Vishal



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Miguel A. Urech]

Hello Joseph,

> What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally referred to as
> "enriched text," and you paraphrased it well in the excerpt above.

Wether it is called RTF or enriched text I would not use it. But I'm
with you. Why not include the option? Specially when TB already
includes a Rich Text Viewer? I wonder how many of the ones who have
participated in this thread do use the RTV. And if they do, why? :-)

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.61



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[4]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
:

MW> Actually, I think it's exactly this thinking that led M$
MW> eventually to the executable attachments in Lookout. Folks
MW> brainstormed about more and more features they'd like to see in
MW> email messages and finally someone came up with the (in Harry
MW> Harrison's wonderful quote, waaay out of context here, "miracle of
MW> misguided engineering") that the email client should be able to
MW> launch applications automatically.

(I know I really oughta let this slide) Do you really think, I
mean, inside your head do you really really think, that providing for
a limited set of universally used typographical conventions is the
same thing as providing for the automatic launching of an external
program??

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[3]: RTF

[Mark Wieder]

Joseph-

Monday, October 28, 2002, 12:55:14 PM, you wrote:

JN> There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't
JN> turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with
JN> HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree
JN> that HTML is not the way to go. As for the decisions on how much
JN> enrichment to provide, I guess it's a functionality analysis, how much
JN> would be beneficial for the users and the product. I think that
JN> tables, bold, underlining and italics would be a sensible package, in
JN> that it would not only be very functional but also be set of
JN> attributes that generally go together (except for tables). I think
JN> color and size variations, and other fancy fonts, are all things that
JN> could be reserved for attachments if necessary; but others might have
JN> their own views. The fact that a decision or cutoff would be
JN> necessary, though, seems like a poor reason not to undertake the
JN> effort.

Actually, I think it's exactly this thinking that led M$ eventually to
the executable attachments in Lookout. Folks brainstormed about more
and more features they'd like to see in email messages and finally
someone came up with the (in Harry Harrison's wonderful quote, waaay
out of context here, "miracle of misguided engineering") that the
email client should be able to launch applications automatically.

I agree with you that the fact that a decision has to be made is a
poor reason not to undertake the effort. There are better reasons not
to undertake it, but that certainly contributes to the total effect.
I'm not willing to let YOU decide for ME what features to include or
exclude, any more than I would expect you to let me decide those
things for you. And Paula makes the point that if the effects are
user-configurable, as they would need to be, then the text won't
necessarily look the same on the receiving end as they would on the
sending end - thus all you'd be ensuring is that things look cute on
*your* screen.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[myob]

Hello Richard,

Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote:


MW>> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them.
MW>> If necessary, I can even SHOUT.

RW> Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize*
RW> would actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy
RW> needed, just the capability to have bold, italic etc as my
RW> newsreader Ameol already does.

And that's one of the ways Ameol - which I use too - /does/ score
over The Bat!  It's a small feature, but one I find very valuable.



Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000
5.0 Build 2195
Service Pack 2

-- 
Best regards,
 myobmailto:myob@;btinternet.com



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[3]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
:

MW> Ah... so nothing else would be transmitted, but the email client
MW> would simply interpret the received text if the proper hints were
MW> present... that's something quite different from RTF. Maybe I
MW> misunderstood the original intent here.

Mark,

I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated the
subject.  I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a MS
format.  What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally referred to
as "enriched text," and you paraphrased it well in the excerpt above.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[Mark Wieder]

Richard-

Monday, October 28, 2002, 2:03:29 PM, you wrote:

RW> Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* would
RW> actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy needed, just
RW> the capability to have bold, italic etc as my newsreader Ameol already
RW> does.

Ah... so nothing else would be transmitted, but the email client would
simply interpret the received text if the proper hints were present...
that's something quite different from RTF. Maybe I misunderstood the
original intent here. I'm not opposed to this idea, but I'd demand the
ability to turn it off on my end (and I would).

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Richard Wakeford]

Hello Mark,

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 at 12:13:04[GMT -0800](which was 20:13 where I
live) you wrote:

MW> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. If
MW>   necessary, I can even SHOUT.

Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* would
actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy needed, just
the capability to have bold, italic etc as my newsreader Ameol already
does.

-- 
Best regards,

Richard


Using The Bat! version 1.62/Beta6 with Windows 2000 (build 2195),
version 5.0 Service Pack 2 and using the best browser: Opera.



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Paul Cartwright]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 4:17 PM, you wrote:


PC> On Monday, October 28, 2002, 3:28 PM, you wrote:


PM>> I can confirm that importing messages from OE wasn't any problem at all,
PM>> although I don't remember the exact procedure... So if you can transfer
PM>> your Outlook messages to OE, you should be fine. (I have never used
PM>> Outlook, so I don't know how that works...)

PC> I can confirm that importing messages from OL IS a problem. The mail
PC> import wizard crashes after every folder is imported. SO, my sequence
PC> for importing mail from OL
PC> is:
well, I switched users, logged in as ME, tried the OE import and it was
there. I switched BACK to my wife, did the import from OE and it pulled
in all of her folders! I don't get it, but it does work. Now I can go
back and remove the OE profile, to save some SPACE.



-- 
 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[pmf]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Joseph N. wrote:

J> Well, although that's not really my experience, I don't think there's
J> any harm in seeing a communication that looks the way the sender
J> intended.

Aside from the philosophical and practical arguments about who should
have more over the way things are displayed on a person's computer,
you're assuming that RTF would guarantee that your message looks the
same to the receiver and the sender. That's simply not the case. RTF is
a kludgy Microsoft file format into which they never invested the
resources that would have been necessary to deliver on the promise. In
any event, my guess is that TB v.2 will support sending emails in HTML,
so you'll have the features you want. I only hope it also has the
ability not only to render a text only version, but also to strip the
HTML completely, which will, of course, defeat your desire for me to see
the email as you think I should. :)

-- 
Paula 
The Bat! 1.61 (reg)
Windows 98 4.10 Build 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Paul Cartwright]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 3:13 PM, you wrote:

MW> Joseph-

MW> Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:38:35 AM, you wrote:

JN>> What, either in terms of technical issues or design philosophy, would
JN>> prevent TB! from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?  In
JN>> other words, why not go a little bit toward more functionality and
JN>> more complex communications, while still staying well away from the
JN>> problems of HTML?

MW> There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
MW> that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
MW> often simple text can get the point across much better than visual
MW> crutches.

MW> * Actually text supports bullet points quite well.
MW> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. If
MW>   necessary, I can even SHOUT.

one of the things we used to do was create a sig with a script-style
font to make our name look like we wrote it in script. OK, so it isn't
really functional, but it was NICE looking!

 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Paul Cartwright]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 3:28 PM, you wrote:


PM> I can confirm that importing messages from OE wasn't any problem at all,
PM> although I don't remember the exact procedure... So if you can transfer
PM> your Outlook messages to OE, you should be fine. (I have never used
PM> Outlook, so I don't know how that works...)

I can confirm that importing messages from OL IS a problem. The mail
import wizard crashes after every folder is imported. SO, my sequence
for importing mail from OL
is:
start wizard, select OL, UNSELECT all folders. scroll down and select
ONE folder. hit OK, it crashed, yet creates a new folder ( shows zero
messages). Select folder and magically all the messages now appear as
unread. SELECT ALL- change to read.

Outlook Express didn't show a profile or anything to import, yet I
started up OE and imported all mail & folders from OL into it. Am I
missing something about the OE import function ? there is no place to
browse to select a profile or files, it has none to select from. What am
I doing wrong???



-- 
 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in
:

JA> I've seen some people specifying fonts that look 'cool' on their
JA> computer, but just didn't have the same desired affect on mine.

I agree. That's one reason to restrict any changes to a limited set of
font enrichments. Most (all?) systems will properly render attributes
like bold, underlines, and italics; maybe tables, too, though I'm not
sure about that.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

Mark,

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
:

MW> There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
MW> that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
MW> often simple text can get the point across much better than visual
MW> crutches.

I am unaware of writers from other centuries discoursing about the
relative merits of textual attributes to convey meaning in electronic
media. The twentieth century, however, has produced many reports which
indicate (as of the last time I waded in) that text formatting and
text attributes convey meaning, and that they convey more meaning in a
short span of time than does plain text without layout or attributes.

MW> * Actually text supports bullet points quite well.
MW> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. If
MW>   necessary, I can even SHOUT.

I don't disagree with that. My email, using TB!, frequently uses those
devices, as well as the indented paragraphs that TB! makes so easy.
The only problems with those are that they are not standard and that
they do not look professional. When I need more than TB! can provide,
I usually do something in my word processor and then attach a PDF, so
it looks the way I want, and is even on the electronic version of my
letterhead. But should that really be necessary? A good email program,
I would argue, is something that not only enables transmission over
the Internet but also enables the medium of the message, within
reasonable limits.  It the the scope of those reasonable limits that
I'm addressing.

MW> Most of the "styled text" messages I receive from people are simply
MW> the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred
MW> that the recipient see the message in 10-point Times.

Well, although that's not really my experience, I don't think there's
any harm in seeing a communication that looks the way the sender
intended. To the contrary, I would say that, at this stage in our
culture, if you are seeing a communication, in a visual media, that
does not look the way the sender intended, then you are not seeing the
sender's message.  McLuhan, et al.

MW> There's also the "slippery slope" issue - where would you draw the
MW> line? Why stop at bullets, italics, underlines, and bold? What about
MW> strikeouts? What about color? Pretty soon you will find yourself
MW> implementing HTML just to have tags to support all the different
MW> styles you want to include.

There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't
turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with
HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree
that HTML is not the way to go. As for the decisions on how much
enrichment to provide, I guess it's a functionality analysis, how much
would be beneficial for the users and the product. I think that
tables, bold, underlining and italics would be a sensible package, in
that it would not only be very functional but also be set of
attributes that generally go together (except for tables). I think
color and size variations, and other fancy fonts, are all things that
could be reserved for attachments if necessary; but others might have
their own views. The fact that a decision or cutoff would be
necessary, though, seems like a poor reason not to undertake the
effort.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Jonathan Angliss]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Thomas Fernandez wrote...

>> Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? I guess
>> there is nothing stopping RitLabs from creating such a feature,

> There are many wishes for this.

I semi agree... the only use I'd have for it is in code exchange as
sometimes it's easier to reference code in body text when it is of
different font type, like courier-new over times new roman for
example.

>> There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2

> I've heard the rumour too. I like plain text, though...

Me too. I personally find it more professional than using something
that you cannot guarantee on the end users system, and yes that does
apply for HTML, as well as RTF. I've seen some people specifying fonts
that look 'cool' on their computer, but just didn't have the same
desired affect on mine.

- --
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 6.5.8ckt

iQA/AwUBPb2e+yuD6BT4/R9zEQJXIgCffsuHzveUoihcbBBLNbKqO+SopDgAoLlE
SizViJgZnBCEOAHcT2LLX9EO
=vUQt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Peter Meyns]

Hi Paul,

on Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:59:19 -0500GMT (28.10.02, 18:59 +0100GMT here),
you wrote in mid:16168766531.20021028125919@;pcartwright.com :

TM>> What I have heard, is you can export from OL to OE

PC> not sure i want to mess with OE, but I may fool with it tomorrow... I'll
PC> check the foldernames, as mentioned in another post.

I can confirm that importing messages from OE wasn't any problem at all,
although I don't remember the exact procedure... So if you can transfer
your Outlook messages to OE, you should be fine. (I have never used
Outlook, so I don't know how that works...)

-- 
Cheers
Peter

Press any key... no, no, no, NOT THAT ONE!

Winamp currently playing: Celia Cruz - Bemba Colorá



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Jonathan,

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:43:54 -0600 GMT (29/10/02, 02:43 +0700 GMT),
Jonathan Angliss wrote:

>   Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? I guess there
>   is nothing stopping RitLabs from creating such a feature,

There are many wishes for this.

>   There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2

I've heard the rumour too. I like plain text, though...

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Always try to be modest. And be proud of it!

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Mark Wieder]

Joseph-

Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:38:35 AM, you wrote:

JN> What, either in terms of technical issues or design philosophy, would
JN> prevent TB! from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?  In
JN> other words, why not go a little bit toward more functionality and
JN> more complex communications, while still staying well away from the
JN> problems of HTML?

There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
often simple text can get the point across much better than visual
crutches.

* Actually text supports bullet points quite well.
* I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. If
  necessary, I can even SHOUT.

Most of the "styled text" messages I receive from people are simply
the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred
that the recipient see the message in 10-point Times. I don't see this
as adding anything to "functionality". I *do* see it adding to "more
complex communications", but I don't think that's the sense you had in
mind.

There's also the "slippery slope" issue - where would you draw the
line? Why stop at bullets, italics, underlines, and bold? What about
strikeouts? What about color? Pretty soon you will find yourself
implementing HTML just to have tags to support all the different
styles you want to include.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in
:

JA> Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode?

Yes.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: RTF

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Pete Milne wrote in
:

JN>> from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?

PM> Isn't that better served by Word or such?  Send it as an attached file.

Pete,

Sometimes an attached file is fine, and the current design of TB!
doesn't leave any choice other than an attached file or the layout
possibilities inherent in a fixed caret (sp?) editor. But bandwidth
would be conserved, speed would be increased, and recipient's
attachment rules would be irrelevant if the program itself allowed
enriched text.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Jonathan Angliss]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Joseph N. wrote...

> This is not intended to start a discussion of HTML. It is not about
> HTML, nor big bandwidth mailings, nor UCE. It is about simple
> formatting conventions which go beyond plain text but stop well short
> of what many of us dislike about HTML email.

> What, either in terms of technical issues or design philosophy, would
> prevent TB! from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?  In
> other words, why not go a little bit toward more functionality and
> more complex communications, while still staying well away from the
> problems of HTML?

  Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? I guess there
  is nothing stopping RitLabs from creating such a feature, it'd
  probably require a little work into RTF, but they aren't that
  difficult. Plus there are a number of mail readers that support it
  to. I'd be semi-interested to see if they'd implement it, as I might
  use it at work sometimes for code exchange and such, but not much
  for personal use.

  There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2
  though, so RTF might just be pointless as HTML is probably supported
  in a lot more clients than RTF.

- --
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 6.5.8ckt

iQA/AwUBPb2TfiuD6BT4/R9zEQJWvACePEaFEeqa60Qpfh1kORGp5ikxTuUAn2Rg
6FsOJbobEX3vpDvZs2tjNh0m
=kstc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RTF

[Pete Milne]

Replying to your message of Monday, October 28, 2002, 12:38:35 PM:

JN> from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?

Isn't that better served by Word or such?  Send it as an attached file.
That is what I do if I need to send something along them lines.

Just my thoughts.

-- 

 Pete

 www.milneweb.com
 
 Monday, October 28, 2002
 12:41:55 PM   

 This e-mail is brought to you by:
 The Bat: Version 1.61   
 Windows 2000 build 2195
 Service Pack 3



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RTF

[Joseph N.]

This is not intended to start a discussion of HTML. It is not about
HTML, nor big bandwidth mailings, nor UCE. It is about simple
formatting conventions which go beyond plain text but stop well short
of what many of us dislike about HTML email.

What, either in terms of technical issues or design philosophy, would
prevent TB! from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?  In
other words, why not go a little bit toward more functionality and
more complex communications, while still staying well away from the
problems of HTML?

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Paul Cartwright]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:21 AM, you wrote:


DH> Hello Paul,

DH> On Monday, October 28, 2002, 9:30:07 AM, you wrote: 
PC>> and a fourth- if you don't keep ANY anti-virus package up-to-date it is
PC>> almost worthless. I have used many PCs where the virus definitions are
PC>> over 1 year old. THEY think they are protected!

PC>> and lets not forget AVG is FREE " for personal use only", they
PC>> DO SELL a professional product.

DH> And in fact, if I recall, you don't get the heuristics capability
DH> unless you register it as such.

no, actually I already have that function turned on, in my free version.



-- 
 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Paul Cartwright]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:25 AM, you wrote:


PC>> who has the latest, best-easiest method to import Outlook
PC>> folders???

TM> Looking for the same thing myself. I know TB has an option
TM> (Tools\Import Messages\Mailbox Import Wizard...\Microsoft Outlook),
TM> but it crashed each time I tried.

likewise, I didn't get very far.

TM> What I have heard, is you can export from OL to OE, then from OE to
TM> something, which can then be imported to TB, but I am guessing there
TM> is no way to retain folder information with that method.  I am hoping
TM> TB's import tools get better in a future version.

not sure i want to mess with OE, but I may fool with it tomorrow... I'll
check the foldernames, as mentioned in another post.


-- 
 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: AB handle

[Joseph N.]

   On Monday, October 28, 2002, Roelof Otten wrote in
:

RO> Did you close TB too? Just an idea.

Roelof,

No, but in doing so now, I found the problem: operator error. Although
I had clicked "no," when TB! asked me whether I want to delete only
the items associated with the group in which the entry to be deleted
was found, it preserved the entry in the general AB, i.e., not
associated with any particular group.  Now that I've deleted that, the
handle recycles just fine.

IMO, that dialog box that comes up when trying to delete an entry in a
group that hides its members is fatally confusing. It should be
clarified soon.

Thanks for your assistance.

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: AB handle

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Joseph,

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:22:13 -0600GMT (28-10-02, 17:22 +0100GMT, where
I live), you wrote:

JN> I have closed the AB and reopened it, and still cannot add
JN> the handle.

Did you close TB too? Just an idea.


-- 
Groetjes, Roelof



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Multiple Bat users on one PC?-user logins?

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

Saturday, October 26, 2002, 2:28:28 AM, you wrote:

MDP> "Groups" are your friend here :-).

Groups! Of course! I have to start thinking more non-intuitively!

So here's what I've now done to deal with multi-user office
situations:

1. Set up the various accounts in TB in the normal way.

2. Define ALL the accounts as User accounts except for one designated
as the Administrator account (and only so that I can get in and
administer this stuff).

3. Define a group for each user with groupname = username.

4. Set a password for each group.

5. In each group include all the accounts that each user should see.
This allows them to have a passworded personal account folder and also
have common accounts that all the users have access to.

6. Allow local delivery. This provides inter-office mail without
having to deal with ISPs at all - TB is smart enough to know that it
simply needs to store the message in the proper inbox.

So, for accounts
ABCDEF

Group D will have accounts ABCD and password x
Group E will have accounts ABCE and password y
Group F will have accounts ABCF and password z

where accounts ABC are common to all users and DEF are private.
User D logs in to TB as D with password x, etc.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Chris Weaven]

Hi all,

On Monday, October 28, 2002 10:30 your local time, which was 07:30 my
local time, Paul Cartwright [PC] wrote;

DH>> Hello Simon, Allie, & others following this important thread.

DH>> It seems to me that Simon and Allie are basing their positions on
DH>> two different principles or givens, which are always correct by
DH>> definition. That's what produces a stalemate, in absolute terms. In
DH>> relative terms, each of us can decide for him or herself which
DH>> principles are more or less (or equally) important. Below, I present
DH>> a third principle that I believe is also relevant.

PC> and a fourth- if you don't keep ANY anti-virus package up-to-date it is
PC> almost worthless. I have used many PCs where the virus definitions are
PC> over 1 year old. THEY think they are protected!
PC> and lets not forget AVG is FREE " for personal use only", they
PC> DO SELL a professional product.

Just like to also add a comment on DrWeb.

I'm not sure about other AV's, but DrWeb actually scans compressed files
before execution. Therefore, if it has a virus, it'll recognise it
before you even attempt to save it and then unpack it.

A feature that I was personally after that made me plump for DrWeb.

That's it :-)

Chris.

-- 
E-Mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Created Using The Bat! V1.61 and Virus Checked by DrWeb.



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Mark Wieder]

Paul-

Monday, October 28, 2002, 7:17:46 AM, you wrote:

PC> hey gang,
PC> I finally got my wife to try TB !
PC> Now, all I need is her OL folders. I was able to import her addressbook.
PC> The birthday field was a NO-NO, after the import, when I tried to modify
PC> any entry I got an error message about date code invalid. Re-import with
PC> no BIRTHDAY field and it is fine.
PC> who has the latest, best-easiest method to import Outlook folders???

PC> thanks

There are a couple of things to watch for here. The first, as you've
discovered, is to ignore the birthday field.

The second, in my experience, is to simplify the folder names in
Outlook before going over to TB to do the import. The problem is that
Outlook doesn't have "real" folders since everything is in one file -
therefore Outlook can get away with naming conventions that the OS
can't deal with. Then when you try to import the PST file, TB tries to
create folders with these names and bombs out. I've had users create
Outlook folder names with punctuation, dates, etc, and had to rename
them first to keep TB from hanging during the import process.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Douglas Hinds]

Hello Paul,

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 9:30:07 AM, you wrote: 
PC> and a fourth- if you don't keep ANY anti-virus package up-to-date it is
PC> almost worthless. I have used many PCs where the virus definitions are
PC> over 1 year old. THEY think they are protected!

PC> and lets not forget AVG is FREE " for personal use only", they
PC> DO SELL a professional product.

And in fact, if I recall, you don't get the heuristics capability
unless you register it as such.

D

-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Tim Musson]

Hey Paul,

My MUA believes 'The Bat! (v1.62/Beta7) Personal' was used
to write mid:11959072812.20021028101746@;pcartwright.com
on Monday, October 28, 2002 at 10:17:46 AM.

PC> who has the latest, best-easiest method to import Outlook
PC> folders???

Looking for the same thing myself. I know TB has an option
(Tools\Import Messages\Mailbox Import Wizard...\Microsoft Outlook),
but it crashed each time I tried.

What I have heard, is you can export from OL to OE, then from OE to
something, which can then be imported to TB, but I am guessing there
is no way to retain folder information with that method.  I am hoping
TB's import tools get better in a future version.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flying with The Bat! eMail v1.61
Windows 2000 5.0.2195 (Service Pack 2)
use Mindless::Boiler::Plate;



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

AB handle

[Joseph N.]

Inadvertently, I had two AB entries for the same person.  One was
under group A, it had a middle initial, and no nickname/handle.  The
other was under group B [same AB], no middle initial, different email
choices, and a handle.  I deleted the entry under group B (selecting
"no" when the incredibly confusing dialog box came up about the extent
to which I wanted to delete an entry in a group which hides its
members).  I want to add the handle, which was used in the entry I
deleted, to the other, surviving, entry, but TB! won't let me do it.
It says it is a duplicate handle.

I have closed the AB and reopened it, and still cannot add the handle.
I have searched each group to see if there is another entry for that
person, but there is not (other than the one I want to modify).

What is causing this behavior, and how can I work around it?

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Outlook import

[Pete Milne]

Replying to your message of Monday, October 28, 2002, 8:17:46 AM:

PC> who has the latest, best-easiest method to import Outlook folders???


Good luck,

I have been trying to get a client over to TB! but it hasn't worked yet.
Too many crashes trying to get old messages imported he says.

Let us know if you get it to work.

-- 

 Pete

 www.milneweb.com
 
 Monday, October 28, 2002
 9:05:08 AM   

 This e-mail is brought to you by:
 The Bat: Version 1.61   
 Windows 2000 build 2195
 Service Pack 3



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Paul Cartwright]

On Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:09 AM, you wrote:


DH> Hello Simon, Allie, & others following this important thread.

DH> It seems to me that Simon and Allie are basing their positions on
DH> two different principles or givens, which are always correct by
DH> definition. That's what produces a stalemate, in absolute terms. In
DH> relative terms, each of us can decide for him or herself which
DH> principles are more or less (or equally) important. Below, I present
DH> a third principle that I believe is also relevant.

and a fourth- if you don't keep ANY anti-virus package up-to-date it is
almost worthless. I have used many PCs where the virus definitions are
over 1 year old. THEY think they are protected!
and lets not forget AVG is FREE " for personal use only", they
DO SELL a professional product.

-- 
 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Outlook import

[Paul Cartwright]

hey gang,
I finally got my wife to try TB !
Now, all I need is her OL folders. I was able to import her addressbook.
The birthday field was a NO-NO, after the import, when I tried to modify
any entry I got an error message about date code invalid. Re-import with
no BIRTHDAY field and it is fine.
who has the latest, best-easiest method to import Outlook folders???

thanks
-- 
 Paul
Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Douglas Hinds]

Hello Simon, Allie, & others following this important thread.

It seems to me that Simon and Allie are basing their positions on
two different principles or givens, which are always correct by
definition. That's what produces a stalemate, in absolute terms. In
relative terms, each of us can decide for him or herself which
principles are more or less (or equally) important. Below, I present
a third principle that I believe is also relevant.

As I understand it, Simon maintains that using a AV app that
provides a greater degree of security by selecting for potentially
dangerous file types and patterns is preferable. No one can argue
with that, since that IS his preference, one which I'm sure is
shared by many others as well (including myself, in many cases).

OTOH, Allie maintains that the true function of an AV app is to
provide protection against "real viruses (virii?) "in the wild", and
questions the validity of (and therefore, the degree of security
provided by) the tests that Simon believes demonstrate a capacity
for providing a greater degree of protection. Allie also mentions
ways to implement multiple AV apps that may provide an even greater
benefit.

Obviously, the AV app that provides the greatest protection against
"real virii in the wild" is what most of us want. Unfortunately,
conflicting data sources provide incomplete support for arriving at
a definitive conclusion in what is in any case, a continually
changing field.

All of us need virus protection and use applications intended to
provided it. Kapersky, DrWeb, NOD32, F-Prot and probably a few
others are indisputably among the best there are, while AVG may well
be the best free AV app available. All have their relative strengths
and weaknesses and are more or less effective, depending on the
situation. In the context of any TB! list, it can be assumed that
compatibility with TB! is also an important issue for any AV app.

Beyond that, I believe that maintaining a friendly atmosphere is
also important on all TB-lists, which are excellent forums we all
use to share knowledge and help each other in a constructive and
civil manner. While differences of opinion and preferences are
inevitable, maintaining the friendly nature of the interchange is
even more important than proclaiming which of the very competent AV
apps mentioned (Kapersky, DrWeb, NOD32, F-Prot, AVG etc,) is king of
the hill. (Which hill)?

Douglas

-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Simon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

'Lo Peter,

On  Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:35:54 +0100 your time, you authored this:

PP> Form  my  PoV  it  didn't  came  out  very clearly the 'uncatched' mails
PP> contained no viruses but 'only exploits', especially that The Bat! ain't
PP> vulnerable  to  them.  So I wanted to make that explicitly clear, before
PP> the 'scream and shout' about eventually missing capabilities starts :-)

That's a fair point as I didn't make it totally clear :)

- --
Slán,

 Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk

___
Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3

PGP Key: http://pgp.netbanger.com/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP!
Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966
Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2  474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966

iQA/AwUBPb1KFstub/5cfolmEQIRLACfSIr2V3U6pLHQiXSGjyjyd1e4eaoAn2Ae
Qs3N1HUjKYJJ6POn6nwowAaZ
=boM+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: antivirus plugin with fragmented email

[Simon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

'Lo Allie,

On  Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:38:28 -0500 your time, you authored this:

ACM> Since you posted your findings to this list, I thought your p 
ACM> I've always replied with TB! as my ...

Yeah, if you really say so Allie. :-/ What I've posted I stand by, and is in
context, given the nature of our previous communications. If you need to try
and  score  points by suggesting that I am solely responsible for taking the
discussion slightly off topic then enjoy yourself :)

ACM> I  don't  know  how many of the readers here realize that as TB! users,
ACM> the  results  of  those  tests  you  did  don't really matter, and that
ACM> checking  weeding  out  dangerous  file-types isn't really scanning for
ACM> viruses

Couldn't disagree with you more with *your opinion*, and I must say it seems
a  rather  narrow  and  irresponsible  position  for you to take as well. Of
course  such  tests  are  valid,  and  they would be relevant outside of the
context of TB! as well.

There  are  users  like me that would be more than happy to know that the AV
scanner  software  that  they  are  using  is  able  to  offer all levels of
protection,  regardless  of  whether TB! has similar safeguards implemented,
albeit in another way - that is in context to The Bat! by the way before you
suggest  that  it  isn't. I am much happier for my AV software to quarantine
possible exploits before they hit the TB! inbox and that will save having to
deal with any possible threats on a per email basis, and I suspect that many
other  users  would feel the same way. I don't think the future is having to
go through a paranoid per email sniff to check whether each email is safe or
not,  but  rather  transparency, so that receiving and opening email doesn't
become a chore of a 101 decisions.

Of  course  the advantages of using TB! are many, and having such protection
against  possible  exploits  built in is a great concept, but it in know way
replaces  the  use  of  a  good scanner, or a scanner that is able to detect
exploits  as  well  as  virii. I think what you say about scanners not being
scanners  if  they  'weed' out the occasional exploit is pseudo-literalistic
nonsense.

ACM> a TB! user, it's not really valid to choose to use Kapersky over AVG
ACM> because of how one performs with these tests as opposed to the other.

You  mistake  your  role  Allie.  This  type  of decision doesn't call for a
judgment  by you. In your opinion it may not be valid, because you do things
they  way you do them, so the logic in your context is out of place, but but
of  course if users prefer to have AV software handle exploits in the manner
that  Kapersky  does then it is completely valid to choose Kapersky over AVG
on  that  basis.  There  is  no  definitive  reasoning  here,  just personal
preference based on users preferred methods of email management.

S> Yeah,  but  we  are talking real world not ideals.

ACM> I  thought  we  were  on-topic, i.e., talking about A-V software in the
ACM> context of TB! and making decisions on which to use...

Well I was as much on topic as you were, but I'll refresh your memory if you
like:

ACM> Warnings  should be issued by your e-mail client. Of course, Outlook is
ACM> a  different  beast  and  it  would seem that it does need something to
ACM> prevent  these  filetypes  being  downloaded  to  it  at all. But which
ACM> application is lacking here? Is it the A-V Software or is it Outlook?

You seem to be talking about AV software in context to Outlook, not TB! See,
you aint no puritan either ;)

S> I  think the point is one of familiarity. ...Generally speaking, even the
S> most  basic  of  user  gets to grips with the dangers of running .com and
S> .exe files, so understand them as being executable files

ACM> Are you sure about this? :)

Well I was sure enough to write it Allie, so what do you think?

In  my  experience,  and  that  experience  extends to directly dealing with
people using PCs in their homes, from Win 3.11 onwards, users do understand,
and  quicker  when  taught of course. My experiences may not match yours, or
others, but in my context, yes, people understand. In the phone tech support
support  realm,  where  large  numbers  of  users  are  begging for help, my
experiences  may  seem  to conflict, but dealing with people on a one to one
basis  in  their  homes has furnished me with these experiences, and that is
what  I  based my comment on. Of course I have absolutely no need to justify
this, but as you asked...!

S> Again,  in  and ideal world that would be fine. But it aint, and
S> users don't and  won't  do  as they should always, and I don't
S> think they deserve to get infected  because  of  it.  Some people
S> might  call  those types lamers or whatever  -  a  term I  hate -
S> but it's not their fault that there is a war against Microsoft
S> going on and they happened to get caught up in the middle of it.

ACM>   But  what  has it got to d