Filter question: Deleting messages on IMAP server
Hi, Will the filter for deleting messages on the server work with IMAP servers if the messages are in Inbox and not any other folders? -- Best regards, chinchi Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! not deleting downloaded e-mail from server
Your problem is, TB! isn't getting chance to send the QUIT message to the server, as you get kicked off. This results in the clean up process not happening. Apart from using the Mail Dispatcher, and the Kill Dupes option, there isn't much you can do without sorting out your connection problem. OK, Thanks for the info. There isn't much I can do about the connection here accept swear, so I'll just start using the Mail Dispatcher more frequently. And the kill dupes option does work well. Thanks, Rick Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Filter actions
ON Tuesday, February 4, 2003, 2:35:37 PM, you wrote: S I have an AB template S for that list, which when I MANUALLY forward a message to it, S also applies the BCC for the friend. If I let the filter handle S it, the BCC address to the friend DOESN'T get included. Hi Spike, I assume you noticed that when you forward with a filter you will find at the specific action tab a button to select an email address with next to it a button for a template. If you build a template here it will be used for only this filter actions. This is much safer and avoids unseen BCC's through a addressbook template. I have a filter setup like that and it works flawless. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= It Is Time To Quit When... You have more than the regulation 14 clubs in your bag including 3 putters. Using The Bat! v1.62h on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! not deleting downloaded e-mail from server
Hello Richard, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:34:08 -0500 GMT (05/02/03, 13:34 +0700 GMT), Richard H. Stoddard wrote: When I am downloading mail from the server, if the process gets timed out or my connection drops before the session is complete the next time I attempt to download it always starts over with the first message again, even though it has allegedly deleted already downloaded messages from the server. (It is set to delete messages from the server, not retain them.) Today I had 85 messages in my main account, and it timed out several times, each time starting over at the beginning. [...] Is this a known bug? (Im using v1.62i.) Yes, it is. For some reason, TB does not correctly store the UIDL of the mails already downloaded, if you delete messages on server.\ (Jonathan is right the the DELE command did not get through and the mails are not deleted from the server if the QUIT command is not issued - but that doesn't explain why the message is re-downloaded into TB the second time you connect.) Is there anything I can do to rectify it? No, but there is a workaround I use: Set your TB to leave messages on server for 2 days. Suddenly TB remembers which mails have already been downloaded, and will not download them again, even if the connection has been cut prematurely. The disadvantage is that the mails actually stay on the server for two days (if that is a space conceern for you) and that after two days, the old mails will be deleted before the new mails will be downloaded (which can take some time if you have a lot of mails, like around 200 per day as in my case). I still prefer this solution over re-downloading 50 ML postings already downloaded, or re-downloading this 500KB picture my mother sent me... Not only is it a bit frustrating, even though its relatively easy to delete dupes, its also expensive, since my dial-up here in Uzbekistan charges both by the hour and the kb of e-mail downloaded from the account here. I see your point and recommend leaving messages on server for X days if you have the space. I use this all the time for the exact reasons you mention (line often cut prematurely, high per-minute access cost). -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Anti-SPAM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Robert, @5-Feb-2003, 08:45 +0200 (06:45 UK time) Robert Golovniov said: What are the anti-smap plugins available for The Bat!? Right now these are in development for the new Beta and are discussed on the TBDEV mailing list. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+QNlEOeQkq5KdzaARAjLCAKCA1xdCJUS5inIIQ8DHLQRsZqNHUACfQlgp ZV+zEK/sLOSh6cXcmQYrBZA= =y2Wi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
Hello chinchi, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:05:03 +0530 GMT (05/02/03, 14:35 +0700 GMT), chinchi wrote: How reliable is the 'kill dupes' command in TB? I have seen it delete messages that weren't really dupes at all, even tho TB says that it deletes messages with the same ID and it's not usual for two messages to have same message ID. But at times I do need to use this command. How much can we trust it? It is unusual for messages to have the same mid, but even if two messages with the same mid are encountered, they will only be declared dupes if they also carry the same time stamp. I have found the kill dupes function very reliable over the the years. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. I'm not just a gardener, I'm a Plant Manager. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
moving TheBat! from Win98SE to Win2K ... ??
Hi, i just installed Windows 2000 Pro on my system - as the 2nd OS, so i can now dual-boot ... Linux will follow later ;-) Of course i wanted to move TB to Win2K, so i exported the RIT registry settings in Win98, installed TB in Win2K, after changing the C: to D: in all paths imported the registry file and then moved the whole TB directory to Win2K. Worked like a charm !! but i'm not the only one using this system, so i added some users in Win2k. But now when starting TB as a new user, TB thinks it's a new install ... So what's the best way to install it for every user ; just import the registry file again for every user or is there a better way ?? Like only specifying that user's mail account and setting up TB as new ?? -- greetings, Rob using The Bat! 1.61 ... Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints... Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: moving TheBat! from Win98SE to Win2K ... ??
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rob [R] wrote:'
R So what's the best way to install it for every user ; just import the
R registry file again for every user
Yes.
R or is there a better way ??
As far as I know, this is the only way. There may be ways to do this
for all users via an Admin accounts registry since the HKCU hive for
all users is accessible via HKey_Users.
- --
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.63 Beta/5 ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
iD8DBQE+QO4LV8nrYCsHF+IRAvOZAKCyYPKb+n2gGnNDd8Qe5YB0cS/HaQCg12zs
ENhbxMwiSdC9vushSaNHCZs=
=Du1v
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Known filter renaming
Hi, When I created a new filer I somehow managed to rename Known filter. Since then I can't rename it back to the original (or whatever you like) name. Just clicking and typing a new name doesn't help. Does anybody know how to rename this filter back? Tanks in advance. -- Artiom Koren Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
Hi Thomas, Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 2:58:47 PM, you wrote: TF On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:05:03 +0530 GMT (05/02/03, 14:35 +0700 GMT), TF chinchi wrote: How reliable is the 'kill dupes' command in TB? I have seen it delete messages that weren't really dupes at all, even tho TB says that it deletes messages with the same ID and it's not usual for two messages to have same message ID. But at times I do need to use this command. How much can we trust it? TF It is unusual for messages to have the same mid, but even if two TF messages with the same mid are encountered, they will only be TF declared dupes if they also carry the same time stamp. TF I have found the kill dupes function very reliable over the the years. Many a time I had to us th kill dupes for hundreds of messages ( not mailing list ones) and I noticed that at times, it did mess up. It deleted messages with differeeent From and Subject headers .I wondered how can those have the same ID. So I'm just paranoid using it again now wanting to lose some important message due to this and think I should do it manually but it takes too long, checking every message. The need for kill dupes arises because I use IMAP and there's nothing in TB that would sync all the messages back and forth. May be I should use POP with it till ver 2.0 comes out... -- Best regards, chinchi Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
BCC
Hello Bats, While trying to test BCC in The Bat I send: A message to myself (f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED]) with a BCC to my kids (f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]), my wife ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and myself again, but now to an external address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Result: I receive one message, the one to myself, I suppose. When I look on the server, I find 2 more messages, both to f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED], to be found on 2 other accounts with my provider. I do NOT find (and thus cannot download) the ones addressed to my kids, nor the one addressed to my wife. The one addressed to f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is sent and can be retreived through webmail. When send such an Email (to myself, BCC to the same group) there is no problem. Any idea what's going on? -- Best Whishes, Mark using The Bat! 1.62 Christmas Edition Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Sorting Emails from Group-members
Hello Bats, Tried, but did not find a way to automaticaly drain Emails from people belonging to the same group, to 1 map. If this is possible, what if someone belongs to more than 1 group? -- Best Whishes, Mark using The Bat! 1.62 Christmas Edition Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Sorting Emails from Group-members
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mark, @5-Feb-2003, 12:59 +0100 (11:59 UK time) Mark Partous [MP] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MP Tried, but did not find a way to automaticaly drain Emails from MP people belonging to the same group, to 1 map. I use the Advanced settings to select on Sender belonging to a specific group. MP If this is possible, what if someone belongs to more than 1 MP group? Then use the Copy message to folder and Continue processing options, to get the messages replicated in all relevant folders. Use a final filter to move the leftover messages to trash after they've been copied to the required map (did you mean folder? I'm assuming you did). If this isn't what you want, then prioritise the order of the filters, which operate in a first come, first served manner. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+QP4BOeQkq5KdzaARAglOAKDJABvDyF+d71X7VEpllBhEOXSL6ACgzSvi sADstqpTzkgrHJWvB+oo8aE= =P9vQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: BCC
Dear Mark, --- Mark Partous / Mittwoch, 05.02.2003, 12:28:52 BCC While trying to test BCC in The Bat I send: [...] Result: I receive one message [...] When send such an Email (to myself, BCC to the same group) there is no problem. Any idea what's going on? have you tried with an other Version such as v1.63b5 or so? -- best regards Eddie Powered by The Bat! v1.63 Beta/3 under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 PGP (public) is available: www.EddieCastelli.com/pgpkey/ Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
ON Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 12:05:43 PM, you wrote: c The need for kill dupes arises because I use IMAP and there's c nothing in TB that would sync all the messages back and forth. May c be I should use POP with it till ver 2.0 comes out... I have been using it as well and found that I regularly have dupes, even in this list. The thing is I never noticed this in my years before using TB! with Outlook, Pegasus or Agent. Do they remove dupes without asking or is TB! the cause of the dupes? -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Golf is an awkward set of bodily contortions designed to produce a graceful result. Using The Bat! v1.62h on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
off topic - suggested programming language?
Hallo Fledermäuse, sorry to ask here, but you guys seem all to be so advanced in programming, that the answer will be one shot for you. I want to learn a programming language, which one should I take? I have some basic knowledge (used to program in GFA-Basic on my old Amiga, can do HTML, CSS, JavaScript) and I want to program things like vocabulary trainers, address books, appointment managers, using the Windows XP GUI. Should it be Visual Basic? -- regards, Jurgen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 while listening to Aeone - The Woman's Touch Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: BCC
Hallo Mark, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:28:52 +0100GMT (5-2-03, 12:28 +0100, where I live), you wrote: MP While trying to test BCC in The Bat I send: MP I receive one message, the one to myself, I suppose. That would be logical. MP When I look on the server, I find 2 more messages, both to f.i. MP [EMAIL PROTECTED], to be found on 2 other accounts with my provider. MP I do NOT find (and thus cannot download) the ones addressed to my MP kids, nor the one addressed to my wife. You must realize that any smtp-server worth it's salt deletes the BCC-header from the message. The messages would appear to be send to you, while they were dropped in the mailboxes of the other recipients. I tested it here with TB and my local server and that behaved as expected. You're not very clear whether your wife and kids each have their own pop3-box at your ISP's. It could be that if they're sharing a mailbox and that the ISP doesn't send multiple copies to that mailbox. That could appear as one message with you in the To:-header and an extra header like X-Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] MP The one addressed to f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is sent and can be MP retreived through webmail. MP When send such an Email (to myself, BCC to the same group) there MP is no problem. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: BCC
Hello Roelof, Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 1:47:42 PM, you wrote: MP When send such an Email (to myself, BCC to the same group) there MP is no problem. RO I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. You should try harder! Anyone can see I meant: :-) (1) When I send such an Email with OE or Pocomail... etc. (2) (1) Could it be The Bat automatically destroys any reference to OE ? (2) It's been a while, I'll test it again ASAP -- Best Whishes, Mark using The Bat! 1.62 Christmas Edition Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
Hello Gerard, Do they remove dupes without asking or is TB! the cause of the dupes? No, TB is not the cause of dupes, at least of the ones I have verified. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.61 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
Hi Miguel, Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 6:34:59 PM, you wrote: MAU Hello Gerard, Do they remove dupes without asking or is TB! the cause of the dupes? MAU No, TB is not the cause of dupes, at least of the ones I have verified. I just did a test. I marked all 81 messages in my inbox as unread using the message dispatcher and then downloaded them in to an empty local inbox. I did this once again. The total was 81 + 81 = 162 fine. But when i used the kill dupes command on inbox, it deleted just 80 messages, leaving one dupe even having the same mssage ID. The size was a little bit different tho it was the exact same message. Is TB doing this difference in size or the server? In the past I have seen TB deleting messages with same size but which are different in From/subject headers. -- Best regards, chinchi Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: BCC
Hi Eddie, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:16:00 +0100 Eddie Castelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have you tried with an other Version such as v1.63b5 or so? Is there any reason why somebody who requests on TBUDL should give the current Beta a try _before_ anybody has stated it could have that problem solved? Is there _any_ reason why you recommend a normal user using a _known to be not bug free_ Beta version? And all this with the aspect of _several_ tries to keep _this_ list Beta free, for obvious reasons?!? -- Peter Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: BCC
Hi Mark, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:01:55 +0100 Mark Partous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MP When send such an Email (to myself, BCC to the same group) there MP is no problem. RO I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. You should try harder! Anyone can see I meant: :-) (1) When I send such an Email with OE or Pocomail... etc. (2) (1) Could it be The Bat automatically destroys any reference to OE ? (2) It's been a while, I'll test it again ASAP 1.) If it would have been obvious no request would have been made. 2.) I don't see any mention of OE, Pocomail or any other MUA in your OP, could you please enlighten us when those stepped in and what the realtion to your original question? To clear things out a bit: You tried to send a message to 7 recipients (T = To, B = BCC): 1.) T: you 2.) B: kid one 3.) B: kid two 4.) B: kid three 5.) B: wife 6.) B: you 7.) B: hotperamail account You recieve 4 messages: 1.) you (account 1) 2.) account 2 3.) account 3 4.) hotperamail account Question: have your kids all seperate accounts _AND_ mailboxes? Question: has your wife a seperate account _AND_ mailbox? To describe a bit more technical details: if you send the message it's not 7 messages sent but only one with 7 recipients. Now the mail server could strip RCPT 1 and RCPT 6 to be only one recipient, as the addresses are identically, that would make only 6 deliveries to be done instead of 7. That's far from 4, but explains one lost message. Than you wrote: When send such an Email (to myself, BCC to the same group) there is no problem. So ... if you send such a message you have problems, but if you send such an E-Mail you don't? Please make clear what this sentence should tell us. Next: have a look at the received messages, especially at their headers. Look for Delivered-To lines. Could be you get a hint to whom this particular message was delivered to by this header lines. BCC is only a visualization on senders side to whom the message is addressed albeit he/she is not mentioned in To: or CC:, it's a Meta-Information that is interpreted from the server but than deleted from the e-mail before it gets delivered (else it wouldn't be a _BLIND_ carbon copy). So the only way to tell who was the recipient (in opposit to who's mentioned in To:) are the Delivered-To lines, if present. Only _that_ way you can figure out which recipient didn't get a copy. All in all I guess there's either something you did wrong while addressing the e-mail or the server you used to send ot the mail mixed up some things, I've _never_ had any problems with BCC in e-mails while using The Bat!. As I've never read somebody else has chances are low you stumbled over a bug in The Bat! handling BCC while sending the message; chances are high it would have been already reported. So either be clear and answer the questions people trying to help you ask, or solve the problem yourself. But you can spare responses as in the mail I'm replying to: You should try harder and Anyone can see I meant (mention: ment, not said ... I'll take a look for my crystal ball for better seeing what soembody meant ...). -- Peter Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: off topic - suggested programming language?
Hi Jurgen, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:42:48 +0100 Jurgen Haug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo Fledermäuse, Nice ... what do you think how (in percent of readers) understand your greeting on this list? sorry to ask here, No. You _know_ your question is off-topic, you even mark the subject acording to this issue. So go and ask in the appropriate list. Ain't that hard to do. It's the very same as if I'd tell you I'm sorry to knock you down, albeit I know I'm wrong and nevertheless do it. X-post F-up2: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Peter Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Known filter renaming
Hello Artemich, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:58:53 +0100 GMT (05/02/03, 18:58 +0700 GMT), Artemich wrote: When I created a new filer I somehow managed to rename Known filter. Since then I can't rename it back to the original (or whatever you like) name. Just clicking and typing a new name doesn't help. Does anybody know how to rename this filter back? I am not sure, but I think you need to name it $Known$ (without quotes). -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. - THE HOTEL HAS BOWLING ALLEYS, TENNIS COURTS, COMFORTABLE BEDS, AND OTHER ATHLETIC FACILITIES. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: BCC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Mark Partous wrote... While trying to test BCC in The Bat I send: A message to myself (f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED]) with a BCC to my kids (f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]), my wife ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and myself again, but now to an external address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Result: I receive one message, the one to myself, I suppose. Okay, so what you're saying is... you're sending an email with the following address format: TO: Your Account ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) BCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Right? And you get the mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as expected, and you also get the one addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now, am I right in assuming that one@ two@ and three@ are all separate login accounts? And the same for [EMAIL PROTECTED]? If you open each of the mails you received, view the message headers (SHIFT CTRL K), and look at the very FIRST received line, and the top. It should look something like this: Received: from sender server (sender server [ip address]) by mail server (maybe software version) with ESMTP id uid for the smtp server for email address; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 05:29:37 -0600 Now, the part you want to look at is where it says: for email address; This tells you the final destination of the mail, which would be the account/alias/email address. Repeat this check on each of the mails you did get, and see which address didn't get the BCC'd message. Are any of the 'missing' BCC'd mails to aliases on accounts? When I look on the server, I find 2 more messages, both to f.i. [EMAIL PROTECTED], to be found on 2 other accounts with my provider. What you should note is that if you addressed a mail TO [EMAIL PROTECTED], and didn't put any other address in the TO field, and BCC'd addresses will still see the mail addressed TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] even though they received it, that is just the way emails work (if you're interested, I can give you all the technical docs on this). What you could be seeing is TB! displaying the only TO field it found in the email, which is correct behaviour. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkEzXiuD6BT4/R9zEQJqUACfUz6Xzst0qrMW0lOWMJ10dpbmTbAAoJ4b vC4SS51J+lNc6shMJv4c3krV =5+Lo -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Error message--invalid argument to date encoded
Has anyone get the error message--invalid argument for date encoded when you start the BAT?Any possible solutions? Thanks. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! not deleting downloaded e-mail from server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Thomas Fernandez wrote... When I am downloading mail from the server, if the process gets timed out or my connection drops before the session is complete the next time I attempt to download it always starts over with the first message again [...] Is this a known bug? (Im using v1.62i.) Yes, it is. For some reason, TB does not correctly store the UIDL of the mails already downloaded, if you delete messages on server.\ Actually, UIDL is an optional part to POP3, which means servers don't *HAVE* to support it. So if his POP3 server doesn't support it, how would you store a UIDL for that server? Although I guess it could be considered a bug if the server supported UIDL, that it didn't store the ones it had already retrieved, on success of that download. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkE+3yuD6BT4/R9zEQKdsACgzYP+DZ/wF6bWi+YcZbHHLILzkDYAn03C Bf2/NYN2DnqbtqamHEWeg24+ =fBeg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: good anti-spam prog for use with TB!
On Sunday, February 2, 2003, 15:45:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondered whether any anti-spam programs are out there which integrate with TB! or failing that, good unobtrusive anti-spam programs? I use SpamAssassin (yes, in Windows). It's free and pretty powerful. Very configurable. Not all that hard to set up, but requires Perl and Pop3Proxy (both free aswell). I installed PopFile for a friend of mine. It's easy to set up and to train, so that seemed the best solution for her. It's free aswell. Roman -- Roman Katzer, Aachen, Germany Neurotics build castles in the air. Psychotics live in them, and Psychiatrists charge rent. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
MAPI and TB!
I have started using a program called Time Matters (ver. 4). It has an e-mail component, which in turn has a few ways of working. One of the ways is to interact with the user's alternative MAPI-compliant e-mail client. In this mode, e-mail sent out of Time Matters becomes processed in that program but actually sent out of the alternative MUA; e-mail received by the alternative MUA is accessible not only in that program's inbox but also in the Time Matters inbox. When I set this up with TB!, Time Matters detected TB! correctly. The sending functions work as they should. (Hitting 'send' in TM zips the message over to the TB! outbox, at least with my setting of not immediately sending mail from TB!.) But the inbox arrangement is not working. TM cannot see what is in TB!. (Nor does hitting TM's 'retrieve' operate TB!'s retrieve function, although I'm less concerned about that.) Any idea what might be keeping these children from playing well together? -- JN Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! not deleting downloaded e-mail from server
Hello Jonathan, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:42:03 -0600 GMT (05/02/03, 23:42 +0700 GMT), Jonathan Angliss wrote: Yes, it is. For some reason, TB does not correctly store the UIDL of the mails already downloaded, if you delete messages on server.\ Actually, UIDL is an optional part to POP3, which means servers don't *HAVE* to support it. So if his POP3 server doesn't support it, how would you store a UIDL for that server? Although I guess it could be considered a bug if the server supported UIDL, that it didn't store the ones it had already retrieved, on success of that download. It is a bug in TB. Even if the server supports UIDL, TB will re-download messages if you set it to delete messages from server, but not if you set it to leave messages on server. It is a known bug, too. If you switch from leave to delete, all messages on the server will be downloaded again, too. Even though the list of already downloaded messages is already known to TB. This has been confirmed several times. Whether or not his server supports UIDL remains to be seen once Richard sets his TB to leave and tries my suggestion. If my work-around doesn't work for him, it is a server problem and he cannot work around his problem. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Error message--invalid argument to date encoded
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Kenneth, @05-Feb-2003, 11:37 -0500 (16:37 UK time) Kenneth S. Rhee [KSR] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: KSR Has anyone get the error message--invalid argument for date KSR encoded when you start the BAT?Any possible solutions? This happens when you have imported addresses from the OE address book and allowed it to import Birth Dates too. One thing - moderator Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not just to the person being replied to, even if their post may have instigated this reply. Please don't feel singled out Kenneth. Please don't use reply to start a new thread. Your question has been posted at the bottom of un unrelated topic. The Bat! is a threading mail client. See View | View threads by | Reference to see where it ended up. The result is that it will only be seen by those reading that thread instead of by all users. I recommend that you post your question again using a New message if you want to see more replies to your query. /moderator - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+QUg7OeQkq5KdzaARAvOHAKCdsrzHXW8wuLiKQtOPPGI0RRR3LwCfd9Kj bs1GyEiIsjuTQAfurCkf05E= =/tav -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Error message--invalid argument to date encoded
Hello Marck, Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 12:22:00 PM, you wrote: MDP This happens when you have imported addresses from the OE address MDP book and allowed it to import Birth Dates too. MDP One thing - Incomplete message? Anyway, when I uncheck the vcf option in the preference menu, the error went away. Strange. -- Best regards, Kennethmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Error message--invalid argument to date encoded
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Kenneth, @05-Feb-2003, 12:25 -0500 (17:25 UK time) Kenneth S. Rhee [KSR] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MDP This happens when you have imported addresses from the OE MDP address book and allowed it to import Birth Dates too. MDP One thing - KSR Incomplete message? Hmmm - no. It arrived back intact here. I you want to see the moderator's ticking off for thread abuse check the archive ;-). KSR Anyway, when I uncheck the vcf option in the preference menu, KSR the error went away. All's well then. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+QUvGOeQkq5KdzaARAs/WAKCeXPyRT4HnUAESdNLmrJT8JCtuKgCfaMKt CxPEiyMS8Bpipbtj8Qmlpw8= =IOCR -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Error message--invalid argument to date encoded
Hi Kenneth, On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:37:43 -0500 Kenneth S. Rhee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone get the error message--invalid argument for date encoded when you start the BAT? Many before ... Any possible solutions? A _working_ wolution is to delete all address book entries you've recently imported and re-import them, WITHOUT the birthday. The birthday field has to be in a well defined format (which I can't remember right now from the top of my mind) and for example OE-export uses a different one. So either import w/o birthday dates or edit the exported file and make all birthday dates be in the correct format (could have been MMDD, but that's not 'knowledge' it's only 'guessing'). P.S.: Marck: ain't it time to put this really frequently asked question into FAQ? I've just searched the archive and a run for invalid argument for date encoded reveals nothing (albeit it should, but it seems the search algorithm ain't that good) -- Pit Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
[Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello! I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a good example. ---[Cut]--- [andris@strigidae scripts]$ host mail.tp.ru. mail.tp.ru has address 80.80.100.216 mail.tp.ru mail is handled (pri=5) by tp.aaanet.ru [andris@netgenic scripts]$ host tp.aaanet.ru. Host not found. ---[Cut]--- This means that any message sent to any address in mail.tp.ru domain will be bounced back to the originator with the following error: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Transcript of session follows - 550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: tp.aaanet.ru.: host not found) ---[Cut]--- In case you want anyone at mail.tp.ru host to be notified about this misconfiguration you should bypass the non-working MX record by using the following form of the e-mail address: mailbox@[80.80.100.216] Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses to the following form causing another bounce: ---[Cut]--- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:37:29 +0300 From: Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62e) Reply-To: Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: AerNet Ltd. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ Subject: mail.tp.ru MX record is invalid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ---[Cut]--- Testbed: Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 + post-SP2 hotfixes The Bat! Version 1.62e (Serial Number: 590E2F15) -- Yours sincerely, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) http://www.andris.msk.ru/ Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MAPI and TB!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, But the inbox arrangement is not working. TM cannot see what is in TB!. (Nor does hitting TM's 'retrieve' operate TB!'s retrieve function, although I'm less concerned about that.) Any idea what might be keeping these children from playing well together? TheBat supports only simple MAPI. Accessing the Inbox from another programm is therefor not supported. Bis demnaechst. Alex - -- A . Kleiser The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 (Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600) The important thing is not to stop questioning. (Albert Einstein) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPkFHyB/yzcsqRzGeEQKQgACePaaaevk8A7xDN8HKlp8I/WZbOWUAoP8a cpEk/ydGwFqKyjZLAkP3tdVR =EHD4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Anybody using manual re-thread script ??
Hello all, I'm curious to know if anyone is using (or has tried to) the manual re-thread script that I explained... a couple of weeks ago?. If so, how does it work for you? Have you done any changes to improve it or fine tune it? Thanks, -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.61 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris), On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 21:14:26GMT +0300 (which was 1:14 PM in the tropics where I live) Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) postulated: AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address AGSAA directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a good example. 8 Snipped alot! Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm sure IP addresses are not rout-able as an e-mail recipient. I can't find the appropriate RFC, but I'm sure I read this somewhere. I just tried to send myself a message using my ISP's domain IP and it came back as; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unrouteable address Also the IP of the POP3 server came back; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unrouteable address IP specifics removed to prevent harvesting of data! The error returned in Andrey's message said; AGSAA- Transcript of session follows - AGSAA 550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: tp.aaanet.ru.: host not found) AGSAA ---[Cut]--- This indicates the DNS listing is in error or the domain doesn't exist. This is further supported by; AGSAA Subject: mail.tp.ru MX record is invalid Am I off base here? -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike Never trust a woman who tells you her real age; if she tells you that, she'll tell you anything. (Oscar Wilde) -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hallo Andrey, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:14:26 +0300GMT (5-2-03, 19:14 +0100, where I live), you wrote: AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP AGSAA address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a AGSAA good example. [192.168.203.12] isn't an ip-address. Leave the brackets and it'll do as you expected. So the address would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference is clear when you type the addresses in the editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is immediately underlined as a valid url mailbox@[192.168.203.12] is seen as plain text. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Spike, On Wednesday, February 5, 2003 at 8:49:01 PM you [S] wrote (at least in part): AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address AGSAA directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a good example. S 8 Snipped alot! S Correct me if I am wrong, I'll do ... S but I'm sure IP addresses are not rout-able as an e-mail recipient. They are ... if properly noted :-) S I can't find the appropriate RFC, RFC-822, sec. 6.2.3 S I just tried to send myself a message using my ISP's domain IP and S it came back as; S [EMAIL PROTECTED] S Unrouteable address The notation is wrong. You'll have to embrace the IP-address by square brackets: spike@[205.xxx.xxx.xxx] S The error returned in Andrey's message said; AGSAA- Transcript of session follows - AGSAA 550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name AGSAA server: tp.aaanet.ru.: host not found) AGSAA ---[Cut]--- S This indicates the DNS listing is in error or the domain doesn't S exist. This is further supported by; The former. The DNS states a MX which ain't resolvable: AGSAA Subject: mail.tp.ru MX record is invalid which is subjected here -- Regards Peter Palmreuther (The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1) Yes, this is a strange craft; a strange history, too, and strange folks on board. But - nothing more. (Herman Melville) Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Roelof Otten wrote... AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP AGSAA address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a AGSAA good example. [192.168.203.12] isn't an ip-address. Leave the brackets and it'll do as you expected. So the address would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference is clear when you type the addresses in the editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is immediately underlined as a valid url mailbox@[192.168.203.12] is seen as plain text. IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to working around issues such as DNS outages. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkFxoiuD6BT4/R9zEQLUJwCg68XP2Ey+KAPXkzP/hfCjd5bNDJYAoPoY m1XGHAc2bf2q017UVzn2OIz+ =oAx4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote... I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). [..] In case you want anyone at mail.tp.ru host to be notified about this misconfiguration you should bypass the non-working MX record by using the following form of the e-mail address: mailbox@[80.80.100.216] This is correct, yes. Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses to the following form causing another bounce: [..] To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived intact. The question is, what was the error message you got back from your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkFzXiuD6BT4/R9zEQLBZQCg+hSIiC21Q5A7ot2W3ipNmXP57FoAoPdJ gt3aCwyBaDBeF/KHpzqN17A9 =WLU4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Jonathan Angliss, On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 14:26:01GMT -0600 (which was 3:26 PM in the tropics where I live) Jonathan Angliss responded: JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails just JA fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail SMTP JA server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived intact. The JA question is, what was the error message you got back from your JA undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? OK, I stand (or sit!) corrected. I just tried it on ALL my mail accounts and they all responded NOT SENT: Domain litereals not allowed ;-( -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike And now for some feedback: EEE -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hallo Jonathan, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:18:38 -0600GMT (5-2-03, 21:18 +0100, where I live), you wrote: JA IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] JA otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in JA the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested JA AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to JA working around issues such as DNS outages. I stand corrected. They aren't mentioned in rfc2822 and I didn't check rfc2821 (where they are mentioned in sec 4.1.3) before I was rebuked. Without [] I got a test delivered and with I didn't, so I thought... -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Spike wrote... JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA intact. The question is, what was the error message you got back JA from your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even JA get one? OK, I stand (or sit!) corrected. I just tried it on ALL my mail accounts and they all responded NOT SENT: Domain litereals not allowed ;-( It could be they have the domain literals shut off. I believe it is possible with a bit of tweaking, and chances are, they probably do it for security reasons or something like that... but they are very useable, and are documented in the RFCs :) - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkF6KiuD6BT4/R9zEQJglACgrsA9DZvPwaLsfaj6EbJ0qgzFG+cAn2w8 3SntPE7S6kLbYj6e9W8wwT2h =kv4J -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Roelof Otten, On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 21:41:18GMT +0100 (which was 3:41 PM in the tropics where I live) Roelof Otten ruminated: JA IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] JA otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in JA the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested JA AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to JA working around issues such as DNS outages. RO I stand corrected. They aren't mentioned in rfc2822 and I didn't check RO rfc2821 (where they are mentioned in sec 4.1.3) before I was rebuked. RO Without [] I got a test delivered and with I didn't, so I thought... When I try it without the brackets, it gets rejected as 'not routeable' and when I try to send it with them, I get 'domain literals not allowed' and the mailer TO: line changes to; spike@[205\.214\.214\.80] Oh well, let's hope there are no DNS failures!! -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike One way to better your lot is to do a lot better... -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Roelof, On Wednesday, February 5, 2003 at 9:41:18 PM you [RO] wrote (at least in part): RO Without [] I got a test delivered Which is strange enough. The square brackets are for the server being able to distinguish between dot-delimited host.network.name and an IP-address. Really strange -- Regards Peter Palmreuther (The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1) ... is exhibited in the radical endosemic character of the sign as such. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 chinchi stated: c Hi Miguel, c Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 6:34:59 PM, you wrote: c I just did a test. I marked all 81 messages in my inbox as unread c using the message dispatcher and then downloaded them in to an c empty local inbox. I did this once again. The total was 81 + 81 = c 162 fine. But when i used the kill dupes command on inbox, it c deleted just 80 messages, leaving one dupe even having the same c mssage ID. The size was a little bit different tho it was the exact c same message. How far off was the size difference? It could be a matter of an extra digit in the time log for download. 9:59:01 vs 10:00:02 I'd be curious to know what the exact difference is that precluded it from being identified as a duplicate. This information could then be used in future updates to more accurately tweak the deduper. Cheers Yall \\' Running TB! version 1.63 Beta/4 under Windows 2000 5.0 on a 500mhz P-III wtih 512mb Ram Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Known filter renaming
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 Artemich stated: A Hi, A When I created a new filer I somehow managed to rename Known filter. A Since then I can't rename it back to the original (or whatever you A like) name. Just clicking and typing a new name doesn't help. A Does anybody know how to rename this filter back? A Tanks in advance. when I zapped mine, I cheated to get it back .. I created a new (dummy) account then copy and pasted the known from there to the old account. Then deleted the dummy account. TB: almost as good as bottled beer \\' Running TB! version 1.63 Beta/4 under Windows 2000 5.0 on a 500mhz P-III wtih 512mb Ram Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello! Wed Feb 5 2003 23:26:01 Jonathan Angliss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses to the following form causing another bounce: JA [..] To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA intact. Hmmm... it's interesting. Maybe your recent tries were successful because you're using an 1.63 Beta/5 version of the TB!. Mine was 1.62e and is 1.62i now. JA The question is, what was the error message you got back from your JA undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? Yes, here it is: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] - Transcript of session follows - 550 5.1.2 postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216]... Host unknown (Name server: [80\.80\.100\.216]: host not found) ---[Cut]--- The server is running Sendmail 8.12.6 under FreeBSD 4.7-Release. -- Yours sincerely, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) http://www.andris.msk.ru/ Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote... To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA intact. Hmmm... it's interesting. Maybe your recent tries were successful because you're using an 1.63 Beta/5 version of the TB!. Mine was 1.62e and is 1.62i now. It could be that they fixed it... I cannot see anything in the beta files that mentions it, so it could have silently been fixed. So you are possibly quite correct. JA The question is, what was the error message you got back from JA your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get JA one? Yes, here it is: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] [..] The server is running Sendmail 8.12.6 under FreeBSD 4.7-Release. - From a guess, TB! seems to want to put in the \ for some reason. Not sure why they'd do it, but they do... That clearly is killing the sending of the mail. Now... here is something odd... I just tested again with Sendmail, and managed to break it, it appeared to have added the \, but a retest on postfix found it worked just fine. So either postfix is stripping the \ in the [ ] or some oddities are going on somewhere between. As for how I got it to work with Sendmail the first time is something completely different. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkGTWCuD6BT4/R9zEQIThgCghclb4IY5MRNtRO5gHh5bftbgAyEAnjSg KTnaSPOX06DDNJkpzSwljgrd =YdgF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Filter (Regular Expression) Me and Only ME
I have been getting allot of Spam here lately that is addressed to me along with several random or generated e-mail addresses. So my question is, how do I create a filter that will trash any e-mail to me [in either the To: or CC:] that has my address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) listed with *any* other e-mail address. This is tricky, because the filter has to catch the e-mail whether or not my e-mail address is listed first,last, or in the middle. So In other words I want the filter to allow mail to my inbox that is addressed to me and *only* me. Other e-mail, such as lists will be filtered to the appropriate folder prior to this filter, so that I won't miss any list mail. (I'm CC'ing this to TBTECH just in case its too complicated for TBUDL) But I'm hoping someone, somewhere can tell me how to do this, I think it would be a helpful filter for everyone as well. -- Best Regards, ~John Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Programs running in the background: Grisoft AVG:6.0.449 Database:251 (last updated 1/27/03) ZoneAlarm ... Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Message filtering - can we filter by date?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wondering if one can set up a filter to trash email with a date that isn't current? I receive occasional spam dated like year 2025 or 1992 or a different month, etc. Thanks, David - -- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Written Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 6:39:31 PM A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs--jolted by every pebble in the road. -Henry Ward Beecher -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBPkGhYzT1rmWPi6SCEQKZZwCgjn8TE/Q9AqrS6So3DUKZmv/BRBwAn1Gz vmsTa3vLqtyN49LaoNUA8UBf =KRaE -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Filter (Regular Expression) Me and Only ME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi ~John, @5-Feb-1998, 17:14 -0600 (23:14 UK time) ~John [j] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: j I have been getting allot of Spam here lately that is addressed j to me along with several random or generated e-mail addresses. So j my question is, how do I create a filter that will trash any j e-mail to me [in either the To: or CC:] that has my address j ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) listed with *any* other e-mail address. ... snip How about the advanced setting of Address must be listed in address book and choose All recipients? Wouldn't that catch it? - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+QatPOeQkq5KdzaARAjKJAJ4+6VMwjKqiAmlka0+LysQmSd3vQgCfZouD dAf3Wuxt70ozD7npPTXhaqk= =cOwr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Filter (Regular Expression) Me and Only ME
I did it! I did it! Here is how I done it, I was trying too hard. I created this Only Me filter: Move to Not to me folder , [EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED], Location : Recipient Presence : Yes and placed it last in the list, I moved my Known filter to directly above my Only Me filter, and unchecked the continue to process check box, so that ones from my address book can place my address in a string with others, but no one else can. Now I can safely say that I am close to spam free, while only using theBat! filters! -- Best Regards, ~John - - - ~John wrote - - - I have been getting allot of Spam here lately that is addressed to me along with several random or generated e-mail addresses. So my question is, how do I create a filter that will trash any e-mail to me [in either the To: or CC:] that has my address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) listed with *any* other e-mail address. This is tricky, because the filter has to catch the e-mail whether or not my e-mail address is listed first,last, or in the middle. So In other words I want the filter to allow mail to my inbox that is addressed to me and *only* me. Other e-mail, such as lists will be filtered to the appropriate folder prior to this filter, so that I won't miss any list mail. (I'm CC'ing this to TBTECH just in case its too complicated for TBUDL) But I'm hoping someone, somewhere can tell me how to do this, I think it would be a helpful filter for everyone as well. -- Best Regards, ~John Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Programs running in the background: Grisoft AVG:6.0.449 Database:251 (last updated 1/27/03) ZoneAlarm ... - - - End of ~John's message - - - Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Filter (Regular Expression) Me and Only ME
Crap! No, it don't work... I still need help. -- Best Regards, ~John - - - ~John wrote - - - I did it! I did it! Here is how I done it, I was trying too hard. I created this Only Me filter: Move to Not to me folder , [EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED], Location : Recipient Presence : Yes and placed it last in the list, I moved my Known filter to directly above my Only Me filter, and unchecked the continue to process check box, so that ones from my address book can place my address in a string with others, but no one else can. Now I can safely say that I am close to spam free, while only using theBat! filters! -- Best Regards, ~John - - - ~John wrote - - - I have been getting allot of Spam here lately that is addressed to me along with several random or generated e-mail addresses. So my question is, how do I create a filter that will trash any e-mail to me [in either the To: or CC:] that has my address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) listed with *any* other e-mail address. This is tricky, because the filter has to catch the e-mail whether or not my e-mail address is listed first,last, or in the middle. So In other words I want the filter to allow mail to my inbox that is addressed to me and *only* me. Other e-mail, such as lists will be filtered to the appropriate folder prior to this filter, so that I won't miss any list mail. (I'm CC'ing this to TBTECH just in case its too complicated for TBUDL) But I'm hoping someone, somewhere can tell me how to do this, I think it would be a helpful filter for everyone as well. -- Best Regards, ~John Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Programs running in the background: Grisoft AVG:6.0.449 Database:251 (last updated 1/27/03) ZoneAlarm ... - - - End of ~John's message - - - - - - End of ~John's message - - - Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: off topic - suggested programming language?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Jurgen Haug wrote... sorry to ask here, but you guys seem all to be so advanced in programming, that the answer will be one shot for you. I want to learn a programming language, which one should I take? I have some basic knowledge (used to program in GFA-Basic on my old Amiga, can do HTML, CSS, JavaScript) and I want to program things like vocabulary trainers, address books, appointment managers, using the Windows XP GUI. Should it be Visual Basic? As you said yourself, it's off topic.. and as Peter pointed out, there is an off-topic list (see the URL at the bottom of this, or any posting to find out details). As nobody has answered your original question yet, I think I shall, but I'm cross posting this to tbot, so if you wanted to continue the thread, I suggest jumping in over there (in case you're not there already). I used Visual Basic as a start-up language. It has enough to get you into it, but I never really found I could push it as far as I needed to get it to go. I guess it really depends on what you are trying to achieve, and what kind of targets you want to look at. I currently program in Delphi, and write accounting software. I find it very powerful, and very flexible. As for being specific about using the Windows XP GUI... what exactly do you mean? The only differences between the Windows XP GUI compared to that of Win2k and lower is that it has nice big bubbly edges (which btw messes up client widths/heights on forms)... Trying to write something specifically for Windows XP GUI seems a little bit of an unusual objective to me. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393 B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73 iQA+AwUBPkHZ6iuD6BT4/R9zEQKyOQCZAZB6xo9MflDUQvScBxW09QVjyHoAl2Ok b9sb0GC/7da7+ktS7ySkYiE= =DI0z -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello, I've sometimes (perhaps one time in a day) Access Violation in x ; it does not disturb the good running of the programm, a simple OK and the program continues... Have you got these little errors, if yes, in which frequencies ? Thanks, Friendly, Christophe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Config : Millenium, The Bat 1.62i Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: How reliable is 'kill dupes'?
Hi Wolffe, Thursday, February 6, 2003, 3:14:07 AM, you wrote: W On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 chinchi stated: c Hi Miguel, c Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 6:34:59 PM, you wrote: c I just did a test. I marked all 81 messages in my inbox as unread c using the message dispatcher and then downloaded them in to an c empty local inbox. I did this once again. The total was 81 + 81 = c 162 fine. But when i used the kill dupes command on inbox, it c deleted just 80 messages, leaving one dupe even having the same c mssage ID. The size was a little bit different tho it was the exact c same message. W How far off was the size difference? It could be a matter of an W extra digit in the time log for download. 9:59:01 vs 10:00:02 W I'd be curious to know what the exact difference is that precluded W it from being identified as a duplicate. This information could then W be used in future updates to more accurately tweak the deduper. One of them is 4,156 bytes and the other is 4,040 bytes though there's no difference in the actual messages. -- Best regards, chinchi Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
