Re: SMTP problem solved
Hello Vili & everyone else, on 04-Mai-2005 at 03:25 you (The Bat! support) wrote: > If nothing else, than this: if you don't have anything to say, please be > quiet With comments like this, I'd say you have to start with yourself. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Freedom is not an essential and basic condition for the growth of science; the care and diligence of government authorities are the most important conditions for this development. -- Vasili N. Tatishchev Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
SMTP problem solved
Hello guys, First, thank you for all of you for your time and for your thorough answers. I did not change anything, the problem went away... As it happened with Gerard sometimes... So Peter (Palmreuther): it is not as obvious as you thought... I am happy, that you also learnt something from this case :))) If nothing else, than this: if you don't have anything to say, please be quiet. -- Vili Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Announcement: The Bat! Nailclipper
>> The Bat! Nailclipper Mobile Enail Client > Sounds Great but what is the URL. Is it? -- Marten Gallagher Annery Kiln Web Design www.annerykiln.co.uk Using The Bat! 3.0.1.33 with POPFile 0.22.1 on Windows XP 5.1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! and PGPDisk
On Tue 3 May 2005, 22:08:17 +1000, Richard H. Stoddard wrote: > Ive been waiting for message-base encryption to be implemented, but > have been thinking of an interim solution using PGPDisk. Would it slow > down TB! downloads, etc., to move the message folders to an encrypted > disk? Obviously the encrypted disk would need to be opened before > opening TB!, but can anyone suggest any other potential issues? I have been using this set up for a couple of years. I notice only one problem, and that is sometimes TB! ceases to respond for periods of up to 40 seconds (and almost invariably it is precisely 40 seconds, I don't know why). This usually happens when I move to a particular mail folder and it takes 40 seconds to display the contents of the folder. It occasionally happens when I ask TB! to do something like create a new mail. It often happens when I start TB! and it delays counting the contents of the folders and displaying message numbers. This is an annoying quirk that disappears on any account that I put on the non-encrypted part of my system. That is, it is an account-by-account problem, not a problem for the entire application. It seems as though TB! is waiting for PGP to respond to a request for data and it takes PGP a while (40 seconds) to recognise the request. However, of course, I have no way to verify that. All-in-all I put up with the problem for the security of the solution, but it does become annoying when it happens. -- Robin Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 and PGP v8.1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Announcement: The Bat! Nailclipper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 2 May 2005, @ @ at 13:15:34 +0100, when admin@ wrote: > But now you have a fully configured Enail Client with an active e-nail > account on one of the free fingers. Good! Now, just to find a free finger... - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 243 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector via Wine... ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFCd9829q62QPd3XuIRAtJgAJ9nU2MDMzU0eRSMbytOPdNysNsslwCfe0VP zwLwTMvqyjbwW+kMwbGVZj0= =q3pR -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! and PGPDisk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Tue, 3 May 2005, @ @ at 22:33:00 +0500, when Richard H. Stoddard wrote: MM>> Well, all in all, Richard, I could cooly suggest you to give the MM>> PGPDisk a nice try, it will show quite fine, and I also suggest you MM>> to *install* TB too to a such encrypted disk. This way you'll get MM>> maximum "protection", in a very easy, simple and elegant way. > I'll give it a try, but another question just occurred to me: When I > backup my drive to an external drive, am I correct in assuming that > the encrypted disk may not copy correctly? Well, an encrypted disk is actually a file (sometimes called "container" as well), created and laying around on your HDD, and when it is mounted, it shows as a "drive", or an individual "partition" of your HDD. So, you can manipulate it in two ways: 1) as a file, and 2) as a partition. 1) As with a file, you can do anything to it, like with any other file, including copying, and copying will be definitely as "correct" as of any other file. There are no any specific issues or "threats" that something will "get wrong" with it, just because it is a "container". 2) As with partition, you can use its content as you would with any other partition. I, personally, in the moment prefer following way of "backing up": having an encrypted disk of 600 MB only for Mail (folder) and TB, I can back up (copy) this "container" on a CD-RW easily. The mail which accumulates (and hence is not possible to be on a such limited space, of 600 MB minus some "free space") I simply "redirect" to other places/archives/"containers", keeping just "working" (most "actual"/important) one in this "main" container. You can do that otherwise, there are really plenty ways of handling it, more appropriate for given situations, personal "taste" etc. I, again, never worked with really "large" containers, for instance of 1, 2 or more GB, since simply have no a "feeling" of "security" with *that* large encrypted disks. (-; Firstly, it's really BIG amount of data at only ONE place, and something in my guts says "hmmm", which is a sign to me to peep into this a bit closer, after which I usually "change my mind" swiftly, finding better solutions. And secondly, I like to have smaller amounts of data on smaller "carriers" so I can manipulate them in more ways, and faster. That's the reason why I prefer to have more smaller containers scattered around, rather than "entrust" all my "treasure" just to one of them. That's also the reason why I *could* say that all my encrypted disks were always "copied correctly", all these years, so no fear of it, but I *couldn't* assert it if some much bigger containers are used, since I am not enough informed/experienced as to technology of "(extra)large containers" (if any of such technology exists at all). Perhaps might be that some parameters of crypto technology vary/change when "big mass/space" is involved, and if any, such things might be much better explained by someone more versed than I am. /// As for TB installation on the dedicated encrypted disk... It's not a big problem and you wouldn't have to *reinstall* TB, or to install it anew. You would have just to edit slightly TB registry entry (search/replace to point to the new address), and then to move entire TB folder to the new address, keeping this way all your preferred settings "intacta". - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 244 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector via Wine... ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFCd97h9q62QPd3XuIRAmTSAJ9+3QW8/XCw4a4bjDE+ai9vlQ7cNgCbBhdV RobJEikTzqPsuiw7zHk9YKU= =xRG1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Announcement: The Bat! Nailclipper
Hello admin, Monday, May 2, 2005, 1:15:34 PM, you wrote: > Just announced I see - coming shortly to a finger near you... > The Bat! Nailclipper Mobile Enail Client Sounds Great but what is the URL. -- Best regards, Davidmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Announcement: The Bat! Nailclipper
> We used to have a > sneakernet at my old office, but I think this was something else. Does > Nailclipper rely on the finger protocol to determine configuration? I think with SneakerNet it's Net/Pooey protocol... -- Marten Gallagher Annery Kiln Web Design www.annerykiln.co.uk Using The Bat! 3.0.1.33 with POPFile 0.22.1 on Windows XP 5.1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Filtering issue
Hello MAU, Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 1:41:56 PM, you wrote: M> Hello MikeD, >> Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 M> You are using a beta version, you should post this in the TBBeta list. Ooops ... sorry. Grabbed the wrong email -- Best regards, MikeDmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Filtering issue
Hello MikeD, > Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 You are using a beta version, you should post this in the TBBeta list. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! and PGPDisk
Mica, Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 8:03:22 PM, you wrote: MM> Since TB installation also dwells on this disk, it is not possible to MM> start even TB, if the PGP disk is not "unlocked". Beautiful! I think I'll settle for just moving the message folders, since I should be able to do that without a re-install of TB!, something I just don't feel like doing given that it's working fine as is. MM> As to possible "slowing down" of the normal work with mail/TB, there is MM> no any fear, it always works just fine, and "smoothly". Of course, you MM> would have to bear in mind that a PGP disk is treated as any other MM> "real" disk, so once it's "mounted", you'd have to maintain it properly, MM> for instance to provide it with enough free space, to defragment it now MM> and then, when is needed etc. Hadn't thought about the need to defrag periodically, but not a problem, and I will ensure there's plenty of space on the disk. MM> Well, all in all, Richard, I could cooly suggest you to give the PGPDisk MM> a nice try, it will show quite fine, and I also suggest you to *install* MM> TB too to a such encrypted disk. This way you'll get maximum MM> "protection", in a very easy, simple and elegant way. I'll give it a try, but another question just occurred to me: When I backup my drive to an external drive, am I correct in assuming that the encrypted disk may not copy correctly? -- Thanks, Rick Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Announcement: The Bat! Nailclipper
admin- Monday, May 2, 2005, 5:15:34 AM, you wrote: aacu> Many users experience difficulties activating the hand aacu> and configuring an e-nail account. Often my hands are busy typing. I wonder if it would be possible to have an e-nail client for a different OS. My feet, for example, are generally underused when I'm at the computer. We used to have a sneakernet at my old office, but I think this was something else. Does Nailclipper rely on the finger protocol to determine configuration? -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Filtering issue
Hello All, Just as of today I have been hammered by a significant increase in spam. I can deal with that. But one thing did confuse me. One of the spam messages ended up in my "known" folder and I checked my address book three times to be sure and neither the From nor the To address appear in my address book. So can someone offer a suggestion as to why this email would have gotten sent to the "Known" folder? (I have included the message header bewlow in case that will help) TIA -- Best regards, MikeD mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 w/BayesIt! 0.8.0 Release on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 - X-Message-Status: n X-SID-PRA: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-SID-Result: SoftFail X-Message-Info: uX4bQusXWiIzi0ZCsMSSmm/43RoEh/jMZuc8WoGd7Q4= Received: from qbtycafov.com ([65.8.201.164]) by MC8-F35.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 May 2005 05:02:58 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:41:52 GMT Subject: Re: Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==ca130e9759003f" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 12:02:58.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C4584E0:01C54FD8] X-ISafe-Status: V Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: SMTP problem
ON Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 1:50:18 PM, you wrote: PP> Well, if server is OK and address is OK and server moans about PP> address, either one must be not OK. Quite obvious, isn't it? There might be a temporary outage. I have seen a few lately. What is also possible is that your e-mail is rejected on other grounds by the recipient and given this error to not make you any wiser. Some server need you to be on the white list before you can send e-mail. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The correlation between thinking well and making successful shots is not 100 percent. But the correlation between thinking badly and unsuccessful shots is much higher. Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! and PGPDisk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Tue, 3 May 2005, @ @ at 08:08:17 -0400, when Richard H. Stoddard wrote: > Ive been waiting for message-base encryption to be implemented, but > have been thinking of an interim solution using PGPDisk. Would it slow > down TB! downloads, etc., to move the message folders to an encrypted > disk? Obviously the encrypted disk would need to be opened before > opening TB!, but can anyone suggest any other potential issues? I've been also thinking pretty much about very same issues, and after releasing (unleashing? (-: ) of the "famous" version 3, I was forced to tighten this consideration even more, as to what I would *really* get with regards to the "security/privacy", and what could be even a greater *threat* to these two, instead (having in mind the pretty... flighty treatment in issuing this TB version, at least so far). So, my general "feeling", or to say "working conclusion", is that TB, in the current edition, is not reliable, as to things mentioned, and even might represent pretty high risk, so that the serious things, as this "mail base" encryption is, should be entrusted to a serious dedicated and specialized, "proved", applications, to a "standalone" "system" *independent* of The Bat. Hence, I find that PGPDisk is a much better solution, and incomparably more reliable (for those who use non-NT Windows branches, Scramdisk is even better!). I do have one PGP encrypted disk "designed" only for Mail, and TB working folder(s), and am very pleased with how it works. Since TB installation also dwells on this disk, it is not possible to start even TB, if the PGP disk is not "unlocked". Beautiful! As to possible "slowing down" of the normal work with mail/TB, there is no any fear, it always works just fine, and "smoothly". Of course, you would have to bear in mind that a PGP disk is treated as any other "real" disk, so once it's "mounted", you'd have to maintain it properly, for instance to provide it with enough free space, to defragment it now and then, when is needed etc. And... (-: yes, I too was pretty handsomely allured by this charming "on-the-fly-encryption", since it, *as idea*, sounds so fine, intelligent and handy, but...from an idea to a *real*, good, solid thing, there is some work to be *done*, and hence some "fine ideas" might...marinate for...years (-; and since I can't use an idea for a real thing, I had to change my mind and to turn to a real thing, which is PGPDisk, in this case. Pity, I was just so eager and zealous to get a TB copy registered to my name... Well, all in all, Richard, I could cooly suggest you to give the PGPDisk a nice try, it will show quite fine, and I also suggest you to *install* TB too to a such encrypted disk. This way you'll get maximum "protection", in a very easy, simple and elegant way. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 244 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector via Wine... ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFCd5K49q62QPd3XuIRAmzUAJ9p+vrUX3+5tOa02pdQDhnsg26i3wCgiHyk qw+Ut2bMGvYkYlNig+lmKbo= =921A -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! and PGPDisk
Allie, Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 6:08:57 PM, you wrote: AM> There have been subscribers to this list who used TB! with their mail AM> on an encrypted PGP Virtual Disk. They had no operational problems. Thanks. I'll give it a try. -- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! and PGPDisk
Hi Richard, On 03/05/2005 08:08 AM -0400, you wrote: Iâve been waiting for message-base encryption to be implemented, but have been thinking of an interim solution using PGPDisk. Would it slow down TB! downloads, etc., to move the message folders to an encrypted disk? Obviously the encrypted disk would need to be opened before opening TB!, but can anyone suggest any other potential issues? There have been subscribers to this list who used TB! with their mail on an encrypted PGP Virtual Disk. They had no operational problems. -- Allie Martin System specs: http://www.ac-martin.com/sysspecs.htm -=-=- Don't Take Life Seriously, It Is Not Permanent. Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Mod: Cut mark (was: SMTP problem)
Hallo Vili, On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:21:24 +0200GMT (3-5-2005, 14:21 +0200, where I live), you wrote: TBS> Is not it possible, that some error on the SMTP server cause this TBS> error message? TBS> Vili TBS> TBS> Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: 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 Vili. )<)))'> Please include a signature delimiter in your messages. This consists of a , i.e., a '-- ' by itself on a line. This allows your readers, when replying, to quote your text without the signature and list footers since everything below and including the sig delimiter is excluded when quoting. You can easily automate this process by including the sig delimiter in your templates. Even if you barely have a signature to speak of, that doesn't make any difference to whether or not you need a cut mark. You are being courteous to other readers since at least three lines of text is added to your signature by the list server. To find out why these MOD messages are posted to the list instead of private mail, please read the welcome message you received when you subscribed. Thank you. -- Groetjes, Roelof FIDO: Fading Into Discreet Obsolescence The Bat! 3.5 Return RC1 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgpgKlEC8ylBm.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: SMTP problem
Hallo Vili, On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:21:24 +0200GMT (3-5-2005, 14:21 +0200, where I live), you wrote: TBS>>> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message: TBS>>> 500 invalid domain name TBS> ??? What does it exactly mean? This address I am sending from is TBS> valid. Here are the smtp reply codes: RFC 821 August 1982 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 4.2.1. REPLY CODES BY FUNCTION GROUPS 500 Syntax error, command unrecognized [This may include errors such as command line too long] 501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments 502 Command not implemented 503 Bad sequence of commands 504 Command parameter not implemented You're getting a 500, that's a syntax error, appended with the remark 'invalid domain name', so my guess is that you're forgetting something or you've got a dot in the name without quote marks around it. Something like this: R.Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is incorrect while this: "R.Otten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is okay, something like that could cause such a reply as you got. When you really want an intelligent answer from this list, you've got to come with more data, like the exact From: header (and completenesss' sake an exact From: header too) and the smtp-server you're using. Just to be complete, here are the rest of the reply codes from rfc821. 211 System status, or system help reply 214 Help message [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only to the human user] 220 Service ready 221 Service closing transmission channel 421 Service not available, closing transmission channel [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it must shut down] 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 251 User not local; will forward to 450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable [E.g., mailbox busy] 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable [E.g., mailbox not found, no access] 451 Requested action aborted: error in processing 551 User not local; please try 452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect] 354 Start mail input; end with . 554 Transaction failed TBS> Is not it possible, that some error on the SMTP server cause this TBS> error message? Yeah sure, but in that case you'd never be able to send a message. -- Groetjes, Roelof Real SysOps hate authors of bad Shareware programs begging for money. The Bat! 3.5 Return RC1 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgp6sbp0g1j1x.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: SMTP problem
Hello Roelof, TBS>> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message: TBS>> 500 invalid domain name RO> When you're sure about those two, my guess would be that you're using RO> the wrong from address. ??? What does it exactly mean? This address I am sending from is valid. Is not it possible, that some error on the SMTP server cause this error message? Vili Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
TB! and PGPDisk
Ive been waiting for message-base encryption to be implemented, but have been thinking of an interim solution using PGPDisk. Would it slow down TB! downloads, etc., to move the message folders to an encrypted disk? Obviously the encrypted disk would need to be opened before opening TB!, but can anyone suggest any other potential issues? -- Thanks, Rick Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: SMTP problem
Hello Vili, On Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 2:30:57 AM Vili [V] wrote: V> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message: V> 500 invalid domain name V> What can be the problem? Well, if server is OK and address is OK and server moans about address, either one must be not OK. Quite obvious, isn't it? -- Regards Peter Palmreuther (The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2) You can't underestimate the power of fear. - Tricia Nixon Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Was I dreaming...?
>> Sometime earlier this year there was an email about a version of TB >> that would run from a memory stick. U> This definitely rang a bell. So I did some searching and found The Bat! U> Voyager U> http://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/thebat/news_detail.php?ID=725&phrase_id=745609 Unfortunately, you did not find TBV, you found an article about it... :( Vili Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: SMTP problem
Hallo Vili, On Tue, 3 May 2005 02:30:57 +0200GMT (3-5-2005, 2:30 +0200, where I live), you wrote: TBS> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message: TBS> 500 invalid domain name When you're sure about those two, my guess would be that you're using the wrong from address. -- Groetjes, Roelof This is just one humble opinion, collect the whole series The Bat! 3.5 Return RC1 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgpS0BWAelGWp.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
