Re[2]: Reply to problem
Hello Ben, Friday, October 13, 2006, 12:23:08 AM, you wrote: Thursday, October 12, 2006, 10:12:33 PM, Graham wrotened: GS I have a person who I email regularly. Emails that I initiate, get GS through to him, but if I reply to one of his emails he doesn't GS receive it. Do they bounce back to you or disappear? What's different about your reply template to your new message template? I cannot see any differences and I haven't made any edits to any templates. I shall look again - I cannot see anything obvious. Does anyone you mail use the same mail host/ISP? Yes, me ! We both use the same ISP to host our web site and email server. I have tried sending myself email from my University account, and then replying to my University account and it works fine. Maybe something with his local spam filter. Thanks for your help -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Reply to problem
Hello Thomas, Friday, October 13, 2006, 2:43:12 AM, you wrote: GS Thanks, but only one entry for this contact and no reply templates GS defined. When you reply, is the a spelling mistake in his address? No, I have checked this Just guessing: Maybe he has a spelling mistake in his Reply-To header, which TB uses. His other correspondents may be using the From header. How do I view the Reply to header? I have right clicked on the header and selected the Reply to option in the headers menu, but it isn't showing up. -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hallo Graham, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:59:18 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 8:59 , where I live), you wrote: GS How do I view the Reply to header? I have right clicked on the header GS and selected the Reply to option in the headers menu, but it isn't GS showing up. Press Shift-Ctrl-K to view all headers (including the reply-to header) while viewing the message. Press Shift-Ctrl-K again to make them disappear. -- Groetjes, Roelof Fatal System Error: (A)bort (R)etry (G)et OS/2 http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpwrWjX3SrlY.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Old account remove from choices?
Hallo Tom, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:22:53 +1000GMT (13-10-2006, 4:22 , where I live), you wrote: TL Only issue is that if I write emails, the old account still shows up TL as an option. Is there any way only to show active accounts so that I TL don't use the old account by mistake when sending an email. TL Alternatively if I could move the old account down in the hierarchy TL that would do too. Only to don't have it show up would be to delete it. You might consider copying all the stuff in that account to a common folder tree, that way it would still be accessible, but you can delete the account. I think that in order to drop it in the hierarchy you've got to change stuff in the registry in: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT\The Bat!\Users Depot As a one account user I don't dare to guarantee any success with this. -- Groetjes, Roelof It's not a bug. It's a seldom used hidden feature. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpSfsZPwrm8e.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Account Alerts / take The Bat offline for a moment
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Original message text=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Closing the firewall still gets the error beep from the bat checking email... I would like to momentarily tell the bat to not check email. Going thru 30 accounts and turning it off for a moment would be a pain... But if we get enoguh support for this: http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=6053 Then this will achieve the same result in that one tick would stop checking for all accounts... -- Marten Gallagher Annery Kiln Web Design www.annerykiln.co.uk Using The Bat! 3.85.03 with K9 on Windows XP 5.1 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Reply to problem
Hello Roelof, Friday, October 13, 2006, 9:10:49 AM, you wrote: Press Shift-Ctrl-K to view all headers (including the reply-to header) while viewing the message. Press Shift-Ctrl-K again to make them disappear. I have extracted the headers from a send to email (upper) and a reply to email (lower). Can anyone see anything strange about them. Many thanks. Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:34:25 +0100 From: Graham Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.85.03) Professional Reply-To: Graham Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Bisset [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PSU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:31:41 +0100 From: Graham Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.85.03) Professional Reply-To: Graham Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Bisset [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: PSU questions In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Old account remove from choices?
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 at 10:16:52 +0200, Roelof wrote: I think that in order to drop it in the hierarchy you've got to change stuff in the registry in: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT\The Bat!\Users Depot No you don't. Ctrl-Shift-Up and Ctrl-Shift-Down will move accounts as well as folders within and account. -- Robin Using The Bat! v3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Popfile v0.22.4 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Old account remove from choices?
Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:06:26 PM, you wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 at 10:16:52 +0200, Roelof wrote: I think that in order to drop it in the hierarchy you've got to change stuff in the registry in: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT\The Bat!\Users Depot No you don't. Ctrl-Shift-Up and Ctrl-Shift-Down will move accounts as well as folders within and account. I think you misunderstood. I realise that I can shift the account and folder itself in the panel up or down. My issue is that when creating a new message and checking the active account under options, the now obsolete account is prominently featured in the number 2 spot next to the replacement account. If I am in a hurry, I might tick the wrong box. -- Tom using TheBat! 3.85.02 on XP Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Old account remove from choices?
Hello Tom, I think you misunderstood. I realise that I can shift the account and folder itself in the panel up or down. My issue is that when creating a new message and checking the active account under options, the now obsolete account is prominently featured in the number 2 spot next to the replacement account. If I am in a hurry, I might tick the wrong box. Set an access password to your old account and keep it collapsed. This way, if you select it by mistake you will notice it when you are asked for the password. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.86.03 ALPHA (beta) Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Old account remove from choices?
Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:43:53 PM, you wrote: Hello Tom, I think you misunderstood. I realise that I can shift the account and folder itself in the panel up or down. My issue is that when creating a new message and checking the active account under options, the now obsolete account is prominently featured in the number 2 spot next to the replacement account. If I am in a hurry, I might tick the wrong box. Set an access password to your old account and keep it collapsed. This way, if you select it by mistake you will notice it when you are asked for the password. Good idea, did not know about this option. I had deleted the smtp details in account management to prevent sending an email but your solution is much more elegant. -- Tom using TheBat! 3.85.02 on XP Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Reply to problem
Hello Thomas, Friday, October 13, 2006, 2:43:12 AM, you wrote: GS Thanks, but only one entry for this contact and no reply templates GS defined. When you reply, is the a spelling mistake in his address? No, I have checked this Just guessing: Maybe he has a spelling mistake in his Reply-To header, which TB uses. His other correspondents may be using the From header. How do I view the Reply to header? I have right clicked on the header and selected the Reply to option in the headers menu, but it isn't showing up. For your information I have exactly the same problem when sending emails to a client in Australia. All replies disappear into the ether. Sending standalone emails seems to work. I have asked their IT people to look into their firewall, spam filters etc. but to no avail. This only happens with this one email address. I have started to send faxes to back up emails as a last resort! One suggestion: Have you tried to send replies to this address from another email client e.g. a web based client such as Yahoo, Gmail etc? If this works it's either a Bat or a server issue. Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Reply to problem
Hello David, Friday, October 13, 2006, 1:50:48 PM, you wrote: For your information I have exactly the same problem when sending emails to a client in Australia. All replies disappear into the ether. Sending standalone emails seems to work. I have asked their IT people to look into their firewall, spam filters etc. but to no avail. This only happens with this one email address. I have started to send faxes to back up emails as a last resort! One suggestion: Have you tried to send replies to this address from another email client e.g. a web based client such as Yahoo, Gmail etc? If this works it's either a Bat or a server issue. Interesting. I've only been using The Bat! for a couple of weeks and never had any problems with Outlook, which I have used replying to this address regularly in the past. No other changes seems to have occurred - no new anti-spam software etc. The only change seems to be using The Bat! Strange. -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hallo Graham, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:21:19 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 11:21 , where I live), you wrote: disappear. GS I have extracted the headers from a send to email (upper) and a reply GS to email (lower). Can anyone see anything strange about them. Many GS thanks. I can't see anything wrong with it. Here's a wild guess, what if you disable 'reply numbering'? GS Subject: Re[2]: PSU questions Because I can't see anything wrong with both messages. You can disable reply numbering at: Account - Properties - Templates - Reply - Use reply numbering in the subject line -- Groetjes, Roelof Blessed are the pessimistic, for they hath made backups. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpvs1kldOaDC.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Mod: Cut mark (was: Reply to problem)
Hallo David, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:50:48 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 14:50 +0200, where I live), you wrote: DE etc? If this works it's either a Bat or a server issue. 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 David. ' Please include a signature delimiter in your messages. This consists of a dashdashspacereturn, 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. /moderator -- Groetjes, Roelof Flame On: something moderators will ban you for doing pgpwBwtKslsHp.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Reply to problem
Hello Roelof, Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:08:33 PM, you wrote: Because I can't see anything wrong with both messages. You can disable reply numbering at: Account - Properties - Templates - Reply - Use reply numbering in the subject line Is this going to affect message threading? -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hallo Graham, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:27:15 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 16:27 , where I live), you wrote: You can disable reply numbering at: GS Is this going to affect message threading? No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients. For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject it might improve threading. -- Groetjes, Roelof What do you mean, you formatted the cat?!? http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgppN8PTWAUhA.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Reply to problem
Hello Roelof, Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:52:06 PM, you wrote: You can disable reply numbering at: GS Is this going to affect message threading? No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients. For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject it might improve threading. Thanks, I will give this a try. -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello Graham, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:59:18 +0100 GMT (13/10/2006, 13:59 +0700 GMT), Graham Smith wrote: When you reply, is the a spelling mistake in his address? GS No, I have checked this That crashes my theory. Just guessing: Maybe he has a spelling mistake in his Reply-To header, which TB uses. His other correspondents may be using the From header. GS How do I view the Reply to header? I have right clicked on the header GS and selected the Reply to option in the headers menu, but it isn't GS showing up. Crtl-K was suggested to see all headers. You can also hit F9 to see the whole source of the message, which is what I usually do. It will also show you other problems, such as unbalanced boundaries. Not that I have experienced TB! generating such a problem, though. -- Cheers, Thomas. If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation? http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 3.85.03 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Account Alerts / take The Bat offline for a moment
Hello Scott, On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:51:53 -0500 GMT (13/10/2006, 11:51 +0700 GMT), Scott wrote: What I do, is close my firewall. This is a mere workaround. I would like a menu item under Options / Network Admin to do that. S =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Original message text=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= S Closing the firewall still gets the error beep from the bat S checking email... Yes. As I said, it's a work-around. S I would like to momentarily tell the bat to not check email. Going S thru 30 accounts and turning it off for a moment would be a pain... Agreed. -- Cheers, Thomas. Why do people give each other flowers? To celebrate various important occasions, they're killing living creatures? Why restrict it to plants? Sweetheart, let's make up. Have this deceased squirrel. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 3.85.03 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:52:06 +0200, Roelof Otten wrote: GSIs this going to affect message threading? No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients. For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject it might improve threading. However, other mail clients DO have a problem when replying to those numbered Re: TB-specific messages, because they don't recognize them as such. Which leads to messages with Subjects like: Re: Re[4]: Reply to problem. In short, this Re: numbering is non-RFC, superfluous and stupid, and RIT should get rid of it as soon as possible Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Reply to problem
Hello Thomas, Friday, October 13, 2006, 4:17:40 PM, you wrote: Crtl-K was suggested to see all headers. You can also hit F9 to see the whole source of the message, which is what I usually do. It will also show you other problems, such as unbalanced boundaries. Not that I have experienced TB! generating such a problem, though. F9 looks useful. thanks -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello Arjan de Groot everyone else, on 13-Okt-2006 at 17:27 you (Arjan de Groot) wrote: In short, this Re: numbering is non-RFC Can you point me to the RFC that says reply prefixes *MUST NOT* contain these numbers? superfluous and stupid, and RIT should get rid of it as soon as possible Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello Roelof, Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:52:06 PM, you wrote: You can disable reply numbering at: GS Is this going to affect message threading? No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients. For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject it might improve threading. This seems to have worked :-) Many thanks -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello David, Friday, October 13, 2006, 1:50:48 PM, you wrote: For your information I have exactly the same problem when sending emails to a client in Australia. All replies disappear into the ether. Sending standalone emails seems to work. I have asked their IT people to look into their firewall, spam filters etc. but to no avail. This only happens with this one email address. I have started to send faxes to back up emails as a last resort! I don't know if you are following the other parts of this thread but the suggestion from Roelof seems to have worked and my problem email address is now receiving reply to emails from The Bat! ...disable reply numbering at: Account - Properties - Templates - Reply - Use reply numbering in the subject line -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hallo Graham, On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:24:39 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 19:24 , where I live), you wrote: You can disable reply numbering at: GS This seems to have worked :-) In that case it's most likely that the Re[2]: in the subject was triggering some sort of spam filter. Just out of curiosity, did you even receive your own replies to the list back at your account, considering that you are using the same ISP as your friend? -- Groetjes, Roelof Windows:(n.)3. The solution to a problem that didn't exist. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpZuwqPFP2vD.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello Roelof, Friday, October 13, 2006, 7:08:24 PM, you wrote: You can disable reply numbering at: GS This seems to have worked :-) In that case it's most likely that the Re[2]: in the subject was triggering some sort of spam filter. Just out of curiosity, did you even receive your own replies to the list back at your account, considering that you are using the same ISP as your friend? I have been having no problems. including emails that I sent to myself from my University account, and then replied back to myself from The Bat! (at home). They all arrived as expected. But since changing this setting I have now sent and received three emails using the reply to, and it is working. He has no local Spam filter, but we are using different servers at the ISP, so maybe they are set up slightly diferently. -- Best regards, Graham mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.85.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:15:27 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: In short, this Re: numbering is non-RFC Can you point me to the RFC that says reply prefixes *MUST NOT* contain these numbers? RFC-2822 has this to say: 3.6.5. Informational fields [...] The Subject: field is the most common and contains a short string identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string Re: (from the Latin res, in the matter of) followed by the contents of the Subject: field body of the original message. If this is done, only one instance of the literal string Re: ought to be used since use of other strings or more than one instance can lead to undesirable consequences. If I understand correctly, it implies: you MAY use 1 instance of Re: in a reply, but you SHOULD NOT use other strings as it can lead to undesirable consequences. superfluous and stupid, and RIT should get rid of it as soon as possible Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
On Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:24:35 PM, Arjan de Groot on TBUDL wrote: Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. I never have understood why we had that option to begin with. That's always one of the first things I do on setting up an account, turn off reply numbering. -- David Cá fhad é ó an tús go deireadh? Turas mór. Using The Bat! v3.86.03 ALPHA (beta) on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello Arjan de Groot everyone else, on 13-Okt-2006 at 21:24 you (Arjan de Groot) wrote: [...] The Subject: field is the most common and contains a short string identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string Re: (from the Latin res, in the matter of) followed by the contents of the Subject: field body of the original message. If this is done, only one instance of the literal string Re: ought to be used since use of other strings or more than one instance can lead to undesirable consequences. If I understand correctly, it implies: you MAY use 1 instance of Re: in a reply, but you SHOULD NOT use other strings as it can lead to undesirable consequences. That is one interpretation. :-) Another fine example of an RFC that doesn't create clarity, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. The only thing that is absolutely clear in this paragraph is: if you add Re:, you should add it only once. The rest? Pretty washy in my opinion. Its always *may* and *ought to* - not *must*. Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. Well, that is your opinion. I wouldn't use such hard words. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) Non-Reciprocal Law of Expectations: Negative expectations yield negative results. Positive expectations yield negative results. Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
Hello Roelof Otten everyone else, on 13-Okt-2006 at 20:08 you (Roelof Otten) wrote: In that case it's most likely that the Re[2]: in the subject was triggering some sort of spam filter. That sounds very plausible. There's been quite some spam in the past that contained this Re: numbering in the subject. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it with the handle of anxiety or the handle of faith. -- H. W. Beecher Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:25:45 -0400, David Calvarese wrote: Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. I never have understood why we had that option to begin with. That's always one of the first things I do on setting up an account, turn off reply numbering. Shortly after sending my previous message I suddenly remembered the SINGLERE macro. Back in the TB! v1.xx days you had to use this macro in Reply-templates in order to suppress the default Re[x]: numbering. I never understood the purpose of this TB! specific idiosyncrazy. Maybe it is some kind of inheritance of the BBS-era of the late eighties, begin nineties, or something like that. Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:53:46 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: If I understand correctly, it implies: you MAY use 1 instance of Re: in a reply, but you SHOULD NOT use other strings as it can lead to undesirable consequences. That is one interpretation. :-) Another fine example of an RFC that doesn't create clarity, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. That's RFCs for you... ;-) The rest? Pretty washy in my opinion. Its always *may* and *ought to* - not *must*. Yes of course. But these RFCs have nevertheless led to some kind of generally accepted consensus on e-mail formatting. And that's what counts in the end. Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. Well, that is your opinion. I wouldn't use such hard words. I call it stupid because it serves no purpose whatsoever. No other mail-client that I know of understands it, no e-mail user that I know of cares about it. It's just code sitting in there for nothing. Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Messages forwarded automatically by a filter dropping attachments
Hi On Tuesday 10 October 2006 at 1:06:00 AM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Phillips wrote: MFPA, you wrote: Using The Bat! v3.80.06 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Also suggest you upgrade both XP Bat. [OT] Cannot upgrade XP as Service Pack 2 causes windows explorer to crash as soon as a file or folder is selected, followed by Dr Watson postmortem debugger experiencing a problem and needing to close, followed by freezing... /[OT] Will probably get around to upgrading TB! again before long. -- Best regards, MFPA The truth is rarely pure and never simple Using The Bat! v3.80.06 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Messages forwarded automatically by a filter dropping attachments
Hi On Tuesday 10 October 2006 at 1:04:51 AM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Phillips wrote: Check that you do not have a tick in Do not include attachments in the filter. Had not noticed the edit button... but no luck, all three tick boxes already unticked. -- Best regards, MFPA War is a matter of vital importance to the State. Using The Bat! v3.80.06 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (no subject)
Hi On Tuesday 10 October 2006 at 7:49:24 PM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Roelof Otten wrote: Could not connect to the server is an odd error. You tried this: smtp.googlemail.com TLS to port 465 pop.googlemail.comTLS to port 995 smtp authentication enabled of course, but don't select 'secure authentication' FWIW, here for my gmail account it is smtp.gmail.com, STARTTLS toport 587 and pop.gmail.com, TLS to port 995 -- Best regards, MFPA During an eruption - move away from the volcano - not towards it Using The Bat! v3.80.06 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply to problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 14 Oct 2006, @ @ at 00:01:36 +0200, when Arjan de Groot wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:53:46 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: If I understand correctly, it implies: you MAY use 1 instance of Re: in a reply, but you SHOULD NOT use other strings as it can lead to undesirable consequences. That is one interpretation. :-) Another fine example of an RFC that doesn't create clarity, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. That's RFCs for you... ;-) The rest? Pretty washy in my opinion. Its always *may* and *ought to* - not *must*. Yes of course. But these RFCs have nevertheless led to some kind of generally accepted consensus on e-mail formatting. And that's what counts in the end. Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. Well, that is your opinion. I wouldn't use such hard words. I call it stupid because it serves no purpose whatsoever. No other mail-client that I know of understands it, no e-mail user that I know of cares about it. It's just code sitting in there for nothing. It's pretty good and legitimate determination, since stupidity is a poor ability to understand and profit from experience, while its antonym, intelligence, denotes ability to recognize connections between things and their essential relations, in experiencing them, and particularly if those experiences are something new. Besides, RCFs are just and only and exclusively _recommendations_, not any form of a strict rules, or laws or anything similar. They are actually a sets of recommended/chosen _habits_, and in no way any sort of standards. Hence those who do not understand the very nature, definition and purpose of RFCs cannot profit from experiencing them as such through the act of reading. Many indeed quite often mix up RFCs with standards (the things that define quality, not a habits) and similar strict types of rules, and it not so rarely happens even to software developers, their sponsors, corporative customers etc. - -- Mica ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From field, otherwise it will not reach me. ~~~ GPG keys/docs/software at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ http://tronogi.tripod.com/pgp/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 670 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, Gentoo Vector ~ Wine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-svn-4217 o tiger192 i686 (Cygwin/MinGW32) iQEVAwUBRTA6/rSpHvHEUtv8AQgsmggApYzr1VNjk7jWv8dqUjs/06JpKdK01QY/ LTUdtFPP3cAV925t20QZqnmo3KYhCBJYiztEi6seeYv+BMjSgbGMC69HpuTMfrow gvkMBLQGFgCtBfL7GWyc18dTpkErsoel/zs+vvCoxQABPZQ9y5naFtEhPpnoG7UL TxnIKS0NPT/NcC7eQImTw0alCoWXQVKKdpmLuAlrXfLSem8qc/jM3XgBmkG/p0tx 8911zMbbOjLsN9mcaRP/ewl3g36aJ2dpB3116iivnA8AJeY9VPS923haJNY1MVSS BEWvhdGOK+OkCauB4idhfWjLRWfR1YiEd/VvEUf+++kstumpVWlCcQ== =lwzb -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
