Re: One time encryption
On Thursday, September 18, 2008, 8:45:11 PM, you wrote: > Stealing credit card information is a million-dollar business. > However, even in that business they try to be efficient. It is much > more efficient to steal this information while being online than > having to physically go to tap every fax cable. Of course that's all true. I'm not disputing any of that. There is a risk of online information being stolen. It's just not something I'm going to put much energy into worrying about. There are other smarter and more competent (and more paranoid) people out there who do worry about these things, and I'm grateful for that. I like to think that I generally understand the risks and that I'm reasonably prudent in how I exchange information. I'm glad there are secure transmission protocols, encryption mechanisms, trusted sites and all kinds of other things in place so I don't have to worry about it. -- Running The Bat! version 4.0.24 under Windows XP Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Tbot-subscribe: question (OT)
Good evening list, Yesterday i sent a request to subscribe to the Tbot list... haven't heard back ... is it still active? -- Best regards, Luc Using the best e-mail client: The Bat! version 4.0.18 with Windows XP (build 2600), version 5.1 Service Pack 2 and using the best browser: Opera. "Observe your enemies for they first find out your faults." Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: One time encryption
Hello Gene, On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:31:07 -0400 GMT (19/09/2008, 03:31 +0700 GMT), Gene Brown wrote: >> Yes, anything is possible for a dedicated criminal or legal agency. My >> point was the physical access, which means somebody has to be there. >> With hacking on the internet, the criminal can be anywhere in the >> world. GB> Sure, but is it worth worrying about? Y' know, I'm just a guy. I GB> have a credit card I sometimes use online, have some mostly boring GB> email, and visit mainly innocuous web sites. For the most part, it GB> would be more trouble than it's worth for someone to go after this GB> stuff. Stealing credit card information is a million-dollar business. However, even in that business they try to be efficient. It is much more efficient to steal this information while being online than having to physically go to tap every fax cable. GB> It's not like I'm the governor of Alaska or something. ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas. When a clock is hungry, it goes back four seconds. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.0.28.4 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[4]: Two TheBat processes
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Dan Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thursday, September 18, 2008, 6:58:38 AM, you wrote: > >> Do you think this is a Vista problem or an issue with TheBat!? With >> whom did you raise it? >> I use Vista Basic Business (or whatever it is called). When I upgraded >> to Vista, Home Premium was not possible for me. I forget the reason. > > I don't think it is Vista related, since others have reported it here > too. But can't swear what OS they're on. Maybe if others have it on > non-Vista OS they could report it. > > But I don't see two PROCESSES in Task manager, just the display of the > second button in the Taskbar. Task manager shows just one process > named thebat.exe. Other programs do show multiple processes. For > example, chrome.exe (which I've just made my default instead of IE7, > despite a couple of shortcomings) shows five processes, even though I > only have 3 tabs open. > > That's what I know as of now. > > dan > > can provide more details if anyone wants, such as the developers > > Same here: I see TheBat twice under applications and only once under processes. Whom did you contact about this problem? Leonard -- Leonard S. Berkowitz Reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: One time encryption
On Thursday, September 18, 2008, 12:37:05 PM, you wrote: > Yes, anything is possible for a dedicated criminal or legal agency. My > point was the physical access, which means somebody has to be there. > With hacking on the internet, the criminal can be anywhere in the > world. Sure, but is it worth worrying about? Y' know, I'm just a guy. I have a credit card I sometimes use online, have some mostly boring email, and visit mainly innocuous web sites. For the most part, it would be more trouble than it's worth for someone to go after this stuff. It's not like I'm the governor of Alaska or something. -- Running The Bat! version 4.0.24 under Windows XP Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: One time encryption
Hello Jernej, On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:19:08 +0200 GMT (18/09/2008, 03:19 +0700 GMT), Jernej Simončič wrote: >> True. But the eavesdropper needs to have physical access to the >> appropriate cable at least once, while email can be hacked remotely. JS> Which is much easier to get than you imagine - most buildings have the JS> phone exchange somewhere in the basement, and it's usually not hard to JS> get to it. Then you just need to tap the appropriate line (which is JS> harder if you don't know the line number in advance, as these places JS> often have several hundred lines going through). Yes, anything is possible for a dedicated criminal or legal agency. My point was the physical access, which means somebody has to be there. With hacking on the internet, the criminal can be anywhere in the world. JS> Anyway, e-mail is not a secure way to transfer credit card details, JS> unless you encrypt it with the recipient's certificate. JS> The point I was trying to make is that most retailers that have online JS> shops usually have a single database for orders, so it doesn't matter JS> in what way you get your credit card details to them - it'll end up in JS> the same place anyway. And this is the database that must be kept JS> secure (and practically the only source from which an attacker could JS> gain the card number from - all major breaches so far happened because JS> this database wasn't secured properly). We agree on this. >> For the technology yes. However, I would believe that the number of >> hackers connecting their fax machines (or software equivalent) to >> other people's phone/fax lines is less than those intercepting IP >> traffic remotely. That's just a guess, I have no figures. JS> You can't intercept IP traffic that doesn't pass through a system JS> under your control. But then, a dedicated criminal can bring a system under his control from anywhere in the world. Maybe he can just spy out the password that opens the information to him. Are we moving in circles yet? ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas. My husband and I divorced over religious differences. He thought he was God and I didn't. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.0.28.4 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Auto filtering of incoming mail
On Monday, September 15, 2008, 4:48:48 AM, Stefan Tanurkov wrote: ST> Hello Jon, JP>> I sent the files as instructed, but have not heard back. Did you JP>> receive them? ST> Yes I did. Please excuse me for answering so late - I had to ST> resolve some local problems last week... Any updates? I cannot sort this problem out. I tried deleting all the account.srb files and rebuilding the filters. I was unsuccessful in getting my main account to filter automatically. Thank you for your help. Jon Using The Bat! v4.0.34.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 -- "We're spending money on clean coal technology. Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"— George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Two TheBat processes
Thursday, September 18, 2008, 8:27:24 AM, you wrote: > Replying to my own message, but noted one added possible clue for > developers. Clicking on the "real" button does what is expected, > restoring minimized window, or minimizing the window, etc. Clicking > on the "greyed out" or "false" button does nothing. BUT if you right > click on the false button and choose close, it closes TheBat (i.e. > both buttons and the application). The right click also gives you the > option of minimize and restore, but neither of those are functional. Yet one more clue just discovered: I have taskbar at top of screen. If I minimize the bat by "normal methods": click minus sign in upper right right click on real button and choose minimize just click on real button it then works normally, minimizing the program to the task bar. BUT if I right click on the "false button" and choose minimize a miniature "the bat" top bar in the lower left corner of screen. This is visible only if all programs minimized. That is, when you open a window of any program (at least those I've tried, IE, Chrome, Bat, and a couple of others) that "mini bar" is covered up, but reappears when you view the desktop itself. AND if you click close on that button, it closes the Bat ungracefully, saying that it has encountered an error (the standard such Windows message, don't recall details of wording) and is checking for a solution. It then restarts the Bat. It appears nothing is lost or corrupted, though haven't tried it when have had a new message window open. dan -- The road goes on forever and the party never ends. REK, Jr. Dan Lester, Boise, ID Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Two TheBat processes
Thursday, September 18, 2008, 8:20:17 AM, you wrote: >> The "processes" pane of my task manager currently shows just one >> instance of thebat.exe. The "applications" pane has two The Bat! >> entries (plus one Edit Mail Message). > I now see the two "applications" as well, despite there being only one > "process" in the other tab. hadn't noticed the duplicate applications > before, since normally only look at processes. And two buttons in > task bar, plus the "edit mail" button. Replying to my own message, but noted one added possible clue for developers. Clicking on the "real" button does what is expected, restoring minimized window, or minimizing the window, etc. Clicking on the "greyed out" or "false" button does nothing. BUT if you right click on the false button and choose close, it closes TheBat (i.e. both buttons and the application). The right click also gives you the option of minimize and restore, but neither of those are functional. dan -- The road goes on forever and the party never ends. REK, Jr. Dan Lester, Boise, ID Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Two TheBat processes
Thursday, September 18, 2008, 7:53:32 AM, you wrote: > Hi > On Thursday 18 September 2008 at 2:36:03 PM, in > , Dan Lester wrote: >> I don't think it is Vista related, since others have reported it >> here too. But can't swear what OS they're on. Maybe if others have >> it on non-Vista OS they could report it. > As per my signature:- > Using The Bat! v4.0.34 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 I'm on same version of Bat, but on Vista Home Premium SP1, with all available patches. >> But I don't see two PROCESSES in Task manager, just the display of >> the second button in the Taskbar. > I currently have just one The Bat! button on my taskbar (plus one Edit > Mail Message). >> Task manager shows just one process named thebat.exe. > The "processes" pane of my task manager currently shows just one > instance of thebat.exe. The "applications" pane has two The Bat! > entries (plus one Edit Mail Message). I now see the two "applications" as well, despite there being only one "process" in the other tab. hadn't noticed the duplicate applications before, since normally only look at processes. And two buttons in task bar, plus the "edit mail" button. dan -- The road goes on forever and the party never ends. REK, Jr. Dan Lester, Boise, ID Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: One time encryption
My last msg in this thread, comments below as required. Thursday, September 18, 2008, 7:36:43 AM, you wrote: >> Most US banks put it on by default. > Fair enough. We don't get that in the UK. My phone number is private > and not the bank's or the payee's business unless I decide otherwise. Of course for most of us, it is public in the phone book anyway, unless we pay them the fee to keep it private. >> In the past, at least, stores would always ask for it when you wrote >> the check and they checked your drivers license. > If they accepted cheques larger than your cheque guarantee limit they > would often ask for your address over here, rarely phone number. One > bank I know of used to print the customer's address on their cheques > but had to stop this nearly 20 years ago. Most in US don't have check guarantees, though they do have overdraft protection (i.e. the bank will automatically lend you the money in hundred dollar increments, up to some predefined limit). >> As noted, these days the checks are generally scanned and confirmed >> electronically, much like your credit/debit card is. > To me, that would defeat the object of paying by cheque. If the money > is in your account today, it is quicker and easier to pay by card. If > it will be there in a day or two, the cheque used today will hit your > account after the money gets there. Basically, they're eliminating the float, which makes sense to them. But in most grocery stores and such, there is not float. But you can always pay by credit card if you need to float it. >> I'm sure the checks in question had been ordered several years >> before they were used. > I used to be like that - the banks automatically send a new chequebook > from time to time and you end up with lots of them. Checks here are never free. You can buy them from the bank, but many companies will sell them to you at a much lower rate per check. >> I'm not sure if our current ones have phone or not. > If people change mobile phone numbers as frequently there as here, it > would never be up to date. I'm sure few people would give the bank a new > phone number to harrass them on. True enough. And those aren't listed in phone book. One of the nice things now is the ability to keep the same phone number forever, whether cell, wired, changing cell companies, etc. I recently changed cell providers and kept the same number. Would have been a major problem if I didn't keep it, due to so many business records being keyed to it. As noted, my final public reply on this getting-off-topic thread, but will be happy to discuss with anyone who cares by private email. -- The road goes on forever and the party never ends. REK, Jr. Dan Lester, Boise, ID Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Two TheBat processes
Hi On Thursday 18 September 2008 at 2:36:03 PM, in , Dan Lester wrote: > I don't think it is Vista related, since others have reported it > here too. But can't swear what OS they're on. Maybe if others have > it on non-Vista OS they could report it. As per my signature:- Using The Bat! v4.0.34 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 > But I don't see two PROCESSES in Task manager, just the display of > the second button in the Taskbar. I currently have just one The Bat! button on my taskbar (plus one Edit Mail Message). > Task manager shows just one process named thebat.exe. The "processes" pane of my task manager currently shows just one instance of thebat.exe. The "applications" pane has two The Bat! entries (plus one Edit Mail Message). -- Best regards, MFPA He's an environmentalist - his arguments are 100% recycled Using The Bat! v4.0.34 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: One time encryption
Hi On Thursday 18 September 2008 at 1:46:19 PM, in , Dan Lester wrote: >> Phone number? On a cheque? > Most US banks put it on by default. Fair enough. We don't get that in the UK. My phone number is private and not the bank's or the payee's business unless I decide otherwise. > In the past, at least, stores would always ask for it when you wrote > the check and they checked your drivers license. If they accepted cheques larger than your cheque guarantee limit they would often ask for your address over here, rarely phone number. One bank I know of used to print the customer's address on their cheques but had to stop this nearly 20 years ago. > As noted, these days the checks are generally scanned and confirmed > electronically, much like your credit/debit card is. To me, that would defeat the object of paying by cheque. If the money is in your account today, it is quicker and easier to pay by card. If it will be there in a day or two, the cheque used today will hit your account after the money gets there. > I'm sure the checks in question had been ordered several years > before they were used. I used to be like that - the banks automatically send a new chequebook from time to time and you end up with lots of them. > I'm not sure if our current ones have phone or not. If people change mobile phone numbers as frequently there as here, it would never be up to date. I'm sure few people would give the bank a new phone number to harrass them on. This is getting way off-topic. -- Best regards, MFPA No matter where you go, there you are. Using The Bat! v4.0.34 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Two TheBat processes
Thursday, September 18, 2008, 6:58:38 AM, you wrote: > Do you think this is a Vista problem or an issue with TheBat!? With > whom did you raise it? > I use Vista Basic Business (or whatever it is called). When I upgraded > to Vista, Home Premium was not possible for me. I forget the reason. I don't think it is Vista related, since others have reported it here too. But can't swear what OS they're on. Maybe if others have it on non-Vista OS they could report it. But I don't see two PROCESSES in Task manager, just the display of the second button in the Taskbar. Task manager shows just one process named thebat.exe. Other programs do show multiple processes. For example, chrome.exe (which I've just made my default instead of IE7, despite a couple of shortcomings) shows five processes, even though I only have 3 tabs open. That's what I know as of now. dan can provide more details if anyone wants, such as the developers -- The road goes on forever and the party never ends. REK, Jr. Dan Lester, Boise, ID Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: Two TheBat processes
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Dan Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 1:15:26 PM, you wrote: > >>> Recently, I have noticed two TheBat processes at the bottom of the >>> screen. If I try to close either one, the other will be closed as >>> well. > >> I sometimes get that, usually if something running on the computer is >> causing intensive processor activity or hanging. I get it with >> firefox more often. > > I raised the issue recently and didn't get a response. For me, under > Vista Home Premium, I get it at all times, whether Bat starts first > after a clean boot, whether I'm using IE, Chrome, or anything else. > > In fact, think I raised it just a couple days ago. Not a big deal, > just takes up extra room on a crowded taskbar (at the top of screen > for me) > Dan, Do you think this is a Vista problem or an issue with TheBat!? With whom did you raise it? I use Vista Basic Business (or whatever it is called). When I upgraded to Vista, Home Premium was not possible for me. I forget the reason. Thanks. Leonard -- Leonard Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: One time encryption
Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 4:15:40 PM, you wrote: > Hi > On Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 8:13:23 PM, in > , Dan Lester wrote: >> When they write the check they cross out the phone number on it > Phone number? On a cheque? Most US banks put it on by default. In the past, at least, stores would always ask for it when you wrote the check and they checked your drivers license. As noted, these days the checks are generally scanned and confirmed electronically, much like your credit/debit card is. I'm sure the checks in question had been ordered several years before they were used. Since I don't write the few checks I'm not sure if our current ones have phone or not. dan -- The road goes on forever and the party never ends. REK, Jr. Dan Lester, Boise, ID Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
