Generating notifications under RFC 3798
Hello there, I am wondering if there is any setting for The Bat! to generate reading confirmations within the framework of RFC 3798, i.e. with Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=disposition-notification; When looking through my "Sent receipts" folder, I see that back in 2005, I managed to send several of those with TB! 3.5, and several more with 3.0.1.33. However, in other cases the latter also produced Content-Type: multipart/mixed; sometimes, and that is also the behaviour of the current version (at least here, with default template for receipts). Why not producing RFC3798-compliant receipt headers by default? Regards, Maksym Kozub -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.80.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: How to use a sent email again
Thomas Fernandez wrote: TF> I move it from the Sent folder to the Outbox. It will be resent at TF> next periodical send/check. TF> If I want to change something, I double-click on it in the Outbox, it TF> will open in the editor. However, I have to do that before the next TF> periodical send/check. Tou can let it stay in your Outbox as long as you wish to think over your changes, if you set a "Draft" flag immediately after moving the message to the Outbox :). Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.80.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Address book bug (contact deletion): anybody to confirm?
Roelof Otten wrote: RO> Definitely a bug, but not one that's likely to surface in a real life RO> environment. I found it in my real life environment... RO> I added a not to your bug. Thank you, I've already seen your comment in an e-mail notification from Bugtraq. Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Address book bug (contact deletion): anybody to confirm?
There has been a long-standing bug when deleting contacts from the AB. If the contact is in two groups, and each of those has "Hide items if not explicitly selected", then when deleting _any one_ of those groups, the contact gets deleted (even though it should stay in the other group). I submitted a bug report at https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=5826, but Stefan says he cannot confirm it (which is somehow mysterious...). Could any kind soul out there test it with their installation and report the results on the Bugtraq? Best regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Easier solution (was: Re: Solution: storing message to the same folder as original message
Marek Mikus wrote: MM> tried to do it easily with no plugin and no new header: Thank you for your solutions, Marek! -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] (website temporarily unaccessible) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Putting a reply into the same folder where the original message is stored?
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:. ASK> on 06-Mrz-2006 at 12:08 you (vitalie vrabie) wrote: >>> You must create a "sent" filter for each recipient that will move the >>> reply to the appropriate folder. >> move? in Maksim's setup, this works okay only until he'll reply to 2 or >> more customers in one message. ASK> Additional restrictions may apply, sure. ASK> I for one never reply to two individual customers in one message. :-) Fair enough. Usually, I don't do that either. Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] (website temporarily unaccessible) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Putting a reply into the same folder where the original message is stored?
MAU wrote: M> All I need is an Outgoing filter with filter 'Any message' and action M> 'Move to the folder \\MAU\Familia\%ToName' M> Of course, I have an equivalent Incoming filter using %FromName. And I M> believe this also works with %FromAddress and %ToAddress. And if you M> tick the appropriate box, the folder will be created if doesn't exist. Thank you so much! I didn't even try it that way after I tried some other macros in filters and those didn't work. But I've tried this one right now, and it works fine. Again, lots of thanks here! It's at least a big part of the solution I need. I'll try and play with other macros in the filter action. I've already tried %FolderName in the (vain) hope that if I start a reply (or a new message) from a certain folder, it will place the sent message into that folder. However, it turns out that this macro returns Outbox, i.e., whenever you start writing a message, TB! makes Outbox the current folder (even though folder focus doesn't move in the main program window). Does anybody know how to get (if it's possible) an expression to return "Name of the folder where a message being replied to is stored"? :) Best regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] (website temporarily unaccessible) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Putting a reply into the same folder where the original message is stored?
Richard Wakeford wrote: RW> You can get round that if you BCC to yourself. When your BCC comes back RW> you can have the recipient and sender in the same inbox filter. You can RW> also have two physical copies of your message. One in the sent folder RW> (the main message) and the BCC filtered as a reply to the original RW> poster in the thread. Well, I would prefer to avoid (for a number of reasons) BCC-ing ezch and every message I send... Thanks for the idea, though. Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] (website temporarily unaccessible) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Putting a reply into the same folder where the original message is stored?
Alexander S. Kunz wrote: >> I hoped there is some way to do it "once and forever"... ASK> I fear there isn't. ASK> I think this is a long standing wish. Well, let's wait and see then... >> I tend to avoid using VF. With thousands of messsages, they >> considerably slow down my TB!. ASK> Really? I have about 17000 messages in TB currently and... erm... ASK> (counting) 13 VFs, its not slow here. I have about 185,000 messages (and no, I will not move them to the archive, since I need to do some search through professional mailing lists etc. every now & then). -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] (website temporarily unaccessible) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Putting a reply into the same folder where the original message is stored?
Alexander S. Kunz wrote: ASK> You must create a "sent" filter for each recipient that will move the reply ASK> to the appropriate folder. This method would work, except that I would have to create dozens of those filters :). I hoped there is some way to do it "once and forever"... ASK> I find that a bit inconvenient because I don't like to mix the "physical" ASK> copies of incoming and outgoing messages. For me, that's OK to have them mized. Tastes differ :). ASK> Thus, my personal approach is to do that with virtual folders. I tend to avoid using VF. With thousands of messsages, they considerably slow down my TB!. Besides, it would need manual creation of a VF for each recipient, and, as I already said, I'm looking for a more general way (something like a sent mail filter "For each %ToName, move the message into %ToName folder"). Anyway, thank you! Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations Interpreting Editing MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] (website temporarily unaccessible) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Russian/Cyrillic Signature File in The Bat! 3.0
David wrote: DMD> Hello, again, everyone. DMD> On Thursday, 23 September 2004, I sent a query to this list about a DMD> problem that I am having in evaluating The Bat 3.0 as a replacement DMD> for Outlook XP/2002 (under Windows XP Professional, SP 1). (skipped) DMD> I apologize for mentioning this problem a second time, but I received DMD> no response to my query, nor has RITLabs support offered any DMD> suggestions. I _did_ send a reply to your previous message, and it appeared on the list. However, you seem to have missed it somehow, so here you have it again, and I'm also copying it to your private adddress: - David wrote: DMD> Because I send e-mail messages containing Russian/Cyrillic text, DMD> any e-mail client upon which I decide must support Cyrillic text. (skipped) DMD> My problem comes with my signature file, which is a few lines of DMD> Pushkin, in Russian. I have the signature file saved as a separate DMD> Unicode/Cyrillic text file, but when The Bat! imports the file, DMD> the result is "gibberish" characters that are not Russian at all. DMD> I am using the following "cookie" setup in my preferences for DMD> the account I am using for testing, inserting a newline character DMD> (\n) at the end of each line, as instructed by the on-line help, DMD> %COOKIE="C:\pushkin-signature-unicode-koi8-r.txt". Well, I would consider thge following as a possible solution. Save your signature file as non-Unicode Windows Cyrillic. Use some (re-)encoding software to make it KOI-8. Use %COOKIE="C:\pushkin-signature-your-plain-non-unicode-koi8-r.txt" :). I personally would recommend Decode by Boris Berdichevskiy, http://www.borisba.com/~borisba/decode21.zip (that page is unfortunately Russian only, but the program interface is in English.) I can send you the latest version by personal e-mail if you wish. This software is free. ZIP archive, something about 250 KB. Doesn't need installation; unpack it, and you're done. I sincerely recommending his software to everybody Cyrillic-(and other-) encodings-challenged. (For the record, I am in no way associated with its author.) Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Russian/Cyrillic Signature File in The Bat! 3.0
David wrote: DMD> Because I send e-mail messages containing Russian/Cyrillic text, DMD> any e-mail client upon which I decide must support Cyrillic text. (skipped) DMD> My problem comes with my signature file, which is a few lines of DMD> Pushkin, in Russian. I have the signature file saved as a separate DMD> Unicode/Cyrillic text file, but when The Bat! imports the file, DMD> the result is "gibberish" characters that are not Russian at all. DMD> I am using the following "cookie" setup in my preferences for DMD> the account I am using for testing, inserting a newline character DMD> (\n) at the end of each line, as instructed by the on-line help, DMD> %COOKIE="C:\pushkin-signature-unicode-koi8-r.txt". Well, I would consider thge following as a possible solution. Save your signature file as non-Unicode Windows Cyrillic. Use some (re-)encoding software to make it KOI-8. Use %COOKIE="C:\pushkin-signature-your-plain-non-unicode-koi8-r.txt" :). I personally would recommend Decode by Boris Berdichevskiy, http://www.borisba.com/~borisba/decode21.zip (that page is unfortunately Russian only, but the program interface is in English.) I can send you the latest version by personal e-mail if you wish. This software is free. ZIP archive, something about 250 KB. Doesn't need installation; unpack it, and you're done. I sincerely recommending his software to everybody Cyrillic-(and other-) encodings-challenged. (For the record, I am in no way associated with its author.) Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIChttp://kozub.in.ua[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Outlook & Bat!
Jurgen wrote: >> As far as I understand, you use The Bat! for your Internet mail, but _not_ >> as your Exchange client. In that sort of setup, you don't have your >> MAPI32.DLL replaced by TB!, so your Outlook works fine. JH> well I have set TB! to use MAPI to fetch mail from the Exchange Server. That's all I know :-) But you didn't press the "Instal The Bat! as the Simple MAPI request handler" button in Options-Applications, did you? -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://kozub.in.ua [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Lost message from this list
I just noticed that I received the "Re: Moving off" message by Dierk on Septwember 4, but _never_ received the original "Moving off" message by Jan Rifkinson. I received it on TBUDL though. For the record, I seem to have received just fine all the other messages from TBTECH immediately before and after that one. Jan seems to have sent the message in question to TBUDL and CCed it to TBBETA, and probably sent a separate copy to TBTECH (which I have never got as I have already said, but I see it in the list archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04338.html ). I suspect it might have something to do with my ISP's excessive "spam blocking". (RANT MODE ON. Sigh... They kept blocking all SMTP servers of the _whole_ comcast.net domain for two months _silently_. Not just rejecting mail sessions, but simply blocked them by a firewall. "We were getting tons of spam from there", etc. I found it just by chance, when it turned out that I could not receive a (quite important) message from my colleague who is @comcast.net... Sent a message to ukr.nodes, where most Ukrainian ISPs' admins did not see that as a problem. I almost start crying from time to time: "Let me read my 'spam', please!" RANT MODE OFF) However, before I start checking with them, somebody may give another idea of what happened. Any advice appreciated. Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://kozub.in.ua [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Outlook & Bat!
Jurgen wrote: >> One thing you need to be aware of is that if you want The Bat! to be >> the MAPI application, then Outlook will not work as its MAPI32.DLL >> file will be replaced by The Bat!'s. >> You can leave this option out and Outlook will work, although you >> might see Outlook pop up as the mail client. JH> I can't confirm that. I have TB running as my main mail app, and JH> when I click on a link in Opera, TB comes up. And Outlook works too. JH> (which is about all positive I can say about it, plenty of things don't JH> work, but that's more thanks to the exchange server setup at our JH> company :-/) As far as I understand, you use The Bat! for your Internet mail, but _not_ as your Exchange client. In that sort of setup, you don't have your MAPI32.DLL replaced by TB!, so your Outlook works fine. What other people often do, however, is having The Bat! as their MAPI application, which connects to their Exchange server using MAPI protocol, etc. In that situation, TB! will replace MAPI32.DLL, and Outlook will not work, precisely because the latter will be lacking the "proper" MAPI32.DLL. Also see http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06465.html . (Does Outlook also need the library in the Internet Mail Only configuration? I think it may work in that configuration, - but then of course you wouldn't be happy with that anyway, if you have TB! for all your mail, and Outlook for the calendar, contacts, etc :).) Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://kozub.in.ua [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Adding addresses to a different Address Book in Sorting Office rule
Roelof wrote:
RO> You don't quite understand the structure of the Address Book. At least
RO> you're talking about the root. Address book groups should not be
RO> compared to folders or directories, but as flags.
Exactly. I know that, and sorry for using "root", which id really not the
best word here.
Well, read my initial message as "I would like to be able to add addresses
in a Sorting Office rule to an Address Book which is not my Personal
Address Book without any one flag defined in it".
Usually I tend to be pedantic, - sorry for using a "loose" wording ("root")
in this case :).
M.
--
Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.)
Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian)
MK881-UANIC http://i.com.ua/~kozub [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Adding addresses to a different Address Book in Sorting Office rule
Hello Thomas, TF> And guess what? I can add sender to Adressbook, but I have no choice TF> *which* addressbook I want them added to! According to Maksym, they TF> are always added to the Personal Adressbook (and I believe him, having TF> not tested this), but he needs to be added them to another one. This TF> option doesn't seem available over here. You have understood my problem precisely as it is. As Roelof has said, there is a workaround, which is to create a _group_ in that other AB, but the ability to add to its root rather than group would be nice for me. Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://i.com.ua/~kozub [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Adding addresses to a different Address Book in Sorting Office rule
Hello Roelof, RO> You can add addresses to the address book per filter. RO> You can find it on the 'Actions' tab, just scroll a bit down. Yes, I know that. RO> However, per default that adds to your personal AB and that's not what RO> you want. Exactly. RO> You can add it a a specific group though. So the workaround is to add RO> a group to your extra AB and a group that's not available in your RO> personal AB's. Yes, now I see it works. I tried this earlier, but with too many of groups in my PAB, I just didn't notice that the new group appears in the list :). Now I see it does. Would be nice to be able to add to the root of that other Address Book, not only to a group. Do you think anybody else might be interested in that? (In which case, I'll file a wish on bugtraq.) Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://i.com.ua/~kozub [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Adding addresses to a different Address Book in Sorting Office rule
M> Sure it is possible. Look in the Actions tab of your filter (you may M> have to scroll down) for "Add Address(es) to Address Book". Hello Miguel, I didn't think my question was so unclear, but it seems it was. So I would explain. I know this item under the Actions tab. However, it seems that there you can only add to the _Personal Address Book_ (or its _groups_). I also have _another_ Address Book in The Bat! (That book is kept in a separate .abd file, etc). Since I see that other AB in The Bat! (when creating my messages, etc), it is a bit strange that I can't asdd addresses to it through that Actions thing. Regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://i.com.ua/~kozub [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Adding addresses to a different Address Book in Sorting Office rule
Hello, the subject says it. I have placed a mailto link on my page, and added a rule in Sorting Office which puts a message with the respective subject to a special folder, and sends an automated reply. I would also like to add the subscriber's address to a _separate_ address book (why I would like it this way, rather than a group in my Personal Address Book, is a separate thing). Is it at all possible? Any help much appreciated. Maksym -- Maksym Kozub(+380 44)424-1792(tel./fax), (+380 67)466-5174(mob.) Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) MK881-UANIC http://i.com.ua/~kozub [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Viewing headers...
TN> BTW, I am using the plain text viewer. TN> Hmmmh, it seems it happens only to messages encoded in UTF-8. TN> When I use "View Headers" on HTML-emails; the headers appear in the TN> text view and I got the usual two tabs Text and HTML. Confirmed here. I just had some UTF-8 message with Arabic quotations on the translation mailing list, and switched headers on right now. Two tabs at the bottom, "Text" and "Headers". M. -- Ìàêñèì Êîçóá/Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANIC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Translations/Interpreting/Editing (English, Polish - Ukrainian, Russian) (+380 44)424-1792 (tel/fax); (+380 67)466-5174 (mobile) Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Fwd: Bug (maybe wrong understanding of RFCs): an encoding selected by the user sometimes silently replaced with 7-bit US-ASCII
Hello Stefan, I agree to what Thomas said in his message. ST> Well, here is the problem - I use a Russian character set by default. ST> When I send messages in English, I'm always sure that they're going ST> out in us-ascii, no need to change anything here. Now, imagine I'm ST> sending a message in English to some of those servers from the ST> above - in best case, I'll get my message back saying server could not ST> process it because an unknown character set. But I used only English! ST> :-) Do you see my point? ...skipped TF>> What you do is change the encoding despite the sender's explicit TF>> wish. ST> Not exactly. I wish my messages I write in Russian to go out in the ST> character set I choose. But if I write messages in English, I don't ST> want to mess with switching my encoding - all I want is just to write ST> a message and be sure the recipient will be able to read it without ST> any problems :-) First things first, in this case you cannot (and should not) call your character set "Default character set". Then it's something like your "Default character set, but only for everything Russian/Not-low-ASCII/...". Then please, please, please, - say that in The Bat! options. I will be still unhappy with such behaviour, but it would be at least honest, and everybody will know: "Whatever I choose in that dropdown list is _not_ my default charset". Oh, and that won't be completely honest yet: we've been missing another part of my initial message here. When I say "Options - Message encoding - Cyrillic (KOI8-R)" (or, for that matter, whatever non-US-ASCII) _while writing this very message_, TB! would still change it to US-ASCII when queuing the message to Outbox, or sending it immediately. Is _that_ logical? I think in this case I have expressly told The Bat! that I _do_ want to "mess with switching my encoding", haven't I?.. What do you think of _that_? Also, as you see from the quted discussion at nobat.ru, the whole issue shows some massive misunderstanding of (I would even say "illiteracy in reading of") RFCs: people keep saying you'veimplemented it this way because of RFC compliance, while from what you said here follows that it is merely your idea of user convenience, etc. Regards, Maksym. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Fwd: Bug (maybe wrong understanding of RFCs): an encoding selected by the user sometimes silently replaced with 7-bit US-ASCII
Hello Carsten, On Mon, Jan 26 2004, 0:52:14 you wrote: >> That sounds wrong. CT> Huh? This is the way good mail clients work. It is not wrong at all. It _is_ wrong. See my other messages in this thread, where I clearly demonstrate that 1) there is actually _nothing_ in RFC2045 preventing a MUA from encoding low ASCII characters in whatever encoding and forcing it to US-ASCII, and 2) failure to do that on MUA's part results in various inconveniences for some users, and those inconveniences are actually _not_ forced by RFC compliance. That's why I describe this as "maybe wrong understanding of RFCs" on behalf of MUAs' authors (not only those of The Bat!, seems to be). Regards, Maksym. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: (not LONGISH any more) Re[2]: Fwd: Bug (maybe wrong understanding of RFCs): an encoding selected by the user sometimes silently replaced with 7-bit US-ASCII
Hello Thomas, On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:41:42 you wrote: TF> OK, let's read on: >> Alexandr Kiselev, administrator, Dec 02, 2003, 07:28:24 pm: >> >> "If all characters in a message are us-ascii, then Bat has been always >> putting us-ascii in message headers, irrespective of the default >> encoding. This is by the way in complete accordance with the letter >> and spirit of RFCs. TF> The others confirm that's so in the RFCs. In fact, that's _not_ what the RFCs say. See below. >> I would recommend to replace one of Latin "a"'s with a Russian "а" - >> this would be sufficient to cope with your problem. TF> Here you have a work-around that should solve your problem for the TF> time being. TF> But having read the discussion you kindly translated, I don't consider TF> it a bug in TB. Because TB behauves RFC-conform (if what was said in TF> the thread from the forum is true, I didn't check it). That workaround is needed _only_ because The Bat! misinterprets the RFCs (see below). That's an important part of my whole point. TF> The work-around is therefore for an RFC, which I - as you - think TF> should be altered. The correct way is to write to the author of the TF> RFC rather than asking Ritlabs to violate it. I believe they have a TF> right to be proud of their RFC-compliance. If an RFC doesn't make TF> sense, it ought to be changed rather than ignored. IMHO. The whole matter is this: I _don't_ think that RFC should be altered, but I would like to take the liberty to say there is a wrong understanding shown by The Bat!, and by the discussion participants, of what _is_ said in that RFC. Let's have one more look at RFC2045 now. What does it say? It says: "2.7. 7bit Data "7bit data" refers to data that is all represented as relatively short lines with 998 octets or less between CRLF line separation sequences [RFC-821]. No octets with decimal values greater than 127 are allowed and neither are NULs (octets with decimal value 0). CR (decimal value 13) and LF (decimal value 10) octets only occur as part of CRLF line separation sequences. 2.8. 8bit Data "8bit data" refers to data that is all represented as relatively short lines with 998 octets or less between CRLF line separation sequences [RFC-821]), but octets with decimal values greater than 127 may be used. As with "7bit data" CR and LF octets only occur as part of CRLF line separation sequences and no NULs are allowed." To keep it short: "7bit data should _never_ ever contain 127 and up. 8bit data _may_ contain 127 and up." Does it say "8bit data _should always_ contain 127 and up"? _No_. Does it say "Whatever does not contain 127 and up _is always_ 7bit data"? _No_. When I type the Latin letter "t", am I typing "7bit data"? _Not necessarily_. It may be represented as 7-bit, 8-bit, UTF-7, UTF-8... Of course, if there is a Russian character in the same message, then the message cannot be encoded as US-ASCII anymore - see RFC2045 above. However, if there is nothing but low ASCII in that message, - please show me why, based on the definitions from RFC2045 quoted above, it cannot be encoded as 8bit KOI8-R, or Win-1252, or UTF-8... Hope you get my point. Any high ASCII letter can never be 7bit data, - that's right, and that's what RFC2045 says. What it does _not_ say is that low ASCII (like the Latin letter "t") is intrinsically bound to be represented as US-ASCII, and _not_ as KOI8-R or even UTF-8, for that matter. And I think it is not by chance. The RFC creator understood it very clearly that if a character (like that poor "t" :) ) exists in various encodings, then it can be encoded in any of those. Period. Regards, Maksym. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
(LONGISH) Re[2]: Fwd: Bug (maybe wrong understanding of RFCs): an encoding selected by the user sometimes silently replaced with 7-bit US-ASCII
7;t mean the logic itself is correct. By the way, regarding Pegasus... Harris puts it in the help files: "Allow 8-bit MIME encodings" "If you check this control, Pegasus Mail will generate MIME messages using the MIME "8BIT" transfer encoding whenever you include 8-bit data in your mail. _8-bit data is illegal in Internet mail_ (sic! - M.K.), but is used in some countries. This is both a very technical, and potentially very dangerous option and should only be used if you know what you are doing. We recommend you do not check this control except on the advice of a properly qualified person." So, with all my respect for Pegasus and its author, I would not use it as a good example in terms of handling 8-bit data..." Wanderer, Jan 14, 2004, 05:38:35 pm: "My answer will be short... To indicate 7-bit data as 8-bit for the convenience of ugly clients??? Don't you need to see a doctor, heh? And don't f*** Harris's brain..." Wanderer, Jan 14, 2004, 06:46:03 pm: "Well, let's calm down a bit... ...I don't like stupidity based on merely one's speculations around his own interpretation of RFCs and one's own wishes... No one RFC out of those mentioned does not mention 8-bit data even in terms of SHOULD, not to say MUST, so this is completely subject to the implementation decision. And it is a completely legal to make an assumption based on the above that any indication of an 8-bit charset is only relevant for cases where there might be an ambiguity in terms of the charset selection for 8-bit data, i.e., then, and only then, if there _are_ those 8-bit data, because for 7-bit data there is just one option, with no alternatives. So this is an interpretation of RFC which does not contradict to anything, creates fewer problems than the broad interpretation you proposed, and it is widely used therefore in any MUAs, which are aware of 8bit, but follow the Ockham' razor pinciple" That's the "mood" of the whole further discussion there. So thanks a lot Thomas, - now I know it's not necessarily me going crazy :). My apology for any inconvenience with the translated parts, - I did it very quickly (although accurately as I could in terms of keeping the meaning). Regards, Maksym. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Fwd: Bug (maybe wrong understanding of RFCs): an encoding selected by the user sometimes silently replaced with 7-bit US-ASCII
I sent this message on TBTECH first; it seems however that there is almost nobody reading the tech list, so I decided to resend it here. I recently submitted the problem described in this message as a bug (https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0002349); decided to also report on the list though - it would be interesting to hear what other people think. Hope it's still not too technical for TBUDL :). If you choose an 8-bit encoding for your outgoing messages, but the message actually does not contain any symbols with decimal values higher than 127, then TB! would just make it "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit", when queuing that message in Outbox. Some people think this is the corrrect behaviour, and they refer to RFC2045 et al. Somebody even reported a bug https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0002343 - "Possibility to leave definition of 8 bit charset in case of message with 7-bit only without resetting to "us-ascii"" I still consider it definitely a logical mistake, and a serious one, since RFCs say octets with decimal values of 127 and up are not allowed in 7-bit data, but no one RFC says 0-127 should never be encoded as 8-bit - characters themselves are not intrinsically "7-bit" or "8-bit". As a result of this behaviour combined with some other MUAs' (e.g. Microsoft-made ones') improper behaviour, there is the following problem reported by various people. Suppose I send a message to my Ukrainian friend in Canada, and he replies in Russian. I know his MUA would try and put in the headers of his reply the same encoding as my message had. To save him time on checking, I would indicate I want _every message of mine_ (even if it's plain English only!) to be "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r / Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit", _which is perfectly legal in my view, as explained above. I compose my message indicating "KOI8-R" as the charset to be used, but... looking in the Outbox, I see "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii / Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" there! Hope you get my point. www.livejournal.com uses UTF-8 for all those webpages, even though I do not use any Chinese or other double-byte characters in my blog there. I consider this to be a good example: characters, be they English, Ukrainian, Chinese, or whatever, are not "7bit", "8bit", "double-byte", etc. They _can_ be _encoded_ in various ways; and other than for those cases where it is just plainly impossible to encode them in a specific way (like it is impossible to encode Russian as 7bit), - standards do not prohibit us from using anything. So, seeing a good, standards-compliant, mail client like TB!, which calls itself "mail servant" :), I would like it to respect my will, _or_ at least to produce a warning when it changes (again, without a valid, standards-based reason!) what I've set as my default charset. Would you agree with that?.. My apology for this letter being rather long, - at least I hope it is not completely boring for everybody :). Maksym. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: inbox corrupted - Christmas Edition (reposted)
TF> I wouldn't do that. Sometimes when you install new programs, they TF> program asks for a reboot - and will use files it put in the temp TF> folder to complete the installation. I don't know whether they are TF> necessarily named *.tmp, I wouldn't do that if I were the programmer, TF> but you never know. Seconded. Again, in such cases a good programmer would probably lock the files until the computer is rebooted, but programmers are not always good, are they? :) -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! with shared message folders on a network drive: has version 2 got any file locking?
Hello Stefan. nice to see developers continue to read the list, - same as it used to be 2 years ago :). Sunday, January 18, 2004, 11:27:30 AM, you wrote: ST> What kind of locking is meant exactly? Message bases cannot be damaged ST> by accessing from different workstations because files are locked when ST> something is being written into a message base. Do you mean some ST> other one? No, I mean exactly what you've said: locking message base files when writing to them. Sorry, I just read some messages by Thomas and others in TBUDL archives (March 2003) saying TB! does _not_ lock files at all. I'm glad that's turned out to be wrong. Thank you Stefan. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
TB! with shared message folders on a network drive: has version 2 got any file locking?
Hello, it is really nice to be on TBUDL again (I used to be a subscriber long ago). I'm now curious to know whether version 2.x has any sort of locking implemented. I've read some discussions on that subject by Thomas Fernandez and others back in March 2003; now I'm trying version 2.02.03CE, and you probably know better than I do whether anything has changed (or if not, then whether anything _is_ going to change) in those terms. Hope somebody would enlighten me on that. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANICmailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: First impressions and wishes
MK> 3) When deleting a folder, the top folder in the folder tree becomes
MK> highlited. Wouldn't it be more logical for The Bat! to highlight the parent
MK> folder of the deleted one instead (that's what I liked in OE)? It's a
MK> bit borrowing when you delete a sub-folder of a folder at the very
^
Certainly boring :). I must hanve been thinking about finances
too much today :).
Best regards,
Maksym
--
Maksym Kozub, Director
Kozub & Lee Translations
3 Bastionna St., Suite 75
Kyiv, Ukraine
Tel/fax: (+380 44) 296-1181
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
First impressions and wishes
Hello, I've been using The Bat! (ver. 1.47) for 5 days by now, and here I'd like to share some impressions, concerns, and wishes. Before, I used earlier evaluation versions for a short time back in 1998, so I can see how it has developed. I like the program; however, there are still lots of missing things, as well as things I (and probably others) need. 1) People usually say of The Bat! as being very fast. With our setup here (~80 folders with both corporate and my personal mail, some of them having 5000+ messages per folder), it is _slower_ (?!!) than Outlook Express 5.5. It is especially slow when entering big folders, re-sorting, compressing, etc. (No advices like "Make your folders smaller", please. We need our big mail archives organized this way, and we need a mailer capable of handling them.) 2) All that said, The Bat! seems to have a smaller memory footprint than OE. Does it mean that the developers have _purposely_ chosen lower memory utilization vs. speed? Is it planned to have any options/switches/whatever, which would allow me, for example, to have The Bat! working faster at the expense of TB! eating all of my virtual memory? 2) It produces access violations quite often (several times a day), in various situations (but usually when working in big folders). (I use it under Windows 2000 Professional SP1 on Pentium 233MMX with 64 MB of RAM). 3) When deleting a folder, the top folder in the folder tree becomes highlited. Wouldn't it be more logical for The Bat! to highlight the parent folder of the deleted one instead (that's what I liked in OE)? It's a bit borrowing when you delete a sub-folder of a folder at the very _bottom_ of the folder tree, and - ooops! - you are at the very _top_ of it... 4) Sometimes, people send us messages in the UTF-8 encoding. Is it planned to implemented UTF in The Bat! ? At the moment, I have to keep those messages in Outlook Express... 5) I had some old mail in a _broken_ OE folder. I used DBXtract by Stephen L. Cochran (a great program, BTW) to extract all those messages to .EML (=.MSG) files, and then imported them into The Bat! through the command line. Well, some messages (quite a lot of them, in fact) , with broken RFC822 headers, appear as empty. However, if I export them into a Unix-style mailbox from within The Bat!, and then import that Unix-style mailbox back into The Bat!, messages appear moreless OK (with bodies which make sense, etc). Can any kind (and knoledgeable) soul out there explain this sort of behaviour? 6) I used Ctrl+Alt+Shift+L (search for folders), which I found in my old TBUDL archives as an undocumented feature, and it seems to be still undocumented! Any developments in terms of putting all such things together in a document? Anyway, The Bat! seems to be a very promising program. However, whether I'll pay for it and continue using it, will depend on its stability and speed. At the moment, I see it as more _promising_ than _currently worth its price_. Still, I don't like that approach of everything being very proprietary in OE very much, and hope I'll not have to come back to using OE. Best regards, Maksym -- Maksym Kozub, Director Kozub & Lee Translations 3 Bastionna St., Suite 75 Kyiv, Ukraine Tel/fax: (+380 44) 296-1181 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
