Re: What is the role of all those directories that are getting created .. in the Voyager ..??
Hello Roelof Otten, on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:04:35 +0100 (2005-11-18 19:04:35 in .nl) in the message with reference you [RO] wrote (at least in part): RO> Not really a beta issue. RO> But they're your folders. You mention four id's, so I guess you mean RO> you've got four accounts configured. Per default every account has at RO> least six folders (inbox, inbox known, outbox, sent mail, trash and RO> junk) so four accounts gives you 24 folders, each with their own RO> directory with a messages.ebb/.ebi pair (.tbb and .tbi for a non RO> encrypted message base) Voyager doesn't offer you a choice between un-encrypted or encrypted msg bases, in my experience as a TB-Home user and a Voyager UNREGISTERED user. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand - - - Using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V3.62.13 (Beta) (Home) An anti-spam filter which insists to be : Bayes Filter Plugin v2.0.3 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Multiple POP3, one gmail.com, one fastmail.fm IMAP Current version is 3.62.14 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Fwd: How does one eliminate the ">" when replying or forwarding a message, but has %QUOTES in their reply/forward template?
Hello Dirigo, My Forward template uses %Text, no '>' in there, as I expected. Reply templates using %Quotes are supposed to use the '>'. * * * This is a forwarded message. * * * ===8< Original sender / recipient = From: Dirigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2004-04-09, 01:01 Subject : How does one eliminate the ">" when replying or forwarding a message, but has %QUOTES in their reply/forward template? Attachments : = Start of original message content === <...snipperdesnip...> Essentially what I would like to do is when I receive a joke or some article of interest that I would like to send to another, rather than creating a new message and perform a "cut and paste" manuever, I would simply like to "forward" the message to another person without the ">" symbol embedded. -- Dirigo Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html ===8< End of original message content = -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: Unequal gaps
Hello Jack Morrison, on Sat, 6 Mar 2004 20:36:07 -0600 (2004-03-07 03:36:07 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [JM] wrote (at least in part): JM> I also use my car mainly to get me from point A to point B, Agreed. JM> but I *BUY* a car as much for its looks as for its ability to get me JM> around. You talked about a Ferrari, and Italian designers. Being European, I can assure you Italian cars _stink_, they rust once you put your sweaty feet in them. Ferrari is Italian. JM> Don't you? No, I buy a car (analog: SW) to get me from A to B. It must do the essential job, looks is second place when choosing between equal competitors. That's, for instance, why I use Mozilla Firefox, which uses standards, and not M$-browser-shit. JM> The big fuss that's routinely made here over the publication of a new, JM> fresh set of glyphs, for example, should tell you that people have JM> many different preferences and tastes. Of course. JM> And that has what, exactly, to do with spiffying up the interface? ... making the interface less important than security. >> So first and foremost, my e-mail client is about utility. JM> You don't care what it looks like? What kinds of fonts are available JM> to you? Or about the various split modes? Etc. Etc. Etc. Personally: - don't use (send) so called HTML mail (I hate it) - plain text: I use courier new / size 8 JM> Here's what they said about it: JM> "*Better looking total progress indicator in the Connection Centre JM> under XP Themes" JM> Now, did this change have anything to do with The Bat's "utility"? JM> No. My, looks like you'r referring to an item listed in a release that has been mostly dedicated to bug-fixing. I guess most of us (...) are happy this release was dedicated to that. >> But also please try to refrain from insulting two of my oldest friends on >> this list. JM> It's okay then to insult anyone who's not your friend? ... -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Templates/Macros
Hello David Calvarese, on Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:31:19 -0500 (2004-03-06 02:31:19 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [DC] wrote (at least in part): DC> Unfortunately, I don't remember. I do know they were mostly for us DC> in reply templates. DC> IIRC, one of them took care of the Hello line for mailing lists DC> and the other fixed the to field for mailing lists. DC> Those are probably the two I need MOST. DC> I'm on a LOT of mailing lists. So . . . I tend to remember a 'manager in ballon' story . . . -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: WISH: general filter to move sent/received mails to contact-specific folders
Hello dAniel hAhler, on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:54:52 +0100 (2004-02-29 02:54:52 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [dh] wrote (at least in part): dh> That could be simply done with radio buttons: dh> "root (Known folder), AB folder, group folder". The 'root' should be more flexible than just being the folder. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: WISH: general filter to move sent/received mails to contact-specific folders
Hello dAniel hAhler, on Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:35:58 +0100 (2004-02-28 15:35:58 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [dh] wrote (at least in part): dh> About subfolder names: dh> it would be best to have an input box beside the "put in subfolder" dh> checkbox that will allow to set the subfolder's name, filled by dh> default with the AB group name for whole AB groups subfolders and the dh> AB display name for single contacts. So that subfolders can be defined on all three levels (AB, group, contact). Then, when items are checked/defined, the filter order should be: contact, group, AB. Once a match is found, filtering should stop. There must also be some way to assign the parent folder. dh> For usability the filter should be taken away from the dh> "Incoming filters" group and moved to root level in the filter dh> hierarchy. In the filters setting you would then set for which dh> messages to check (Incoming/Outgoing/Read/Replied). Great, this saves setting up seperate incoming / outgoing filters to archive all mail for into some folder, as I do now. dh> But what about source folders? Simply Inbox, when Incoming/Read and dh> Outbox for Outgoing/Replied? dh> Default should be Incoming and Outgoing checked, IMHO. Agreed. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: WISH: general filter to move sent/received mails to contact-specific folders
Hello MAU, on Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:22:18 +0100 (2004-02-28 11:22:18 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [] wrote (at least in part): M> It is already quite easy, I think. Just take this message and select M> it on the message list pane. Right click and select Specials/Create M> filter or, if you like keyboard shortcuts, hit Shift+Ctrl+F. Don't M> you think it is easy enough? It is quite easy. But, remembering some other discussion on TBBETA (mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]), it would need to be done twice, for incoming and outgoing mail. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WISH: general filter to move sent/received mails to contact-specific folders
Hello dAniel hAhler, on Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:57:53 +0100 (2004-02-28 01:57:53 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [dh] wrote (at least in part): dh> what do you think about a general filter (like ) where you dh> select a destination folder and mark contacts from you address book(s) dh> that you'd like to have moved to a special folder? dh> This filter would then check for the marked AB contacts and move these dh> mails to a subfolder of the one that you defined in the filter. In other words: expand the filter with the functionality you mention? Ok. I assume the chosen destination folder needs to / will be created 'on the fly'. dh> ..and somewhere the expandable AB where you can select which contacts dh> you want to be processed. dh> I would simply have to setup a common folder like "personal", activate dh> this filter and mark the contacts that I write most to and would have dh> a very comfortable mailing situation, without setting dh> incoming/outgoing filters for every contact I want to be treated that dh> way. Isn't the meant to be like 'personal' ? Setting this up for each wanted / allowed address book entry seems quite time consuming to me. I could live with 'filter msgs from contacts listed in some specific address book / group into a destination folder (automagically created)' using your proposal. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.07 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)
Hello Andre Wichartz, on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:44:26 +0100 (2004-02-24 18:44:26 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [AW] wrote (at least in part): DW>> This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't DW>> Bayesit start to filter out spam by itself? When does it start DW>> doing that? AW> Yes, but in my experience it needs a lot of spam before. At least a few AW> hundred messages, the more the better. Another thing you could try is AW> to lower the score needed to move a spam to the junk folder as set in AW> preferences. You can set it very low, I've set it to 1, the absolute AW> minimum, and still get no false positives. Up to the 2.04.04 release BayesIt 0.4gm worked quite fine here, with a score level of 40. Starting with 2.04.04, BayesIt 0.4gm SE hardly catches spam anymore. It has been trained with something like 3000 spam messages, which should be enough I think. I lowered the score level to 20, without improvement so far. I'll try your suggested level of 1 for a while. Also, since 2.04.04, BayesIt is creating files in %SystemDrive%\ (here D:\) and %Homedrive%%HomePath% (here Z:\), not in any temp-directory. Was it wise to pack BayesIt 0.4gm SE with TB! on such short notice? Well, there have been discussions on TBBETA . . . -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Bat doesn't notice when hdd full
Hello Marek Mikus, on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:52:17 +0100 (2004-02-19 19:52:17 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MM] wrote (at least in part): >>>> Well, TB needs free space to work properly, downloading new mail >>>> and composing mail are functions that require disk space. >>> I undersatnd that. I had hoped for a warning "Your hdd is full. Can't >>> operate like this." >> I agree. TB doesn't check whether the HD is full, and it should. IMHO. MM> I must agree, two users confirmed me this problem this week. I've experienced such one time before, and TB then ended up with an empty Inbox. Some more intelligent behaviour, and warning, would be nice. Like 'Not enough space to store / copy / move / whatever mail', and then _not_ deleting it from the server. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.3 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Log info on "could not connect to server"
Hello Mary R Bull, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 04:51:56 -0600 (2004-02-07 11:51:56 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MB] wrote (at least in part): MRB> In most instances, the Internet browsers are still available to me. MRB> It's just the POP3 and SMTP that are not functioning. You could use telnet to find out if it's a TB or server problem. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/59 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Read Filters
Hello MAU, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 02:59:09 +0100 (2004-02-07 02:59:09 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [] wrote (at least in part): >> Messed up shortcuts maybe..?? M> Oooops! I meant to type Alt+F12, Alt+F12. Sorry Ok, so it does here. But somehow I can't seem to link your ALT-Fnn to the msg thread. Am I missing something ?? (after having quite a few bottles of Dommelsch?? Ya, that's a brand of beer ;), enough available for you, once you decide to move your a** to consume them ... ) -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/59 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Scroll Wheel Problem - I may have figured it out!
Hello Mark Wieder, on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:49:06 -0800 (2004-02-07 02:49:06 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MW] wrote (at least in part): MW> Wayne- MW> Sounds like the problem is nailed, but I'm with that developer on this MW> one: I would assume that a -1 returned from a number-of-lines API call MW> would mean an error condition occurred. Sure, -1 is 'in general' accepted to represent some error condition (which one: depends). Probably some unintended 'folder template' was used. I don't mind, carry on ;) -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/59 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: digest mode problem
Hello Mark Wieder, on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:08:10 -0800 (2004-02-07 00:08:10 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MW] wrote (at least in part): MW> I'm having interesting symptoms today: my digest mode messages are MW> arriving out of sequence. TBUDL digest vol 183 issue 18 arrived three MW> hours after issue 19. Makes for quite a disjointed reading experience. MW> I checked the sending time, so it's not just me. Weird. Checking the mail headers may reveal the problem. Did you check them? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/59 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Read Filters
Hello MAU, on Sat, 7 Feb 2004 01:56:32 +0100 (2004-02-07 01:56:32 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [] wrote (at least in part): M> Remember what Al+F2 does? It opens the shortcut editor :-) I don't 'remember' what yours does, but here it does a 'Check Mail For All'. Messed up shortcuts maybe..?? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/59 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Help for a new user
Hello Mary R Bull, on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:07:23 -0600 (2004-02-07 01:07:23 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MB] wrote (at least in part): MRB> I'll let Kay reply to the "help" part, herself. :) But for myself, MRB> thank you so much, your answers are clear and easy to understand, and MRB> it's most gratifying to me to have my promises to Kay about how she MRB> would be welcomed and helped here coming true. Thanks for writing. :) You'r welcome. MRB> (For some reason, your post was late showing on my machine, compared MRB> to its creation time. I've had more mail delays than usual over the MRB> past few days--hope that doesn't continue much longer. Anyway, I thank MRB> you with all my heart for this message.) That's because of the remainders of a 'backbone problems' my ISP had earlier today (mmm... most of the day). The email sat on their server for about 3 hours... Oh well, s*** happens (how long will this one take). -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/59 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Help for a new user
Hello Mary R Bull, on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:31:58 -0600 (2004-02-06 21:31:58 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MB] wrote (at least in part): MRB> 1.Select and copy a message or a part thereof, and paste in my word MRB> processor, MS Word. Using the 'standard' Windows actions: - select (shift+arrow for instance) - copy (Edit | Copy or Ctrl+C) - paste (probably Edit | Paste or Ctrl+V) (based on my plain-text usage of email) MRB> 2. Copy an email address from this list and paste it in a new MRB> message. Copy and paste is from the mail headers as (by default) shown in the message preview pane. Or do I misunderstand the question? MRB> 3. When I receive a picture in email, when I forward that email why MRB> doesn't the picture(s) show up in my forwarded message? Pass, dunno if HTML msgs with embedded pictures received by TB are forwarded correctly. MRB> 4. This day I tried to print a message and never could get it printed. Has a printer been configured correctly in TB (Message | Print setup) ? MRB> 5. I do not understand when I get a message without an attachment, MRB> there is a tab for "html" and a tab for "text", is there a way to stop MRB> that from happening. Try setting in Options Preferences | Viewer/Editor, especially for the non-plain-text ones. Does that help? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/53 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: PC Mag Review Of "The Bat!"
Hello Mr/Ms TBUDL, on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:16:26 -0600, you wrote (at least in part): JM> Hello The_Bat! Users, JM> Did anyone see the PC Mag review of "The Bat" yet? JM> They gave "The Bat!" 2 marks out of a possible 5 JM> Outlook 2003 received 5 marks. JM> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1474234,00.asp Just some comments. Lookout2003: Tabs let you roll up (or clump) messages by sender name; day, month, or week received; message size; and so on. Well, part of it is sorting by a column. Others _can_ be achieved using the message finder. Probably TB can be enhanced for such a view without using the msg finder. Lookout 2003: "If you are working in another application, a small window appears when you receive a new message. Uhm, flying-bat to inform about new mail / mail ticker (I don't use that one) Lookout 2003: Other security features, such as blocking images and HTML, are easy to define. Geezz... did M$ wakeup at last??? So implementing something existing gets you to number one??? O yeah, it's M$ I had my doubts about PCmag for some time, but now I don't trust PCmag anymore... -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Insert [snip] on deleting a chunk
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:33:43 + (2004-01-30 03:33:43 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MP] wrote (at least in part): PO>> Well, the context conditions are in the program, linked to some PO>> action. The action / 'what to do' can be defined external. Just PO>> like with templates. MDP> It's made more complex because of the way TB lets you use the same MDP> keys to do different things in different places. There are a lot of MDP> keys used in editing that you may want to use for something else MDP> somewhere else. Ok, that's context. The action to take can be defined somewhere else. MDP> Where better to define each than in context? I don't agree. Some action can be defined for some context. But some (oh, all) actions can also be defined _global_ / _elsewhere_ for some _preprogrammed_ context (think about new message, simple uh?). MDP> By letting you define keys "in situ" - what you want where you need MDP> it - it takes a level of complexity away from the act of defining MDP> the keys. Maybe _just maybe_ for the first definition. But not for distributing amoungst mulitple clients. MDP> Anyway - we may have to agree to disagree on this one. Guess. I don't like to update 15 copies (hey, TB sells business licences) by going over to 15 PC's to install some <^&(*!#^> QT. I can administer 'new msg' / 'reply' / etc templates easily, not visiting all PC's. So, help the admin: - support central config - links to central stored QT's - whatever, so I don't need to move my ass (is that clear enough??) MDP> The fact remains, you can define keys that work in the editor and MDP> do pretty complex stuff. Agreed on that. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03.47 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Insert [snip] on deleting a chunk
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:59:51 + (2004-01-30 02:59:51 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MP] wrote (at least in part): MDP> Dear Peter, MDP> @30-Jan-2004, 02:56 +0100 (30-Jan 01:56 UK time) Peter Ouwehand [PO] MDP> in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck: MDP>>> Sort of ... but you do have to be in the place you want the key to MDP>>> be active to be able to define it. Makes a kind of sense. PO>> Not really if you want to install the client on more than one PC and PO>> first need to wait for some msg to reply to before you can configure PO>> something PO>> Think about Admin support. It should be available at all times! MDP> It is. It's the editor that must be open, not just a "reply". Just MDP> start a new message. Uhm, the question was about deleting lines in some reply. What's to delete from a new msg? I wonder. MDP> Defined keys have to have a context. Ok, I can agree on that. MDP> It's too complication if you have a central location to define them MDP> and then have to specify the context besides that. Well, the context conditions are in the program, linked to some action. The action / 'what to do' can be defined external. Just like with templates. MDP> IMHO, the way it is is 100% right. You can guess my opinion on that one. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03.47 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Insert [snip] on deleting a chunk
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:42:07 + (2004-01-30 02:42:07 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [MP] wrote (at least in part): DP>>> You can only access it by going into a message reply window and DP>>> then press Alt+F12 and then navigate there through "Main Menu" DP>>> -> "Utilities" -> "Insert Quick Template" RO>> Sheesh! That's an odd way to hide something. MDP> Sort of ... but you do have to be in the place you want the key to MDP> be active to be able to define it. Makes a kind of sense. Not really if you want to install the client on more than one PC and first need to wait for some msg to reply to before you can configure something Think about Admin support. It should be available at all times! -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03.47 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Problems with The Bat
Hello Scott Sims, on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:32:53 +1030 (2004-01-30 00:02:53 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [SS] wrote (at least in part): SS> It's very annoying, as I can't see what is happening when large emails are downloading. SS> I don't have any plugins installed or anything...Just The Bat What's the setting in Options | Preferences | General | Display Connection Center ? 'Hide' maybe ? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03.47 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML Bug in current version: whne does new version come?
Hello S & J Love, on Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:21:34 +1100 (2004-01-15 22:21:34 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [] wrote (at least in part): SJL> I have just reported a a bug (see below) SJL> Can experts/those in the know answer my question re when the new SJL> version is appearing? Or should I go back again to v 2.01 ?? SJL> SJL> The bug description: SJL> If I open the message editor, and choose format=html (+/- text), SJL> the html formatting toolbar (font selection, bold, italics etc) SJL> does not appear. SJL> I suspect you know this already as I-and others - have mentioned SJL> this on the TBUDL list. SJL> When is the successor to this current version appearing?? SJL> - In case your description is consistent with what has been reported in http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0002152 then it has been fixed in V2.03 beta 38. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/38 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Unusual spam
Hello Kitty, on Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:44:23 -0600 (2004-01-06 23:44:23 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [] wrote (at least in part): K> addition congruent malnourished masterpiece patterson planetaria legacy washboard K> coerce prognosticate rose edison burr bedim venturesome attica mutton seller K> propel duff varsity shields ingrate mcclain continual memorabilia From what I've seen: the HTML attachment contains the actual spam. K> The other type of spam I get is similar to the above but is random K> letters in clumps of usually 5 letters but occasionally more. These K> are not words at all. From what I've seen: the HTML attachment contains links to somewhere (the not downloaded pictures). K> Again I don't understand the purpose of these at all. Mislead 'html-only' detection ?? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/25 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Restore Help Needed!
Hello Dwight A Corrin, on Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:50:40 -0600 (2004-01-03 02:50:40 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [DC] wrote (at least in part): DAC> I moved them manually, then did the shft-alt-ctrl-L. It found the DAC> common folders, and set up a set of common folders which duplicate DAC> all my accounts. I have asked before, but still don't know _why_at_all_ shift-ctrl-alt-L should be used. I know the 'what for' description, but not the 'why' explanation. After ensuring you have backups which can be restored, try this: - delete such a duplicated folder from your common folder(s) - a window should pop up, with some options - choose 'Leave message base files intact' Close / restart TB. Verify that the duplicated folder was removed Verify that the original account folder still exists. If so, continue with the others. PS: deleting an account will give you a similar 'Leave account files on disk' option. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/25 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Shift+Ctrl+Alt+l : why should one have to use this?
Hello Roelof Otten, on Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:29:43 +0100 (2003-12-29 06:29:43 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [RO] wrote (at least in part): PO>> Shift+Ctrl+Alt+l (or L): search for unlisted folders, why should one PO>> have to use this? RO> Only when you've somehow lost folders from your configuration, while RO> they're still on disk. The "what for" I know. The question was: why should one have to use this? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/25 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Shift+Ctrl+Alt+l : why should one have to use this?
Hello TBTECH, Shift+Ctrl+Alt+l (or L): search for unlisted folders, why should one have to use this? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/24 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! documentation poor
Hello Allister Jenks, on Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:13:40 +1300 (2003-12-25 02:13:40 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [AJ] wrote (at least in part): AJ> If it were done properly, I would pay probably anything up to half AJ> the price of the software again to obtain it. For PC software I would think 25% of the software price should be enough. It basically is a 'popular' rewrite of the requirements. AJ> For that it would have to be *complete* and well written though. Agreed. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03 Beta/22 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: shortcut editor
Hello Allen, on Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:06:36 -0500 (2003-12-20 03:06:36 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [] wrote (at least in part): A> When editing the shortcuts or TB, I find that a number of shortcuts are A> repeated multiple times. For instance, in the message-list-popup A> section, there are three or four instances of view next unread, view A> previous unread, etc. -- I'm assuming that there are different uses for A> them (though it's not specified) but . . . well, what's the secret? A screenshot would be of some use I guess. Including your actions. From your description, this somehowe sounds somewhat like what happened before in early releases of ViewModes. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.03.10 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: The Bat! Christmas Discount
Hello Ken Stuart, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:43:27 -0800 (2003-12-13 03:43:27 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [KS] wrote (at least in part): KS> Hello Peter, KS> Friday, December 12, 2003, 5:15:04 PM, you wrote: PO>> Why do I, an early adaptor of 2.xx, feel being F ? KS> This is true of early adopters of EVERYTHING. Not true. For instance: I administer email server software who's creator gives you a _free_ update from the previous major revision to current major revision, with an overlap of, oh a year I think. Another reason I posted the msg: At work I introduced TB! 15 copies, in July, being a 1.62 version. 2 or 3 months later V2.xx was released. You could buy it, at 50% of the normal price. Hell, we just paid for it! Hardly any overlap, not even close to half a year. How do you expect me to react to such an offer??? How shall I explain that, and the X-mass offer being cheaper, to my boss?? It STINKS. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
The Bat! Christmas Discount
Hello TBUDL, From the RITLabs site: The Bat! Christmas Discount 12/10/2003 On December 10,2003, Ritlabs releases The Bat! v2.02.03 Christmas Edition and announces a Special Offer: from December 10, 2003 to January 10, 2004 you can register The Bat! with 30% discount. Only for registered users of The Bat! version 1: during the Christmas Offer your upgrade discount is 30% in addition to 30% Christmas discount which yields 60% as a total discount First, users were more-or-less being pushed to upgrade to 2.xx at 50% discount, being $17,50 per personal copy, as I did (and probably many more). Now, 1.xx users can upgrade to 2.xx for $35 - 60% = $14. Why do I, an early adaptor of 2.xx, feel being F ? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Help with TB data recovery (cont)
Hello Nick Dutton, on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:45:12 + (2003-12-12 13:45:12 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [ND] wrote (at least in part): ND> Is there something fundamentally wrong with this layout? Otherwise ND> that's about it for me 'cos I can't see any way forward with TB. What if you first delete folders in these duplicate acounts, using the option 'Leave message base files intact', then delete the duplicate account? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Suppress Resent-From: Header?
Hello Ken Stuart, on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:42:02 -0800 (2003-12-11 23:42:02 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [KS] wrote (at least in part): KS> And my use probably does not fit the intended purpose of such a KS> header. So, is there any way I can suppress this header altogether? Perhaps: drag/copy to outbox, choose another sender ? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Help with TB data recovery
Hello Nick Dutton, on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:13:50 + (2003-12-11 19:13:50 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [ND] wrote (at least in part): ND> I had a bit of a disaster with WinXP today and have lost my C: partition ND> entirely. ND> All my TB! data is on a separate (FAT) partition (thank God for my Linux/Wine) ND> exploits and remained intact. Ok, so that would be account properties and its folders? Then, what I normally do: - install TB! with some dummy account - after that use Account | New - in that window enter one of your known account names - click Browse and select its Home directory - click next for the following account setup screens - now that account should be restored correctly - repeat for other accounts - delete the dummy account I use this when needed. My accounts / addressbook are not stored in the default location either, but on a network drive. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Question mark blinking in 2.02CE
Hello Cedric Fontaine, on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:27:19 -0500 (2003-12-11 20:27:19 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [CF] wrote (at least in part): CF> In 2.02CE on Win XP Pro, the question mark in the upper right corner is sometimes blinking CF> when reading non-read messages. CF> It's very annoying. CF> Any bug report for this one ? From TBBETA mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Check whether you see the Menu Navigator button. Now, enter Options-Preferences, and OK out. The Menu Navigator will be gone. Now, enter Options-Preferences, and OK out again. The Menu Navigator will be back. Repeat for your own amusement. I'm not aware of a bugnote on these. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: 2.02.03 Address Book Bug?
Hello Jonathan Angliss, on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:48:24 -0600 (2003-12-11 15:48:24 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [JA] wrote (at least in part): JA> On Thursday, December 11, 2003, John Phillips wrote... >> In previous versions, double clicking a name in the address book >> opened a "compose" window. JA> Confirmed :/ see http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0002164 Add a bugnote, maybe it will speeds things up (...) -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02.3 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: syntax for the date format?
Hello Jurgen Haug, on Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:51:21 +0100 (2003-12-09 19:51:21 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [JH] wrote (at least in part): JH> I the prefs there is this place to change the look of the JH> displayed time in the email headers... what's the syntax for that? Not sure which setting you mean. Options | Preferences | Messages | Date/Time display perhaps? That's used in the message list pane for Created and Received columns. The format is described in the help-file. JH> I changed the format to that: and that's all very exciting, but JH> it seems to take the date from the windows settings, since they are JH> in german. But as TB! runs in english, I would like to have the JH> dates be displayed in english as well. Is that possible? JH> And in the message header, the date gets displayed as JH> 'Dienstag, 9. Dezember 2003, 19:03:54 (Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:03:54 JH> +0100)' JH> AT LEAST the bug is gone, but now I wonder about thesame thing as above? The left part is shown as set for your Windows locale. The right part is according the "Date:" header field of the email (should always be in english, according to some RFC). -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02 CE An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.02 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: application/ms-tnef
Hello Thomas Fernandez, on Sat, 6 Dec 2003 08:51:55 +0700 (2003-12-06 02:51:55 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [TF] wrote (at least in part): >> Works like a charm, thanks. Would be nice to have that as a plug-in TF> Not possible. For legal reasons, as Stefan pointed out recently. Ok, I accept that. Reason enough to encourage senders to use some standard. TF> Very easy: "I couldn't read your mail. Kindly resend in standard TF> format." Works always over here (ms-tnef and message.att attachments TF> will be ignored by me, period). Me, beying somewhat lazy to personally answer emails with winmail.dat or message.att attachments files myself, is there any filter available to automate that process? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.02 CE RC An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: application/ms-tnef
Hello Jonathan Angliss, on Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:00:21 -0600 (2003-12-05 21:00:21 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you [JA] wrote (at least in part): >> Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; >> name="winmail.dat" JA> The format is proprietary to Microsoft (shock huh?). Naw, I'm not shocked about that at all ;) The text was quite self explaining. JA> http://www.fentun.com/ Works like a charm, thanks. Would be nice to have that as a plug-in (me still trying to convince the %*^$^%& sender to drop the ms-tnef). -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.56 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
application/ms-tnef
Hello TBUDL, Any hints / solution on how to decode a Microsoft Exchange generated attachment like: Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 in a usable way? Hex-reading through a saved winmail.dat suggests it contains a .pdf file. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.56 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Feature Request
Hello Thomas Fernandez, on Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:05:45 +0700 (2003-11-28 02:05:45 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): TF> [FETCH or SEND failed] S>>> on error, change folder name color would be cool. >> Or change the '@'-sign to the left of the account name into red. TF> Yes, that would be a good idea IMHO. But I fear that means another TF> icon has to be added and that causes problems with the glymphs grid. TF> Or does it? My opinion: what problem? TB! programming / functionality should not be limited by some glyphs grid size. Adjust it, give it some version number, whatever to identify it. Then the TB version using the extended glyphs can test the glyphs-version and either accept or reject it. An older version should not accept anything beyond 'what's defined for it' anyways (called 'good programming', in other words: don't accept anything the program doesn't don't know of), so there should be no problem there. Version numbering / identification for _whatever_: the key to prevent problems. Implementing the available information correctly is the next key (accept / reject). I think a red '@' is less intrusive (just informative) than a whole 'line' being marked. Also, marking a whole line may be confusing now the new folder-color-groups seem to withstand beta tests. Maybe the programmers find some way to accomplish this. >> In this case the '@'-sign is changed into blue also. TF> The colour should be changed back to normal when a successful attempt TF> has been made. Sure, as in 'back to normal' being either 'no new/unread mail' (black) or 'unread mail' (blue), hence the actual state at that moment. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.56 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Feature Request
Hello Scott, on Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:55:57 -0600 (2003-11-26 18:55:57 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): S> 1) I would like to see the folder name in the list change colors when ever there is S> an error getting email. When I have multiple email accounts, and hear the same S> sound for a get email error, its a pain to track down which one(s) are the S> problem on error, change folder name color would be cool. Or change the '@'-sign to the left of the account name into red. S> Keep the bold for new/unread email, just give it a red if the error S> dings for that account In this case the '@'-sign is changed into blue also. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Folder specific print setting
Hello TBUDL, In Folder Properties, there's a setting "Use folder-specific print settings". I can't seem to find where how to set them, am I missing something? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB and Hotmail Popper problems
Hello Susanne, on Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:14:06 -0800 (2003-11-22 00:14:06 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): S> But I'm not sure how to configure TB to use one thing to S> download and another to send with. S> I look into it and see if I can get it figured out. You mean how/where to set/change pop3 (receive) and smpt (send) mail? If so: goto account | properties | transport. There you'll find the fields to enter these settings. PS: in case you don't want to mess up settings of the TB account you'r currently using, just create a new one to play around with. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reading mail problem
Hello Stuart Cuddy, on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:10:24 -0600 (2003-11-18 15:10:24 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): SC> Hello TBUDL, SC> I have been using the command View, Display, Only Unread Messages to SC> read my messages from this mailing list. The problem I have is when SC> The Bat! goes to check mail, sometimes, it will refresh the list of SC> unread messages and the message I was reading disappears. Is there SC> any way to stop this short of disabling the check mail every minute SC> feature. Probably you'll have to play around with 'Mark message as read ...' settings in Account | Properties | Options. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Security concerns
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:11:46 + (2003-11-15 23:11:46 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): MDP> TB macros are only executed when TB evaluates a template. Got that. MDP> If you have a template that refers to macros in a disk file in your MDP> attachments folder then conceivably someone could send you a MDP> malicious macro and the very next time you evoke a template (for a MDP> reply, auto-responder, new message, confirmation or forward) it MDP> could execute the malicious code. So, conclusion: don't use an attachment folder to store attachments?! I don't use an attachment folder, hence the question below: If one uses an attachment folder, and some file containing macro exists in there. Then you receive another email with an attachment using the same name as the macro-file, will it be over-written without asking to do so? Then that's a security risk! BTW: my macros / templates are stored elsewhere. MDP> BUT!!! MDP> 1) The person sending you the code would have to know the name of MDP>the file you use. Ya, numerous MS exploits work that way. MDP> 2) You would have to have had your brain removed to write such a MDP>template that calls upon a file in the attachments folder in the MDP>first place - and then *told* someone about it! Seems you'r not aware how an 'average' Windows user is willing to share information. 'long time' TB users seem to be aware of things that most M$ users are not, don't simply assume everyone is aware. MDP> No, this is so far beyond the realms of possibility that it's not MDP> worth thinking about, let alone losing sleep over. See above. It is worth talking about it to those who expect M$-based programs will organise it for them! -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Security concerns
Hello rich gregory, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:13:05 -0500 (2003-11-15 04:13:05 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): rg>>> physical security ... access to your computer PO>> something a user, has to take care of him/herself. rg>>> warnings include X-Headers that identify the attachments directory, rg>>> CR/LF mishandling, and other things. PO>> Something new to me. Any references / explanations? rg> Just a matter of curiosity I did a quick web search and found these. I would rg> guess there are more (if I'd have chosen other search terms) and accepting rg> no software is COMPLETELY bug-free I wanted to see what I was up against rg> here. These both look old, but my original question was meant to see if there rg> are other, newer, know issues to work-around. rg> http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/bugtraq/2001/04/msg00368.html rg> http://lists.insecure.org/lists/bugtraq/2002/Feb/0373.html Content-Type: apllication/exe; name=lpt1 Not sure this would be a TB (or any non-M$ software) bug. Long time ago, when there was no M$-Windows, the M$-Dos ages, one could hang a PC using such 'pre defined' names also. rg> EXAMPLE: I did in Eudora, as I now do in TB!, have my attachments directory rg> set to a non-default name and location so that at least those files will less rg> likely be rooted out by script-kiddie ne'er-do-wells. Of course doing this rg> did give me a problem I now need to address!!! Well, using non-standard install/save locations and such is what I do since many years also. My Windows ain't on c: to start with. Neither is my TB msg base stored in its original suggested location, not even on the PC I use to type this. rg> AFTER TB! was installed (and after TB "knew" to place attachments in it's own rg> default directory) Ya, some trade-off for the 'average' Windows user I guess. At least it's not even as nearly that bad taking over your PC as M$ programs. rg> I moved the attachment directory and the files within so rg> of course now TB thinks the (affected) attachments are 0-byte files! Anyone? Well, you gotta inform TB where you moved them. In general: use account/folder properties to move things around. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Hello rich gregory, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:54:31 -0500 (2003-11-15 02:54:31 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): RG>>> Is there any way to make MicroEd default to that ALT-L more? RA>> Do you mean AutoFormat (Shift+Ctrl+F)? rg> Hi gang! I was just editing an email (not this one!) and saw that I'd again rg> have to press ALT-L to get the paragraph to wrap for me and not run off the rg> edge of the screen. At this point I invoked the above key-stroke combination rg> but it didn't do anything! rg> I DO have autoformat turned ON in the preferences and yet I STILL have to rg> press ALT-L on each and every paragraph in any email I am composing that does rg> not wrap by itself! Well, I haven't checked the exact settings on my TB (I use MicroEd), but what I seem to notice: - MicroEd wraps when the _cursor_ goes beyond the 'wrap-point'. - MicroEd won't wrap when you insert text on a line and the cursor doesn't go beyond the 'wrap-point' Hence, just my opinion: - MicroEd doensn't wrap as an average user would expect, wrap whole words of which anything goes beyong the 'wrap-point', and unwrap when space allows - too long lines may be sent by TB!, as Marck says: TB! won't change what you see / what MicroEd creates -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Security concerns
Hello rich gregory, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:51:23 -0500 (2003-11-15 02:51:23 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): rg> Hello Batters! For the past several months now I've seen how complex and rg> programmable The Bat! is. As with all technology this is good and bad. rg> Aside from those issues related to physical security of access to your rg> computer (we went over this a while back already in this list) what is the rg> state of the security posture of TB? Ya, that's something a user, internet connected, has to take care of him/herself. rg> I read some warnings that include things like X-Headers that rg> identify the attachments directory, I haven't seen that happen with TB!. Test it mailing a msg to youself. rg> CR/LF mishandling, and other things. Do these apply only for earlier rg> versions? Something new to me. Any references / explanations? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:01:00 + (2003-11-14 03:01:00 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): MDP> Hi Vishal, MDP> @13-Nov-2003, 20:29 -0500 (14-Nov 01:29 UK time) Vishal said to MDP> Marck: MDP> PGP can introduce wrapping like you are talking about. TB cannot. Create a TBPGP list perhaps? -- With kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Memo Autoview (ctrl-shift-i)
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:02:31 -0600 (2003-11-14 02:02:31 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): -->> Thursday, November 13, 2003, 6:55:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], tko>>> Does anyone use this? >> Yes, I do. And I like your suggestions. >> But, also be aware of the following: >> http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0001866 tko> Ouch, well I hope to see some way to annotate or have useful memos per tko> message soon. All below with respect to the reported bug. Yet another comment, hope TB! programmers are listening in too: .TBI files seem to be indexing files, used for easy / fast access to .TBB files. My opinion (and probably numerous database admins): Thy shall _never_ _ever_ use an indexing file to store data, of any kind. Someone else (on here or elsewhere) once mentioned that flags / parked / deleted information is stored in .TBB _and_ .TBI files (probably to be recreated in case of) So, why store memos in .TBI files, how's that to be recreated "in case of..", I wonder ? It should _not_ be there to start with. Anyone who's got close connections to TB! developers (and ability to change things): please feel free to forward this email. -- With kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Memo Autoview (ctrl-shift-i)
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:02:31 -0600 (2003-11-14 02:02:31 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): >> But, also be aware of the following: >> http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0001866 tko> Ouch, well I hope to see some way to annotate or have useful memos per tko> message soon. That's what I've been hoping for, soon please. So I will have a valid reason to _force_ the users on the network I administer and on which I introduced TB!, to finally delete/save their mostly bloody huge attachments from an email and make a note/memo of it to conserve email message / storage space. Till now I can't _force_ them, cause of the mentioned reason. -- With kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Memo Autoview (ctrl-shift-i)
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:11:40 -0600 (2003-11-13 01:11:40 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): tko> Does anyone use this? Yes, I do. And I like your suggestions. But, also be aware of the following: http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0001866 -- With kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message Finder
Hello Steve Mullarkey, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:15:26 +1100 (2003-11-14 00:15:26 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): SM> I want to find a message in my TB! folders that has 'Bigfoot' in the SM> sender's address and 'Cairns' in the message body. SM> In the Message Finder I set the following :- SM> 1. Set "Search for" to "Bigfoot & Cairns" SM> 2. Set 'Scope' to 'Anywhere' SM> 3. Tried setting "Regular Expressions" to both ON and OFF. SM> The message is never found. SM> TB!'s help file states that setting scope to 'Anywhere' covers ALL SM> parts of the message so the above should work. SM> How do I specify a search where 'x' is in the address and 'y' is in SM> the body text ? Think this was discussed several days ago in a thread starting with message <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with subject "searching in folders" -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:35:31 + (2003-11-09 03:35:31 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): MDP> Hi Peter, MDP> @9-Nov-2003, 03:30 +0100 (09-Nov 02:30 UK time) Peter Ouwehand [PO] MDP> in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Allie: PO>> Wrapped at xx, soft-wrap at window width, as it has been sent, PO>> ...other... It's up to the user-agent programmers to make that PO>> available. It's that simple. MDP> Let's make it simpler. Be a pro-active part of the solution. Wrap MDP> your own messages on composition. It's a common courtesy and will MDP> work for *all* possible readers, whatever MUA they may have chosen. I'm doing that, I think. If not please inform me. I'm using the MicroEd settings, the TB default setting. Which wraps at 72. But what's wrong starting a discussion on how things could be presented as the end-user would want to see it? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Allie Martin, on Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:47:18 -0500 (2003-11-09 02:47:18 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): AM> Peter Ouwehand, [PO] wrote: PO>> The preferred width comes from some RFC, as someone else mentioned. PO>> Now what if I would like to read a meaasage in a width which doesn't PO>> match yours? You (or the RFC) are now forcing me to use a width PO>> which you may like, but I may not like. AM> I don't know if you're hypothesizing or it is that you really have a AM> problem or do not like reading text wrapped to 76 characters. I simply say: let the end-use decide. AM> Be that as it may, one can never hope to please everyone. True, but you might try. Let the end-user decide through settings in their email client. Anything wrong with that ?? AM> When you're writing to a single individual and you do know their AM> preference, then fine, post to them the way they like. So, what if the end-user changed his/her mind? AM> When posting to a discussion list or when sending e-mail to those whose AM> preference you aren't familiar with, you're far less likely to create AM> problems by sending the text wrapped, and an optimum limit has been AM> defined. All of that is a user-interface question. Either for the sender or receiver. Create options/settings: - send 'long lines' / hard wrap at xx - display 'long lines' / (soft-)wrap at xx/ display as received You should look into the ISO structure, like there is (for instance): - transport - presentation Hence: presentation is up to the user-agant. Ya, this won't adhere to current RFC. Repeating myself: create (a) new one(s). Or: stop discussions about wrapping interpretations, they are subjective. AM> I've just given a VERY practical reason why I don't size the window I AM> read messages from, according to the text wrap limit I prefer. I size it AM> according to the message list above which needs a wide window to display AM> all columns. Guess you use a 'full account list at the left side', like I do. Now thats a lame excuse. The message list representation has absolutely nothing to do with how the preview of messages below it are presented! Example: try Forte-Agent (news reader) PO>> Hence, do not hard-wrap lines. AM> Bad idea unless you specifically know your other party's preference. Naw, using my approach, you send text, long lines, no hard-wrap. Then let the end-user client setting decide how to display it. PO>> Let the end-user decide what s/he likes. Ya, this means not being PO>> compliant to RFCs, create a new RFC, and let the end user decide how PO>> s/he wants to see it, depending on the user-agant setting like: wrap PO>> at xx, soft wrap at window width, as it has been created, PO>> ...something else.. AM> You need to see how others work and configure their window widths. AM> Then run a survey to see which method creates less problems. What for? (see below) AM> I'm one of those who intensely dislikes unwrapped lines in e-mail. AM> Melissa is another. Marck is another. I'm sure there are many AM> others. Like I mentioned before: let the end-user client decide. Wrapped at xx, soft-wrap at window width, as it has been sent, ...other... It's up to the user-agent programmers to make that available. It's that simple. PO>> In HTML-lingo it's called liquid design. Wrapping adjusts to the end PO>> users' browser width. AM> Many web pages depart from that liquid design. Only the simply put AM> together ones still do that. Many, if not most, well developed sites AM> hardwrap text at a reasonable width for comfortable reading. Uh?? Most problems I see coming along are about: "my page looks good in x by y, but gets a horizontal slider when viewed on lower resolution" (or smaller browser width). I don't agree with your statement. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Melissa Reese, on Sat, 8 Nov 2003 16:35:04 -0800 (2003-11-09 01:35:04 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): MR> Hi Rich, MR> On Saturday, November 08, 2003, at 4:08:56 PM PST, you wrote: >> THAT is EXACTLY how (in my feeble little mind) it SHOULD work If >> you see things that way then I hope others do too, never wrapping >> prematurely, never too long to be viewed (horizontally) on one >> screen. I agree, the user/reader should decide what the optimum reading width is. MR> Eek! :-) I've found that in reading email, a wrap setting of between MR> 70-76 is *very comfortable to read*. Lines much longer than that are MR> less comfortable...for this reason... I can imagine you have your own preferred 'reading width', everyone has. MR> Very long lines force our eyes to make longer jumps back and forth MR> from the end of one line back to the beginning of the next. This can MR> be especially inconvenient if there are more than just a few lines. MR> Personally, I prefer a line length of 70 characters, and so that's how MR> I send all my email (you know...do unto others as I wish they would do MR> unto me :-)). The preferred width comes from some RFC, as someone else mentioned. Now what if I would like to read a meaasage in a width which doesn't match yours? You (or the RFC) are now forcing me to use a width which you may like, but I may not like. Hence, do not hard-wrap lines. Let the end-user decide what s/he likes. Ya, this means not being compliant to RFCs, create a new RFC, and let the end user decide how s/he wants to see it, depending on the user-agant setting like: wrap at xx, soft wrap at window width, as it has been created, ...something else.. In HTML-lingo it's called liquid design. Wrapping adjusts to the end users' browser width. MR> If it is your preference to send such "unwrapped" lines, could you MR> please explain to me your reasoning? In any event, please don't worry MR> about "wasting" *my* screen real estate by wrapping your lines before MR> the end of the window...I won't mind in the least (and I'm sure my MR> computer doesn't care either). :-) See above. It will be up to you to set your preferences. What else can you wish for? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:10:53 + (2003-11-08 10:10:53 in .nl) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): MDP> TB also knows how to re-flow quoted text if you wanted to manually MDP> reflow (Alt-L) wrapped paragraphs. Works fine here. Now try this: - reply to a msg - use Ctrl-A to select all the text, or select more than one (quoted) paragraph - use Alt-L - is the result supposed to be? In my opinion: - reflow (or wrap) should fit long lines into a certain width. - reflow shall not remove CRLFs which were meant to be there by the person who put them there for some reason. - a new paragraph does not start after a CRLF, a new paragraph starts after a CRLF plus a blank line. - appearantly TB seems to understand the "CRLF plus blank line" paragraph seperator, but it still removes intentional CRLFs within a paragraph. PS: I'm using the MicroEd setting -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Macro to print message location
Hello all, In the print template I use Location : %AccountName/%FolderName which, for instance, prints something like Location : [EMAIL PROTECTED]/TBUDL to record from which folder the message was printed. As my TBUDL folder is not in the 'root' of the account, I would like to have the whole path to it printed also, like: Location : [EMAIL PROTECTED]/folder1/folder2/TBUDL When using Setup Colums and enable Folder, TB displays the account/path/folder as I would like to use. Can this be achieved using macros? And if so, how? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: ODATE and OTIME problem?
Hello Robin Anson,
on Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:21:46 +1100 (2003-11-02, 08:21:46 in .nl) in the
message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you wrote (at least in part):
RA> This appears to be different from the behaviour you are experiencing.
Below are 2 macros, used on the message with reference
<mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which contains header
field "Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:20:34 -0500"
Macro-1:
%WRAPPED='%-
on%-
%SETPATTREGEXP="(?m-s)Date\:\s*?((.*?[\d]{4})\s*?([\d]%-{0,2}\:[\d]{0,2})\s*?(.*))"%-
%REGEXPMATCH="%HEADERS"%-
(%ODateShort, %OTime="hh:nn:ss" in .nl) %-
in the message with reference <mid:%SETPATTREGEXP=";<(.*)>"%REGEXPMATCH="%OMSGID">%-
you wrote (at least in part):%-
'%-
Results in:
---
on Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:20:34 -0500 (2003-10-31, 00:20:34 in .nl) in
the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you wrote (at least in part):
Which is a correct result.
Macro-2:
(from http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/RegexPt5.html)
%WRAPPED='Historians believe that on %ODATE%-
%SETPATTREGEXP="(?m-s)Date\:\s*?((.*?[\d]{4})\s*?([\d]{0,2}\:%-
[\d]{0,2}\:[\d]{0,2})\s*?(.*))"%-
%REGEXPBLINDMATCH="%HEADERS" , at %SUBPATT="3"[GMT%SUBPATT="4"]%-
(which was %OTIME where I live) you wrote:'%-
Results in:
---
Historians believe that on Friday, October 31, 2003 , at 18:20:34[GMT
-0500](which was 00:20 where I live) you wrote:
Which is an incorrect result.
RA> %ODate and %OTime give me the date and time the original message was sent,
RA> transposed into my timezone.
Having tried both macros on several messages, it seems that Macro-2
returns an incorrect result when "the date and time the original
message was sent, transposed into my timezone" results in being 'the next
day' in my timezone.
It then return the transposed date, but not a transposed time.
This makes the macro unusable/deceptive in my opinion.
--
Kind regards,
Peter Ouwehand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ouwehand dot net
- - - - -
The Bat! V2.01.20
Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4
Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Setting up theBat for dsl?
Hello Susanne, on Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:27:40 -0800 GMT (2003-11-01, 23:27:40 +0100 GMT in NL) in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): S> we are thinking of switching to dsl (Qwest/MSN8, the only S> available choice in our area). S> How do I set TB up to receive mail, once the dsl is S> installed? Assuming you've got it up and running on a dial-up connection now: - select Options | Network & Administration - select the Network tab - select Local Area Network instead of Dial-up connection And, in case you changed provider, update the account properties, especially General, Transport and Options (Periodical check each ...) sections. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ouwehand dot net - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.20 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TBUDL Mission Statement
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Saturday, 2003-11-01, at 02:15:01, in the message with reference <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote (at least in part): MDP> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- MDP> Hash: SHA1 MDP> This is your monthly message from the moderation team to remind you MDP> of the primary purpose of this discussion list. Please send a translation in Dutch, when possible. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ouwehand dot net - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
ODATE and OTIME problem?
Hello TBUDL , From the help file: ODATE[="format"] (replies and forward) insert the date of the original message in the long date format (defined by the system's country settings) or using the format specified by the format parameter OTIME[="format"] (replies and forward) insert the time of the original message in the short time format (defined by the system's country settings) or using the format specified by the format parameter While reading through some pages about RegEx at http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/Regex.html and playing around a bit with the "Historians" example on http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/RegexPt5.html I'm quite confused... Using it on a message which has Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:27:08 +0100 in the headers, ODATE returns Friday, October 31, 2003 and OTIME returns 00:27:08 ( [GMT +0100] from the macro ) Now this I can understand. Using it on another message which has Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:20:34 -0500 in the headers, ODATE returns Friday, October 31, 2003 and OTIME returns 18:20:34 ( [GMT -0500] from the macro ) Now this I don't understand. As the ODATE/OTIME return-values are placed in the reply, I would interpret this as: the senders' message was created on Friday 2003-10-31 at 18:20, which would be 18:20 - 00:37 (local time of arrival at my main-server, located at GMT +0100) = approx 18 hours ahead of my local time. GMT referenced date/time is only allowed to have a + or - 12 hour difference. It seems ODATE simply uses the OTIME value to calculate the ODATE value to return, using the local PC-day/date, not taking into account the GMT offset of the original message. In my opinion this is quite wrong and, for instance, totally f up the "Historians" example. Any opinions / confirmation on this? FYI: I'm on GMT +0100 -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ouwehand dot net - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: To: / CC: "hyperlink"
Hello Roelof Otten, on 2003-10-28, 23:50, you wrote (at least in part): PO>> Am I missing something, or is the To: "hyperlink" simply not PO>> functional to open the address picker? PO>> For CC: it seems to work just fine here. RO> I guess you mean the to-bar in the header part of the edit screen. Yeah, that "To:", in an "Edit Mail Message" window for a new message, which changes from black into white/underlined when the mousepointer hovers over it. Clicking on it doesn't open anything in my TB! version. RO> You can open the address book just fine from it, Clicking on the hyperlink for "CC:" opens a window named "Pick e-mail addresses" in my TB! version. Which I expected to also happen using the "To:" hyperlink. RO> but it has to be selected. Don't know what you mean by that. RO> You can only pick the AB from the active bar, whether that's RO> the to-, cc- or bcc-bar. Don't know what you mean by that either. RO> From and reply-to won't do. Sounds obvious to me. So, am I missing something, expecting too much, is it a bug or feature? -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
To: / CC: "hyperlink"
Hello TBUDL, Am I missing something, or is the To: "hyperlink" simply not functional to open the address picker? For CC: it seems to work just fine here. -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: the difference?
Hello Mark Wieder, on 2003-10-26, 23:00, you wrote (at least in part): MW> Stefan - enhancement request: MW> I'd love to see memos stored in a separate file so they don't get lost MW> during a rebuild. For me this is the one thing that prevents memos MW> from being useful. See also: http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0001866 -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: TB! 2
Hello Douglas Hinds, on 2003-10-26, 01:55, you wrote (at least in part): DH> Thanks but the question was whether v. 2 is really an improvement DH> over version 1.62, in view of the fact that I care nothing about DH> sending html mail. This is a "non-question". Install the 30-day trial and judge youself. You know your needs, so you can judge youself. -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! 2
Hello Martin Webster, on 2003-10-26, 00:27, you wrote (at least in part): DH>> October and the half price offer for current TB! users are coming to DH>> a close. Can anyone give a good reason why I should upgrade? And is DH>> the current version stable? MW> De'ja Vu? Just go for it and support your favourite e-mail client! Oops, my previous msg was meant to be a reply to this one... Referring to some of the msgs from Jonathan Angliss which came in twice in half an hour. Both quite old also, from 2003-10-21. -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: New Version Spotted 2.01.3
Hello Jonathan Angliss, on 2003-10-21, 07:41, you wrote (at least in part): JA> Unfortunately I doubt it, if anything was attempted, they would JA> probably be able to get away on a technicality on what the software is JA> designed to do, and not what the software is being used to. After all, JA> software writers cannot always be held accountable for the software JA> they write if done in good intentions. For example, they could claim JA> that the software was originally designed to be used to send mail to JA> willing participants. Unless you can prove otherwise, the software is JA> just being miss-used (just like TB could be with the mass-mailer JA> option). You were talking about De'ja Vu? Saw this one coming along about a half hour ago, with the same 'Created' time. Mailing-list problems maybe? -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01.7 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: v2.01 references header?
Hello Greg Strong, on 2003-10-19, 02:43, you wrote (at least in part): GS> Hello Greg, >> What happen to the references header in v2.01? GS> I found it. See View | Follow up. k, in the Edit Mail Message window. In the 'normal' view message window it would be guess you meant View | Message Headers | Follow up: That way you can see it before replying ... -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v2.01 references header?
Hello Greg Strong, on 2003-10-19, 02:37, you wrote (at least in part): GS> Hello TBUDL, GS> What happen to the references header in v2.01? GS> Either I missed it, or it no longer is available to view and edit. GS> Please let me know if this was my oversight, RitLabs oversight, or GS> planned. You mean something like: References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I've joined on here after upgrading to V2.01 and I have seen lots of those so far (using RFC-822 headers). -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: transferring TB to new PC?
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 2003-10-18, 04:07, you wrote (at least in part): Qac> Hi All, Qac> My laptop crased and I'm trying to put TB on my new PC...accounts, emails and Qac> all. Qac> I installed the latest trial version of TB on my PC and then copied over the Qac> new "Mail" folder with my old "Mail" folder (containing all my emails, Qac> accounts, etc.). Qac> But nothing happened? When I open TB I only see the one test account I had Qac> to set up when installing. Qac> Any suggestions? Assuming all account / message base data is still intact, try this for each account to be retrieved: - Start TB! - On the menu select Account | New - Fill in an account name - Click on Browse to select the storage location for the account/msgs base to be retrieved - Click Next - Now, and in following screens, you should see settings as they were before - Complete the process PS: make sure you have a copy of all the account/msgs bases to be retrieved, just in case. -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
memo-field data storage
Hello TBUDL, probably all of you know a .TBB file is used to store email msgs (with some additional info) and a .TBI file is used as an indexing file for the .TBB file. As sometimes a message base goes south, it is often advised to delete the .TBI file and let TB! recreate it, which often seems to help. Now, in case you use memo fields (control+shift+i) to add whatever comment to a msg, be aware that deleting a .TBI file will also wipe all memos you ever added to the corresponding email, as memos are stored in the .TBI file. Suggestion to ritlabs: Store such additional data into a seperate file (.TBX ..?), probably using the original msgs ID to link it to the corresponding email. Then, in case the .TBI file is recreated, emails and memos can be recovered correctly. -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: What is that number?
Hello Edward J. Krall, on 2003-10-17, 16:26, you wrote (at least in part): EJK> Hello tbudl, EJK> The folder-tree pane on the upper left side of the The Bat! window is EJK> divided into three columns: Name, Unread and Total. What is the meaning EJK> of a number in angle brackets in the Total column, such as, "0 <5>"? I EJK> can't find an explanation in the on-line help. The 0 means : 0 messages in this folder. The (5) means: 5 more messages in all its sub-folder(s). -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Fixed Width Fonts
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on 2003-10-17, 02:24, you wrote (at least in part): MDP> NB: I don't recommend the anti-social route of forcing your MDP> recipients to read it that way by using HTML! . I virtually dump every 'HTML-alike' email. You should e ashamed for even trying . MDP> I'm switch back MDP> to my fave font as soon as I'm finished typing this. Plain text, pure ASCII, as email was supposed to be. Keep that up! -- Kind regards, ouwehand dot net Peter Ouwehand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - Using The Bat! V2.01 On Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
