Re[2]: Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)
Hello Peter, Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 3:41:25 PM, you wrote: PO Up to the 2.04.04 release BayesIt 0.4gm worked quite fine here, with a PO score level of 40. PO Starting with 2.04.04, BayesIt 0.4gm SE hardly catches spam anymore. It PO has been trained with something like 3000 spam messages, which should be PO enough I think. I lowered the score level to 20, without improvement so PO far. I'll try your suggested level of 1 for a while. I have mine set to 10 at the moment and it seems to be doing pretty well. The big problem is that the spammers are changing tactics so often now that there are new things every couple of days sigh -- Best regards, MikeDmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows ME 4.90 Build 3000 Current version is 2.04.04 | '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 Peter, On 24 Feb 2004 at 21:41:25 +0100 GMT [21:41 CET] you wrote: PO Hello Andre Wichartz, PO on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:44:26 +0100 (2004-02-24 18:44:26 in .nl) in the PO message with reference PO mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you PO [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. PO Up to the 2.04.04 release BayesIt 0.4gm worked quite fine here, with a PO score level of 40. PO Starting with 2.04.04, BayesIt 0.4gm SE hardly catches spam anymore. I'm still using the old gm. I upgraded to 2.04 and because I had bayesit already installed wasn't asked to install the SE. I understand that you loose the training with the SE and that is has other problems. Therefore I didn't really wanted to update my bayesit. -- Cheers, Andre It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance. It is the dream afraid of waking that never takes the chance. It is the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give. And the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live. Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, Doug Weller wrote: I can't get it to kick in. Do you get any error message, such as the /very/ helpful It seems like something is present in your registry, but it's not enough or corrupted that it gives me at startup. Not a big problem to me, but it would be nice if it at least indicated what key it was that it's got problems with. -- Urban A closed mind is a good thing to lose. Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Hello ken, on Monday, February 23, 2004, 10:23:53 PM, ken green wrote: I am in no way saying that The Bat is all bad or that Stefan or RitLabs are terrible or anything like that. In fact, I continue to complain about TB's performance because I do plan on using TheBat well into the future. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother. Yes, you are right doing that. But I think anyway what you see are some users who report problems. In software development it is normal that in some special circumstances the software may fail. For the person where it happens this is a pity and it MUST be fixed but this is not easily to find out by beta testers or the porgrammer before the error occurs. Look, one of a described problem was that the progress circle of connection center was displayed in another color than the rest of the box. In my eyes this is a pity because it doesn't look as nice as it should. But it has no influence in receiving mails and stuff like that. So you can work well with the program if it has this bug inside or not. And beta-team plus Stefan tried to find out why this display problem appeared for some few users until they found out that WindowsBlinds (a windows desktop enhancer utility was the reason for that). So in my eyes there you can't blame Stefan if something like that happened. Anyway he tried to fix it. If it still appears, no idea as I don't have Windows Blinds installed. Go check the PocoMail forum. I tried it out, complained a bit about things I felt were important, then let it go and will likely not look back for some time. I honestly felt like Poco was too far removed from what I wanted (features and stability) to wait around. Yes, of course. Stability and needed features is the most important thing. I also checked some years ago (before using The Bat) several other e-mail clients. And it really is a shame how some clients are done (by stability, functionality and usability). Only The Bat offered enough for me to say, yes, this will be my email client for the future. And when you can say this then it's time to go to the registration page for ordering your key. And believe me I never regreted this until now as Ritlabs really try to fix the problems which occur. I think TB is really close. Probably as close to perfect (for me) that a software app could be. Very good. So don't panic if you see a error posting. Be more in sorrow in case a error posting wouldn't be answered or read by the developers. But they do so and if it really is an urgent matter they will fix it quite fast (as in this case done by version 2.04.7). I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work. Really bad... :) That is your right and I also want it work. If the Bat wouldn't work I even couldn't complain with Stefan by mail... ;) I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain about the latest version? Look through the archives You will read some variation of that response over and over again following critical posts. Well, there I must say that the problem only was caused when upgrading from some special preversions. As I used mostly all betas except the very last RC and the very first test release for me it didn't occur. It mostly happened for people with a old installation which the beta testers normally never have. Maybe this could be a job for Ritlabs to have some installations of old The Bat versions to see if the upgrade is working fine. But I only would test the Release versions - not the Beta ones as they are not for all the people. I think it's fair to hold RitLabs and The Bat to high standards. It's a great product. But it should work as advertised. And as long as new versions are getting released, I expect TB to continue getting greater. Well, yes I also hope so. Many things could be improved (Feature Requests). You may have seen my mails mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. But that are requests which I could imagine as very good for the Bat. I think no other mail client offers these features. So if you ask me I am very happy about The Bat and as you said - let we get it greater! :) -- Best regards, Martin Using The Bat 2.04.4 on Windows XP Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Hello ken, on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 1:26:48 AM, ken green wrote: Come on, this isn't about my needs changing beyond what The Bat has to offer. This is about The Bat promising on functionality and hitting 90% - and I'm complaining about that 10% Yes, and that is good. If noone would complain Stefan would say everyone is happy and wouldn't continue developing The Bat - and what else he could do in his time! ;) Note that I don't ignore that 90% either. I have repeatedly stated that I like TB. But it doesn't stop me from wanting it to be better. What's wrong with asking for 95% or 97%? Nothing. The opposite is the case: we must ask for 110%. So that means additional features. But the first 100% should have as less errors as possible. But consider your experiences with IMAP. Then go to RitLabs site: Fully functional IMAP4rev1 support for on-line, off-line and combined use That's not about addressing Allie's IMAP problems. IMAP is *NOT* fully functional. And it's supposed to be. Well, that may be. However which software fully implements the IMAP standard? In one of the last c't (a german computer magazine) tests about mail clients only a few had an IMAP support. And from these few I think only the Mozilla suite (or Thunderbird) got best grades. All others were lacking some IMAP features. If IMAP isn't fully imlemented, then the product should state this. It's a principle called truth in advertising. You are right. But in the today world noone wants to hear the truth in advertisemnts else the people wouldn't buy it. It is sad but true. Anyway the IMAP support of The Bat is more less okay. At least you can use it (which not always was the case). However every improvement that is done there really would help to increase the 90%. Viva The Bat! Si! :) -- Best regards, Martin Using The Bat 2.04.4 on Windows XP Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Hello tbudl Thank you for your email dated Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 5:31:08 PM, in which you wrote: M In software development it is normal M that in some special circumstances the software may fail. Ain't that the truth. And with some software the circumstances don't have to all that special either. -- Regards William http://www.residues.info Flying with The Bat! www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Hello Doug, on Tue, 24. Feb 2004 at 06:10:24 + you wrote: No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution. D I can't get it to kick in. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, tried to D follow the instructions. When it's active in Options - Preferences - Anti-Spam you should be able to mark Spam with Specials - Mark as Junk. Look at the Anti-Spam options (in Preferences), what TB should do with spams and you should have it working. If a non-spam should be put into your set spam/junk folder you have to use Specials - Mark as NOT Junk to redefine Bayesit's base. HTH. -- shinE! http://www.thequod.de ICQ#152282665 GnuPG/PGP key: http://thequod.de/danielhahler.asc Using The Bat! v2.04.4 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 with POPFile 0.20.1 and avast Jan2004 (4.1.342). Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Quoting dAniel hAhler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Doug, on Tue, 24. Feb 2004 at 06:10:24 + you wrote: No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution. D I can't get it to kick in. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, tried to D follow the instructions. When it's active in Options - Preferences - Anti-Spam you should be able to mark Spam with Specials - Mark as Junk. Look at the Anti-Spam options (in Preferences), what TB should do with spams and you should have it working. This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't Bayesit start to filter out spam by itself? When does it start doing that? If a non-spam should be put into your set spam/junk folder you have to use Specials - Mark as NOT Junk to redefine Bayesit's base. I've also been marking some non-spam as Not Junk in accordance with the instructions. Thanks. Doug -- Doug Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com Doug's Archaeology Site http://www.ramtops.co.uk Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)
Hello Doug, On 24 Feb 2004 at 13:58:38 + GMT [14:58 CET] you wrote: DW This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't Bayesit start DW to filter out spam by itself? When does it start doing that? Yes, but in my experience it needs a lot of spam before. At least a few hundred messages, the more the better. Another thing you could try is to lower the score needed to move a spam to the junk folder as set in preferences. You can set it very low, I've set it to 1, the absolute minimum, and still get no false positives. -- Cheers, Andre Have you ever noticed? Everyone going slower than you is an idiot and everyone going faster a maniac. Current version is 2.04.04 | '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
Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
From the confirmed problems I've been reading about, it seems 2.04.4 isn't any more stable (across multiple users) than the recent betas. What's up? Forgive me for being presumptuous, but shouldn't new problems really be at a minimum in a full release? I can understand some very specific issues coming that might pertain to a certain configuration that was tested. But isn't that what beta testing is for - to iron out the major issues (including problems with installation)? -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on 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: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Hello ken, on Monday, February 23, 2004, 5:53:50 PM, ken green wrote: From the confirmed problems I've been reading about, it seems 2.04.4 isn't any more stable (across multiple users) than the recent betas. No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution. I must say thanks to Stefan and his team for the good work. And please have a look on my suggestions and what you think about that. (I posted them in TBBeta and in the normal TBudl). -- Best regards, Martin Using The Bat 2.04.4 on Windows XP Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Martin Schneider wrote: From the confirmed problems I've been reading about, it seems 2.04.4 isn't any more stable (across multiple users) than the recent betas. No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine I wouldn't expect you could confirm that if you are not having problems. But I also don't expect that *everyone* is having problems. However, I do think something is seriously wrong when at least 8 different people can reproduce Access Violations with the View Mode problem that has existed for awhile. It's one thing for a beta to do this. Quite another for something billed as an official release - especially considering the fiasco with the Christmas Edition. I must say thanks to Stefan and his team for the good work. I don't deny that Stefan and his team are doing good work. But perhaps they should be doing great work? At least great/better testing, IMO. I know it's easy to fawn over such a great program and be hesitant to criticize. But I think we should maintain high expectations for such a great product, and respect the developers enough to be unyieldingly critical. Frankly, I'm a bit baffled at the problems *regular* users (not beta testers) are experiencing with the upgrade. I hope someday I can actually experience The Bat! v2 with an acceptable level of problems/glitches... -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on 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: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Ken Green, [KG] wrote: KG Frankly, I'm a bit baffled at the problems *regular* users (not KG beta testers) are experiencing with the upgrade. KG I hope someday I can actually experience The Bat! v2 with an KG acceptable level of problems/glitches... While I do agree, in general, with what you're saying, and my past messages on TBBETA will reflect this, there are not many applications where you'll not read users having problems with applications, and great ones at that. It should be interesting to see if users who tried none of the pre-release versions experience. This release is far better than its predecessor which had glaring problems that not only a few experienced, but that everyone could reproduce. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Using TB! v2.04.4 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Allie Martin wrote: While I do agree, in general, with what you're saying, and my past messages on TBBETA will reflect this, there are not many applications where you'll not read users having problems with applications, and great ones at that. Allie... I think you are too nice! ;) True, there appears to be few mail clients that can properly handle IMAP, and I am well aware that no software can be 100% bug-free. I belong to a number of lists and/or forums directly related to the software solutions I use, and it is true that users experience problems on all of them. But that does not mean I (or anyone else) should not complain when something doesn't work as advertised. Feature requests are one thing. Not performing as promised (including Access Violations) is quite another. Let's keep perspective here. I am in no way saying that The Bat is all bad or that Stefan or RitLabs are terrible or anything like that. In fact, I continue to complain about TB's performance because I do plan on using TheBat well into the future. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother. Go check the PocoMail forum. I tried it out, complained a bit about things I felt were important, then let it go and will likely not look back for some time. I honestly felt like Poco was too far removed from what I wanted (features and stability) to wait around. I think TB is really close. Probably as close to perfect (for me) that a software app could be. I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work. Really bad... :) This release is far better than its predecessor which had glaring problems that not only a few experienced, but that everyone could reproduce. I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain about the latest version? Look through the archives You will read some variation of that response over and over again following critical posts. At what point does that not matter? If I purchase a software app that suddenly deletes all the contents from my hard drive when I run it, should I be happy that the new version only deletes directories with an L in their name? (silly extreme example, I know...) But what is the measuring stick? Seriously, I'm quite happy that TheBat is improving. But this isn't freeware. I bought and paid for an e-mail client that I am currently unable to use. And I am unable to use it because it does not deliver on what it is *supposed* to do. It's not working. As I've stated, I'm willing to wait. But not quietly... ;) I think it's important to remember that updated software is supposed to improve. Later releases are supposed to be better-tested than their predecessors. I know that this isn't always the case (and some apps have been ruined by a new version) but I think it's fair to expect it. I think it's fair to hold RitLabs and The Bat to high standards. It's a great product. But it should work as advertised. And as long as new versions are getting released, I expect TB to continue getting greater. -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on 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: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Ken Green, [KG] wrote: KG Allie... I think you are too nice! ;) I don't. KG I belong to a number of lists and/or forums directly related to KG the software solutions I use, and it is true that users experience KG problems on all of them. Exactly. KG But that does not mean I (or anyone else) should not complain when KG something doesn't work as advertised. Indicate that something doesn't work vs complaining? :) There is a difference, and I guess this is where we're having our disagreement which is OK. I'm just sharing how I personally feel. KG Feature requests are one thing. Not performing as promised KG (including Access Violations) is quite another. I'm not sure what you mean by writing 'performing as promised'. What promises were made? No software developer will promise that bugs will not exist in their software. KG Let's keep perspective here. Right. :) KG I am in no way saying that The Bat is all bad or that Stefan or KG RitLabs are terrible or anything like that. I never really thought so. :) KG In fact, I continue to complain about TB's performance because I KG do plan on using TheBat well into the future. If I didn't, I KG wouldn't bother. KG Go check the PocoMail forum. No thanks. :) I'll take your word on what you have to say about it. :) KG I think TB is really close. Probably as close to perfect (for me) KG that a software app could be. KG I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work. Really bad... :) Same here. Things are being ironed out nicely. I'm patiently waiting. :) Of course, patiently waiting doesn't mean that I'll not continue to post my experiences with buggy behaviour as well as limitations in current functionality. KG I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT KG SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain KG about the latest version? Perhaps because they don't agree that there are grounds to be *complaining* in general or *complaining* about a particular feature/point. :) As I wrote above, I think there's a difference between reporting odd/buggy behaviour as opposed to complaining. Complaining usually implies frustration and losing ones patience. It implies that the other party is unreasonable or hasn't been keeping up their side of an agreement. OTOH, though this release has its share of problems and bugs, I do feel that it's the end result of great work from the Ritlabs development team. They listened to their beta testers and dealt with many problems/bugs. They have promised to add more features and solve more issues with upcoming releases. Though I'm still far from completely comfortable with TB!'s current status, especially since I use an IMAP account to manage mail, I am satisfied with the current progress and that there are indeed efforts being made to improve current IMAP functionality. It's already far better than when I first started using it. Folder compression solved. Non-functioning Maintenance Centre solved Badly functioning server side outbox solved. Problematic message deleting solved Moving/copying messages across IMAP accounts solved There are other fixes. Again, I repeat that there are still problems and lacking features but things have been progressing so I don't feel like complaining. :) KG Look through the archives You will read some variation of that KG response over and over again following critical posts. KG At what point does that not matter? I guess my last couple paragraphs answer that. Of course, what triggers complaining is all subjective. I see no reason for complaining, while you do. However, I do see that there's a problem with the search function with some configurations and this should be reported and hopefully sorted out soon. Maybe I should stick in my disclaimer here: The fact that I don't personally see grounds for complaining doesn't mean that I'm asking you or others not to complain if *you* so desire. Just be prepared to read the dittos or disagreements like mine. :) KG If I purchase a software app that suddenly deletes all the KG contents from my hard drive when I run it, should I be happy that KG the new version only deletes directories with an L in their name? KG (silly extreme example, I know...) Yeah, so it's difficult to answer what doesn't really exist now. KG Seriously, I'm quite happy that TheBat is improving. But this KG isn't freeware. I bought and paid for an e-mail client that I am KG currently unable to use. And I am unable to use it because it does KG not deliver on what it is *supposed* to do. It's not working. I'm not, and will unlikely ever be, sympathetic to this line of argument. No one forced you to purchase TB! and you really should ensure that it works for you before doing so (I'm sure it originally worked for you). The fact that you purchased it doesn't mean that it now *has to* or should always be made to work for you. Our needs often change and we need new functionality to the point where what used to work no longer does or
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
Hi Martin, Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 12:08:24 AM, you wrote: No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution. I can't get it to kick in. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, tried to follow the instructions. Doug -- Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated Submissions to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Doug and Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?
quoting Allie Martin: KG Allie... I think you are too nice! ;) A I don't. That was mostly in jest, but after reading your points about complaining vs. indicating where a problem is, I feel we may be at risk of sinking in semantics. KG But that does not mean I (or anyone else) should not complain when KG something doesn't work as advertised. A Indicate that something doesn't work vs complaining? :) There is a A difference, and I guess this is where we're having our disagreement A which is OK. I'm just sharing how I personally feel. I know MANY people that would define pointing out that something doesn't work *IS* complaining. Where you draw the line is very subjective. Personally, I think pointing out problems, indicating there are things that don't work, reporting bugs, etc. are all forms of complaining. That may be arguing semantics, but I think its important to realize that reading over my post that you responded to, I didn't get the feeling it was from someone who wanted to bad-mouth The Bat or see RitLabs besmirched. A I'm not sure what you mean by writing 'performing as promised'. A What promises were made? No software developer will promise that bugs A will not exist in their software. KG Let's keep perspective here. A Right. :) Well, then don't make silly/unnecessary statements. :) Do you really think it was necessary to write No software developer will promise that bugs will not exist in their software ?? I made it very clear that I know software isn't going to be bug-free. When I talk about working as promised I am talking about release notes that claim things have been fixed, features listed on the website, etc. The Bat is purported to be an IMAP-capable e-mail client. Your posts alone challenge that one quite a bit. KG I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work. Really bad... :) A Same here. Things are being ironed out nicely. I'm patiently waiting. A :) Of course, patiently waiting doesn't mean that I'll not continue to A post my experiences with buggy behaviour as well as limitations in A current functionality. You mean complain?!? Six of one, half dozen of the other. KG I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT KG SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain KG about the latest version? A Perhaps because they don't agree that there are grounds to be A *complaining* in general or *complaining* about a particular A feature/point. :) As I wrote above, I think there's a difference A between reporting odd/buggy behaviour as opposed to complaining. I don't think there's a difference, really. Yes, I can see that expressing my unhappiness and/or frustration without listing specifics might be dismissed as unnecessary complaining, but I think it's valid. RitLabs needs to know if its user base is unhappy (my opinion, of course). I also think it's a little weird how this sense of loyalty seems to surface on lists when something is criticized. I've always felt that something that is truly good (and I think TB is) will stand on its own merit and not need defending. My recent (complaining) messages were prompted mostly from reading other people's experiences. I continue to use 1.62r on my main computer and have not had time to keep beta-testing on my laptop (and I think after reading about the issues recently posted, installing 2.04.4 is more beta-testing). I got Access Violations almost immediately after installing 2.04.4. That wasn't a big deal at first - again I know apps cannot be perfect. Frustrating, yes. But I figured it might be my particular configuration. Then I started reading about a lot more people experiencing AVs. This was a release version. And I read about some of the other problems people are experiencing - people who are not beta-testers. And I didn't want to just be quiet about it. I don't need to prove my intentions, but I know that I want RitLabs and The Bat to succeed. I know that my motivation to complain is partly based in this desire. (The other part is that I'm a selfish, curmudgeon loud-mouth bastard. ;) A Complaining usually implies frustration and losing ones patience. It A implies that the other party is unreasonable or hasn't been keeping up A their side of an agreement. That is how you are interpreting the meaning of the word you used.* I'm really not upset at all. I posted my criticisms while very clear-headed and without any anger or malice whatsoever. I thought that was pretty clear in my post. * just as a side note, the two common definitions for the verb complain are as follows: 1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment. 2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge. I don't think #2 is really that far from submitting a bug report... ;) A OTOH, though this release has its share of A problems and bugs, I do feel that it's the end result of great work A from the Ritlabs development team. They listened to their beta testers A
