Hello Goncalo,
on Sunday, 19. March 2006, at 01:37:47 [GMT +] you wrote regarding
"Mod: HTML use (was: dll error)":
> Could we have the rules updates in regard to the HTML prohibition?
> HTML emails are a fact of life now...
big NO!
--
Ciao
Thomas
Using: TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta)
Syste
In reply to :
GF> In reply to :
MDP>> Please do not send HTML messages to the list except for purposes of
MDP>> testing. While the merits of HTML are debatable, and have been
MDP>> discussed numerous times on the lists, the list rules prohibit HTML
MDP>> e-mail.
GF> Could we have the rul
In reply to :
MDP> Please do not send HTML messages to the list except for purposes of
MDP> testing. While the merits of HTML are debatable, and have been
MDP> discussed numerous times on the lists, the list rules prohibit HTML
MDP> e-mail.
Could we have the rules updates in regard to the H
Hi Richard,
In reply to :
GF>> That's really odd! Have you tried on a different system?
RN> No . . . but I will in a bit. Although, I would guess that this
RN> anomoly is system specific because no one else has been able to
RN> confirm. At the same time, it is also TB bug because it works
Hello Goncalo,
Saturday, March 18, 2006, 5:21:13 PM, you wrote:
GF> Have you tried on a different system?
I have tried on a different system and been able to replicate problem
in it's entirty.
1) I went to a system that still had 3.6 on it. I replaced the .exe with
3.72.04 and replicated the probl
hi,
Friday, March 17, 2006, 5:26:26 PM, you wrote:
>>> MSVCR71.DLL not found
>>> No idea what it means.
vv>> MS Visual C Runtime. needed by some plugin maybe?
> hey, you're good!
you're good too, as we don't have much of testers that are 64bit-aware(tm). :)
> Yesss thanks.
> Appar
Hello Goncalo,
Saturday, March 18, 2006, 5:21:13 PM, you wrote:
GF> That's really odd! Have you tried on a different system?
No . . . but I will in a bit. Although, I would guess that this
anomoly is system specific because no one else has been able to
confirm. At the same time, it is also TB bug
In reply to :
RN> Hello Batpeople,
RN> I am continuing to get miniscule, postage-stamp size pages when
RN> printing from v3.72.04. This began with v3.71.01. This does not
RN> happen when using v3.71.03, or earlier, on exactly the same files.
RN> I have three times completely remove
In reply to :
M>> The answer to that is, yes. :)
MP> Yes what??? :)
Yes, "anyone really using less than 1024x768 these days?"
--
Best regards,
Goncalo Farias
What's brown and sticky? A stick.
Current beta is 3.72.04 | 'Using T
On 18/3/2006 at 9:52:56 AM [GMT -0500], Richard Newman wrote:
> I am continuing to get miniscule, postage-stamp size pages when
> printing from v3.72.04.
Can't confirm here. I'm printing with an HP 990Cxi, and I also have
FinePrint installed.
--
-= Curtis =-
The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http:/
Hi Raymund Tump,
Saturday, March 18, 2006
you let us know -possibly edited- :
> And then immediately forget it ;-) SCNR
I heard that!
--
kind regards
Charlene Ferrara
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) on
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
Skype: charleneferrara
>> I agree. IMAP has been working well here too. :)
> Excellent. :) It's been a long haul, but it's good.
I never thought I'd be saying this but after a fresh install on a new
HD this version of TB! is performing really well here too, to the
extent that I've (re)made it my default mailer. Its per
Hello Mike & everyone else,
on 18-Mrz-2006 at 18:37 you (Mike) wrote:
> Seriously, there are still people using resolutions lower than
> 1024x768 - I'm at 800x600 - so, no assumption can be made about the
> size of the dialogs.
OK, I got it. :-) But the folder properties window is only 514 x 457
Hello Richard Newman & everyone else,
on 18-Mrz-2006 at 15:52 you (Richard Newman) wrote:
> I am continuing to get miniscule, postage-stamp size pages when
> printing from v3.72.04. This began with v3.71.01. This does not happen
> when using v3.71.03, or earlier, on exactly the same files.
I jus
Hi MAU!
>> than 1024x768 - I'm at 800x600 - so, no assumption can be made about
>> the size of the dialogs.
> Right, but what's the problem for those with lower resolutions if they
> are resizable?
None, as long as the default dialog is less than 800x600.
--
Bis denne dann,
Raymund
Hello Mike,
> Seriously, there are still people using resolutions lower
> than 1024x768 - I'm at 800x600 - so, no assumption can be made about
> the size of the dialogs.
Right, but what's the problem for those with lower resolutions if they
are resizable?
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urec
Hello Roger!
On Friday, March 17, 2006, 11:34 PM, you wrote:
9>> [*] Folder properties re-design
> Just a minor criticism! The first sub-title in the Template section
> is also 'Template'; this should rather be 'New message', as in the
> address book templates.
It should. I hope this will be c
On Saturday, March 18, 2006, 7:35:11 AM, Mark Partous wrote:
MP> Yes what??? :)
Yes, sir? LOL
Seriously, there are still people using resolutions lower
than 1024x768 - I'm at 800x600 - so, no assumption can be made about
the size of the dialogs.
--
Mike
Using The Bat!
Hi Charlene!
>> the panel should be resizable.
> Fully agreed, and TB should memorize the size until next call.
And then immediately forget it ;-) SCNR
--
Regards,
Raymund
Current beta is 3.72.04 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://w
Recently, Richard Newman squawked:
> Hello Batpeople,
> I am continuing to get miniscule, postage-stamp size pages when
> printing from v3.72.04.
Can not confirm.
Prints exactly as I want, all across the page, stem to stern
on WinME using a Brothers MFC640CW printer device.
--
Regards,
Robert
Hi Curtis,
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:53:36 -0500 UTC (3/18/2006, 6:53 AM -0500 UTC my
time), Curtis wrote:
>> I agree. IMAP has been working well here too. :)
C> Excellent. :) It's been a long haul, but it's good.
a long haul, and I almost ran out of gas :)) TB! IMAP is extremely stable
now on a
Hallo Richard,
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:52:56 -0500GMT (18-3-2006, 15:52 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:
RN> I am continuing to get miniscule, postage-stamp size pages when
RN> printing from v3.72.04. This began with v3.71.01. This does not happen
RN> when using v3.71.03, or earlier, on exactly th
Hello Paul,
Thursday, March 16, 2006, 6:06:59 PM, you wrote:
PVN> the printer from WordPerfect the problem reappeared. I sold her a new
See mine on "v3.72.04 (beta) printing remains unusable." The problem
occurs on four "printers" only with Bat versions higher than 3.71.03.
It does not happen with
Hello Batpeople,
I am continuing to get miniscule, postage-stamp size pages when
printing from v3.72.04. This began with v3.71.01. This does not happen
when using v3.71.03, or earlier, on exactly the same files.
I have three times completely removed The Bat, removed all references
in the registry
Curtis,
On 18-03-2006 13:53, you [C] wrote in
:
C> On 17/3/2006 at 10:21:44 PM [GMT -0500], Gary wrote:
>> I agree. IMAP has been working well here too. :)
C> Excellent. :) It's been a long haul, but it's good.
In the pentultimate betas I had some issues (more than normal).
I have not yet test
Hi Curtis,
Saturday, March 18, 2006, 1:10:25 AM, you wrote:
>> [-] (#0004597) Backuping IMAP mails fails
> It now runs here without any errors.
Looks like things are working better here, although I've yet to try a restore
to establish that the backup is good. The backup went fine without er
Hello Zygmunt,
Saturday, March 18, 2006, 2:41:17 AM, you wrote:
> This is very useful change. However, for Virtual Folder properties in
> Filter section the items do not match to the panel size. This section should
> be either redesigned from scratch or the panel should be resizable.
I fully agr
On 17/3/2006 at 10:21:44 PM [GMT -0500], Gary wrote:
> I agree. IMAP has been working well here too. :)
Excellent. :) It's been a long haul, but it's good.
--
-= Curtis =-
The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name
PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name
...Oxymoron: Weather Forecast.
Hello Mike,
Saturday, March 18, 2006, 1:07:40 PM, you wrote:
M> The answer to that is, yes. :)
Yes what??? :)
--
Best Wishes,
Mark
using
The Bat! Version 3.72.02 (Beta)
MyMacros 1.11a
zOmbie's Macros Version 0.7
Windows 2000 Professional/5.0 build 219
On Saturday, March 18, 2006, 4:05:26 AM, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
ASK> I cannot understand how that properties window is a) so tiny (is
ASK> anyone really using less than 1024x768 these days?!)
The answer to that is, yes. :)
--
Mike
Using The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP 5.1 B
On 2006-03-18 (10:05), you wrote:
> (is anyone
> really using less than 1024x768 these days?!)
Regarding browsers and WWW, here are facts:
in Poland:
http://www.ranking.pl/rank.php?stat=dimsPL
in Czech:
http://www.rankings.cz/rank.php?stat=dimsPL
in Lithuania:
http://www.ranking.lt/rank.php?stat=d
Hi Zygmunt Wereszczynski,
Saturday, March 18, 2006
you let us know -possibly edited- :
> the panel should be resizable.
Fully agreed, and TB should memorize the size until next call.
--
kind regards
Charlene Ferrara
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) on
Windows XP 5.1 B
Hello Zygmunt Wereszczynski & everyone else,
on 18-Mrz-2006 at 01:41 you (Zygmunt Wereszczynski) wrote:
>> [*] Folder properties re-design
> This is very useful change. However, for Virtual Folder properties in
> Filter section the items do not match to the panel size. This section should
> be e
On 2006-03-18 (01:41), you wrote:
> the panel should be resizable.
very good point. This is the best way.
Best regards, Krzysztof Kudłacik
--
pb _, )\__/( ,_ Polska Strona Programu The Bat! |
/'.;`-.`{..}',-';.`\ http://thebat.pl |
/'.'; `-,`-""-',-' ;`.`\
Hello Zygmunt,
Saturday, March 18, 2006, 2:41:17 AM, among other things, you wrote:
>> [*] Folder properties re-design
ZW> However, for Virtual Folder properties in
ZW> Filter section the items do not match to the panel size.
ZW> The panel should be resizable.
Agreed, the tabs are even not full
35 matches
Mail list logo