Hello.
The Bat! v4.2 still does not have a proper moving icon for
Windows 7.
It is becoming frustrating as I have to manually check if I have new mail.
Screenshot attached. (You can see The Bat's icon is not moving, even
though there was new mail in my Inbox.)
Windows 7 is very close t
On Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:55:39 PM, Marek Mikus wrote:
> seems "You" care about IMAP only, but for example our customers requested
> version without problem with DEP detection under Windows 2008 Server,
> version with fixed incorrect handling of MIME boundary, versions with fixed
> templates in f
On Monday, June 8, 2009, 5:23:05 PM, Marek Mikus wrote:
> customers.
those waiting on IMAP are not customers? (I only go back to 1.x)
--
Dwight A. Corrin
316.303.9385 phone ahead to fax
dcorrin at fastmail.fm
photo galleries at http://dcorrin.smugmug.com
photo blog at http://dcorrin.aminus3.c
On Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:23:43 PM, Marek Mikus wrote:
> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released now as
> requested bugfix version with some additions and Postponed sending. This
> is the reason.
If this is true, what will the excuse be in 4 or 5 months when 4.3
fix
Dear Volker,
@9-Jun-2009, 00:48 +0200 (08-Jun 23:48 here) Volker Ahrendt [VA] in
mid:1758381592.20090609004...@ahrendt.net said to Marek:
...
pardon accepted, but we in TBBETA are not only customers.
>>> Oh, come on, Marek! If we are primarily *not* customers, what do you
>>> think we are?
> Better yet, learn to be chaotic at times like those of us
> with Irish genes!
Paddy and Murphy were in a pub yesterday, St. Patrick's day, getting
really plastered and talking bar talk.
Paddy looks meditatively at the ice cubes floating in his whiskey &
tonic and says, "You know, lions have
Hello all,
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Volker Ahrendt wrote:
> This is indeed enough.
> But again: Why must we beg for such information? (No, I do not want an
> answer, it is again a rhetorical question.)
I do not know, maybe Stef wants to surprise betatesters with build, when
it will be prepared to
Hi Volker,
Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:54:14 PM, you wrote:
> [Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-09 · 00:44 h (CET)]
>> I hope, this is enough now to stop imap-related discussion until
>> anything related to IMAP will be announced.
> This is indeed enough.
> But again: Why must we beg for such inf
Hi Marek,
Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:44:30 PM, you wrote:
>> That sounds entirely plausible and indeed likely!
> and it is true, of course.
> This is Stef's week old comment and even I have not authorization to
> publish his private message, I hope he will not punish me.
ST>> The new message list
[Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-09 · 00:44 h (CET)]
> This is Stef's week old comment and even I have not authorization to
> publish his private message, I hope he will not punish me.
ST>> The new message list is still in under development, because the
ST>> current release wasn't really planne
Hi Volker,
Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:38:59 PM, you wrote:
> [Reply to: »Bob Riley« · 2009-06-09 · 00:00 h (CET)]
> Moin, Bob!
I like that greeting!
> As Raymund just wrote:
>> .·¨[Raymund]¨·.
>> ·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—
>> Just a simple 'Hey guys, we'
[Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-09 · 00:38 h (CET)]
Moin, Marek!
Pardon me, but the customer – in this case it is *us* – does not
care about *internal* plans behind closed doors. The customer
wants to rely on official statements from RITLabs and not on
rumors.
>>> pardon a
[Reply to: »Jens Franik« · 2009-06-09 · 00:31 h (CET)]
Moin, Jens!
>>> pardon accepted, but we in TBBETA are not only customers.
>> Oh, come on, Marek! If we are primarily *not* customers, what do you
>> think we are?
> Volker, i tell you: I am (not yet) but have been a Reseller for The
> Bat,
Hello all,
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Bob Riley wrote:
> That sounds entirely plausible and indeed likely!
and it is true, of course.
This is Stef's week old comment and even I have not authorization to
publish his private message, I hope he will not punish me.
ST> The new message list is still in
[Reply to: »Raymund Tump« · 2009-06-09 · 00:30 h (CET)]
Moin, Raymund!
>>> I do not want to be a nitpicker, but we should stick to the truth,
>>> shouldn’t we? ;-)
>> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released
>> now as requested bugfix version with some additions and Post
[Reply to: »Bob Riley« · 2009-06-09 · 00:00 h (CET)]
Moin, Bob!
>> Pardon me, but the customer – in this case it is *us* – does not
>> care about *internal* plans behind closed doors. The customer wants
>> to rely on official statements from RITLabs and not on rumors.
> But official statements c
Hello all,
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Volker Ahrendt wrote:
>>> Pardon me, but the customer – in this case it is *us* – does not
>>> care about *internal* plans behind closed doors. The customer wants
>>> to rely on official statements from RITLabs and not on rumors.
>> pardon accepted, but we in TBB
Hello all,
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Raymund Tump wrote:
> As I'm working at a software company myself I know that from time to
> time you have to change plans. That is not was worries me, it is the
> lack of communication from Ritlabs itself.
> Just a simple 'Hey guys, we're still working on it, bu
Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009 at 00:30, Raymund Tump wrote:
> If you're the official voice of Ritlabs that's fine, but I doubt it.
He already told us, that he is _not_ the official voice.
But sometimes hears something more than we - maybe by phone or private
mail.
--
With kind Regards
Jens Franik
mai
On maandag 8 juni 2009, 11:55:39 PM Marek Mikus wrote,
> [... ] our customers requested version without problem with DEP
> detection under Windows 2008 Server, version with fixed incorrect
> handling of MIME boundary, versions with fixed templates in
> filtering system, version with fixed quick te
Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009 at 00:23, Volker Ahrendt wrote:
>> pardon accepted, but we in TBBETA are not only customers.
> Oh, come on, Marek! If we are primarily *not* customers, what do you
> think we are?
Volker, i tell you: I am (not yet) but have been a Reseller for The
Bat, not official, but i
Hi Marek!
>> I do not want to be a nitpicker, but we should stick to the truth,
>> shouldn’t we? ;-)
> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released now as
> requested bugfix version with some additions and Postponed sending. This
> is the reason.
As I'm working at a software
Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009 at 00:00, Bob Riley wrote:
>>> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released
>>> now as requested bugfix version with some additions and Postponed
>>> sending. This is the reason.
> That sounds entirely plausible and indeed likely!
Who caused it to hap
Hello all,
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Jens Franik wrote:
>> was released now as
>> requested bugfix version
> Who requested?
customers.
--
Bye
Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz
Using the best The Bat! 4.2.4
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3
with MyMacros,XM
[Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-08 · 23:55 h (CET)]
>>> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released
>>> now as requested bugfix version with some additions and Postponed
>>> sending. This is the reason.
>> Pardon me, but the customer – in this case it is *us* – does not
>
Montag, 8. Juni 2009 at 23:55, Marek Mikus wrote:
> but for example our customers requested
> version without problem with
Well all this Problems are not in the last release?
Then you should not have released the buggy version.
or
Are this problems which are collected over years?
Then you didn
Montag, 8. Juni 2009 at 23:23, Marek Mikus wrote:
> was released now as
> requested bugfix version
Who requested?
--
With kind Regards
Jens Franik
mailto:je...@gmx.de
Picture of me? X-Rogue http://www.de2all.de/Kr_bat.jpg
The Bat! 4.2.1.1 + AntiSpamSniper 3.2.0.6 + Gaijin XMP Makro Plugin 1.1.
Hi Volker,
Monday, June 8, 2009, 3:37:55 PM, you wrote:
> [Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-08 · 23:23 h (CET)]
> Moin!
[snip]
>> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released
>> now as requested bugfix version with some additions and Postponed
>> sending. This is the reas
Hello all,
Monday, June 8, 2009, Volker Ahrendt wrote:
>> this build called 4.2 was not planned in january and was released
>> now as requested bugfix version with some additions and Postponed
>> sending. This is the reason.
> Pardon me, but the customer – in this case it is *us* – does not care
Volker,
> Pardon me, but the customer – in this case it is *us* – does not care
> about *internal* plans behind closed doors. The customer wants to rely
> on official statements from RITLabs and not on rumors.
> That’s just to raise the topic "Clear Communication". Is it so hard to
> understand?
[Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-08 · 23:23 h (CET)]
Moin!
>> False. The statements were done during beta cycle which lead to the
>> release of The Bat! 4.1.11 [1] on Jan 22, 2009. So the rework
>> "after the release" (see above) should have started in January 2009
>> and implemented in the nex
Hello all,
Monday, June 8, 2009, Volker Ahrendt wrote:
> False. The statements were done during beta cycle which lead to the
> release of The Bat! 4.1.11 [1] on Jan 22, 2009. So the rework "after
> the release" (see above) should have started in January 2009 and
> implemented in the next release (
[Reply to: »Gleason Pace« · 2009-06-08 · 16:14 h (CET)]
Moin, Gleason!
>>> .·¨[Maxim Masiutin @ TBB, 2008-12-19]¨·.
>>> ·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—
>>> […] Please note that this fix is not related specifically to IMAP,
>>> it is only a workaround of ineffi
On Monday, June 8, 2009, 3:54:13 PM, Gleason Pace wrote:
> Yes, and it is not true that Imap is totally useless for those who use
> Imap. This isn't the first time you have heard that. But as soon as
> the successful Imapers get quiet you are right back on the same track
> again. Which makes
Gleason Pace schrieb:
Christian,
Gleason Pace schrieb:
Congrats on not listening to your BETA List and bringing out another
bugged version.
And once again a totally useless version for those using IMAP.
Why make inflammatory statements that you must know are not correct
Christian,
> Finally - "useless" - it is. What sense is there in using a client - or
> even wanting a customer to buy it - and having to tell them - but don´t
> use IMAP! Even though the package says it supports IMAP - just don´t use
> it.
> If you want to use it - well then make ready for errors
Montag, 8. Juni 2009 at 11:32, Volker Ahrendt wrote:
> Why is it often so hard for people to admit, that something
> (repeatedly) went wrong?
I like the calm and dry way, how you put together the important
things, Volker, really!
It would be a very straight Community here, if we could reduce the
Christian,
> Gleason Pace schrieb:
>>
>>> Congrats on not listening to your BETA List and bringing out another
>>> bugged version.
>>> And once again a totally useless version for those using IMAP.
>>>
>>
>> Why make inflammatory statements that you must know are not correct?
>>
>>
> Int
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:14:40 -0400, Gleason Pace wrote:
>>>4.2 is minor upgrade with more bugfixes than additions, yes,
>>>postponed sending is available, but there are importans bugfixes and
>>>this is reason this version was released as final.
IMHO Ritlabs should have done this "important" bugfi
Ethan J Mings schrieb:
grow weary of the "blind shots" that are not well documented simply
listed here in the forum. Your message, "... totally useless version
for using IMAP" is in accurate because it does work. Put the concern
in the bug track or give a link to the specific existing bug track
Gleason Pace schrieb:
Congrats on not listening to your BETA List and bringing out another
bugged version.
And once again a totally useless version for those using IMAP.
Why make inflammatory statements that you must know are not correct?
Interesting statement seeing all the replies
Christian,
> Maxim Masiutin schrieb:
>> Hello Tbbeta,
>>
>> We didn't change the EXE file, just repacked the MSI with the new THEBAT.LNG:
>>
>> www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/thebat_pro_4-2.msi
>> www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/thebat_home_4-2.msi
>> www.ritlabs.com/download/fil
Volker,
>> .·¨[Stefan Tanurkov @ TBB, 2008-10-30]¨·.
>> ·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—·—
>> VŠ> Can someone from Rit update us on where IMAP rewrite is?
>>
>> We've made changes to the message base format in order to improve
>> IMAP in the next release, so it
Hello Vilius,
Monday, June 8, 2009, 1:33:24 AM, you wrote:
> Yes, it was reported 4 year ago:
> https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4880
Excellent.
RIT can use the information as they move forward.
Jerry
--
Ethan J Mings
Oakville, Ontario Canada
qualityoff...@consultant.com
___
[Reply to: »Marek Mikus« · 2009-06-08 · 01:21 h (CET)]
Moin!
>>> And: I think someone with knowledge about that posted that 4.2
>>> will be the version with IMAP working. Obviously that was
>>> marketing.
> nobody told this,
Sorry, but IMHO these statements do not allow any diversity in
interpr
45 matches
Mail list logo
