Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hello Peter, On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:40:25 +0200 GMT (25/05/2005, 00:40 +0700 GMT), Peter Palmreuther wrote: TF>> To post in the usenet, you need to own an FQDN (fully-qualified domain TF>> name). PP> You don't. I thought I did. Mine is @thomas-bkk.my-fqdn.de. Search Google News and you'll find

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Gary, On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:30:52 -0500 GMT (25/05/2005, 00:30 +0700 GMT), Gary wrote: T>> News postings get propagated over the world via various news servers. T>> That's why the mid needs to be unique. G> Mids are nothing more than previous message-IDs relating to that email. True. G>

Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hello Thomas, On Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 5:27:13 PM Thomas [TF] wrote: AM>> TB! uses the domain name of the sender address. What if it's AM>> 'yahoo.com' or 'gmx.net'? These aren't at all unique either. :) TF> To post in the usenet, you need to own an FQDN (fully-qualified domain TF> name). Yo

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Thomas, On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:32:28 +0700 UTC (5/24/2005, 11:32 AM -0500 UTC my time), Thomas Fernandez wrote: G>> The spec does not differentiate between email, USENET, or mailing lists, T> This is a mistake, IMHO. For technical reasons: T> News postings get propagated over the world via v

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Tony, --<> 24.05.2005 12:56 +0100: You can check it with Mulberry very easily: Mailbox -> Sort By -> Thread. Or just click on the Thread heading in the preview pane. Eliminated this, 'cause I want to have a different view. :) -- Manuel, http://www.manuel-breitfeld.de

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:18:05 +0100 GMT (24/05/2005, 23:18 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: BTW, your sig delimiter is above your message. >> Please, please: Tell me WHERE! TB> It's over there somewhere, I saw it on a travel program. I'm pretty sure TB> it's not far from Phuckit as that

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:19:47 +0100 GMT (24/05/2005, 23:19 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: >> And it has: Your messages do thread now! TB> I know they do, but it's a bodge not a fix. Works for me. -- Cheers, Thomas. What to not say to the nice policeman: I was trying to keep up with

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Gary, On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:40:09 -0500 GMT (24/05/2005, 22:40 +0700 GMT), Gary wrote: T>> Hm. Do MUST sentences in the RFCs refer to recommendations? G> Umm, no, the definitions of these terms, MUST, etc, as below, as to their G> meaning is in RFC 2119. It is difficult for me to just pic

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Thomas. - --On 24 May 2005 22:39 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Please, please: Tell me WHERE! It's over there somewhere, I saw it on a travel program. I'm pretty sure it&#

Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hi Thomas, On 24/05/2005 10:27 PM +0700, you wrote: > It's not OT. It's about TB handles mids, and when you use TB with > MyGate to post to newsgroups, this is very on-topic. I was wondering how we came to be speaking about newsgroups and now it's clear. I don't see why TB! should follow newsg

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Thomas. - --On 24 May 2005 22:31 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > And it has: Your messages do thread now! I know they do, but it's a bodge not a fix. - -- Tony. M. -B

Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Thomas. - --On 24 May 2005 22:27 +0700 you wrote about Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested): > I'm pretty sure it doesn't and you'd be flamed in the usenet. Luckily, we >

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Thomas. - --On 24 May 2005 22:12 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > So Tony is safe in my opinion, Assuming Tony values your opinion that is :) Lets get one thing straight, I used to be l

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Clive, On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:35:30 +0100 GMT (24/05/2005, 00:35 +0700 GMT), Clive Taylor wrote: >> You client seems to not do that. CT> Not true, Thomas. The problem's not with the email client but the servers. I got it. -- Cheers, Thomas. Personnel executives of 100 major corporatio

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Thomas, On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:12:48 +0700 UTC (5/24/2005, 10:12 AM -0500 UTC my time), Thomas Fernandez wrote: G>> now the RECOMMENDED part G>> The message identifier (msg-id) itself MUST be a globally unique G>>identifier for a message. The generator of the message identifier G>>MU

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:19:54 +0100 GMT (24/05/2005, 00:19 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: >> Accepted. I'll go to sleep now, may it's fixed in the morrow. TB> I don't know if it'll be tomorrow Thomas, I sincerely hope so but I'm not TB> holding my breath. It's tomorrow, but your messag

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:12:56 +0100 GMT (24/05/2005, 00:12 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: >> An explanation is not a solution. TB> No, but knowing the cause leads to a solution... Hopefully! And it has: Your messages do thread now! -- Cheers, Thomas. A journey of a thousand miles

Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hello Allie, On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:24:26 -0500 GMT (24/05/2005, 04:24 +0700 GMT), Allie Martin wrote: AM> TB! uses the domain name of the sender address. What if it's AM> 'yahoo.com' or 'gmx.net'? These aren't at all unique either. :) To post in the usenet, you need to own an FQDN (fully-qualif

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Gary, On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:04:26 -0500 GMT (24/05/2005, 04:04 +0700 GMT), Gary wrote: G> now the RECOMMENDED part G> The message identifier (msg-id) itself MUST be a globally unique G>identifier for a message. The generator of the message identifier G>MUST guarantee that the msg

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Manuel. --On 24 May 2005 10:10 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > You can check it with Mulberry very easily: Mailbox -> Sort By -> Thread. Or just click on the Thread heading in the preview pane. -- Tony. M. pgp5V9dj

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris. --On 24 May 2005 10:09 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Sorry if I didn't understand you correctly, but the threading problem IS > solved. Your message id is fine. It's not actually fixed. I just bodged it so

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Tony, --<> 24.05.2005 08:59 +0100: yes if it needs to thread on mids or the mid variable is in the reply template, as Boris has his setup. So if TB! could read that part properly would that solve my threading problem or is it still a reference header problem? Reference header is the pro

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, Tony Boom wrote (in ): >> yes if it needs to thread on mids or the mid variable is in the reply >> template, as Boris has his setup. > So if TB! could read that part properly would that solve my threading > problem or is it still a reference header problem? So

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Gary. --On 23 May 2005 16:28 -0500 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > yes if it needs to thread on mids or the mid variable is in the reply > template, as Boris has his setup. So if TB! could read that part properly would that so

OT: Lookups for special mids (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hello Gary, Gary wrote (in ): >> So TB! needs to be able to do lookups on those types of message ids. > yes if it needs to thread on mids or the mid variable is in the reply > template, as Boris has his setup. Hm threading is fine here, however it doesn't the message if t

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Allie, --On Monday, May 23, 2005 4:18 PM -0500 you wrote in part: Yes, it is very legal.. So TB! needs to be able to do lookups on those types of message ids. yes if it needs to thread on mids or the mid variable is in the reply template, as Boris has his setup. -- Gary

Re: OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hi Boris, On 23/5/2005 11:13 PM +0200, you wrote: > Very? Hm, with this IP the right part isn't unique (funny: you use the > same IP than I do :-), TB! uses the domain name of the sender address. What if it's 'yahoo.com' or 'gmx.net'? These aren't at all unique either. :) > but when you use

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Gary, On 23/5/2005 4:04 PM -0500, you wrote: >> Just curious. Can the RFC gurus tell me if that message id format is >> legal? > > Yes, it is very legal.. So TB! needs to be able to do lookups on those types of message ids. -- Allie Martin System specs: http://www.ac-martin.com/sysspe

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Allie, --On Monday, May 23, 2005 4:04 PM -0500 you wrote in part: Tony Boom wrote (in ): Just curious. Can the RFC gurus tell me if that message id format is legal? Yes, it is very legal.. Forgot to mention the source... RFC 2822 - Internet Message Format -- Ga

OT: Message ID (Was: Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested)

Hello Gary, Gary wrote (in ): >> Just curious. Can the RFC gurus tell me if that message id format is >> legal? > Yes, it is very legal.. Very? Hm, with this IP the right part isn't unique (funny: you use the same IP than I do :-), but when you use an unique left part (wh

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Gary. --On 23 May 2005 15:39 -0500 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > IIRC, without looking it up, there is absolutely no spec for a message ID > at all. You can use whatever you wish, as long as it is unique for each > email. If he

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Allie. --On 23 May 2005 15:55 -0500 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Ok. Anyone saying yes or no on this paragraph. Thanks for the input > Gary. I'm all for it, I was well impressed. -- Tony. [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP.sig Descr

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Allie, --On Monday, May 23, 2005 3:52 PM -0500 you wrote in part: Just curious. Can the RFC gurus tell me if that message id format is legal? Yes, it is very legal.. The "Message-ID:" field provides a unique message identifier that refers to a particular version of a particular message.

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Gary, On 23/5/2005 3:39 PM -0500, you wrote: > IIRC, without looking it up, there is absolutely no spec for a > message ID at all. You can use whatever you wish, as long as it is > unique for each email. If he wanted to put @chicken-soup it is > permissible. :) In fact, many people modify th

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Boris, On 23/5/2005 10:15 PM +0200, you wrote: > Tony Boom wrote (in ): Just curious. Can the RFC gurus tell me if that message id format is legal? -- Allie Martin System specs: http://www.ac-martin.com/sysspecs.htm -=-=- If only women came with pulldown menus and

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Boris, On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:15:29 +0200 UTC (5/23/2005, 3:15 PM -0500 UTC my time), Boris Anders wrote: B> Tony Boom wrote (in ): B> For me, it is. Don't know whether it's an good idea to use @192.168.2.12 B> (see above) but I've no problem with that. IIRC, without l

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony. --On 23 May 2005 21:31 +0100 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: >> Don't know whether it's an good idea to use @192.168.2.12 (see above) but >> I've no problem with that. Ooops! Must remember CTRL+X not CTRL+C !

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris. --On 23 May 2005 22:15 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > For me, it is. Then that makes me happy. > Tony Boom wrote (in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>): >^^^

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, Tony Boom wrote (in ): ^^^ strange, but ok. >> but that doesn't solve problem right now :-(. > Oh alright then... There, fixed now? For me, it is. Don't know whether it's an good idea to use @192.168.2.12 (see

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris. --On 23 May 2005 21:55 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Don't understand you here, but do whatever is necessary to fix the > problem! Thanks! Sorted :) -- Tony. M. PGP.sig Description: PG

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris. --On 23 May 2005 21:51 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Use another mail-provider for the list or don't post until problem is > fixed. I won't post anymore then if you don't want me to. I'll just g

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, Tony Boom wrote (in ): >> It would be /very/ nice if this wouldn't happen any more. It's really >> really really annoying for me! > With your permission I'll forward your message to my provider in order to > outline the problems it's causing? Don't understand

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Allie, Allie Martin wrote (in ): > True, but what solution do you have to offer? :) Use another mail-provider for the list or don't post until problem is fixed. I believe that Tony really don't like "his" problem at all and tries hardly to solve it, but that doesn't

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Mark. --On 23 May 2005 19:27 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > I'm only asking because knowing is far more reliable than thinking: > Is the first and the second one supposed to be one and the same? :-) I don't know b

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

--On 23 May 2005 22:42 +0700 Thomas Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You client seems to not do that. Not true, Thomas. The problem's not with the email client but the servers. -- Clive Taylor Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBE

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, Monday, May 23, 2005, 6:25:27 PM, you wrote: TB> would also help in keeping ones foot out of ones mouth :) I'm only asking because knowing is far more reliable than thinking: Is the first and the second one supposed to be one and the same? :-) -- Best Wishes, Mark

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Alexander. --On 23 May 2005 18:39 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Which would mean, since I'm a 1&1 customer, too, if I'd be using IMAP, my > threading headers would be broken, too. I have to try that. Only if y

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Thomas. --On 23 May 2005 23:34 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Accepted. I'll go to sleep now, may it's fixed in the morrow. I don't know if it'll be tomorrow Thomas, I sincerely hope so but I'm not holdin

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Thomas. --On 23 May 2005 23:17 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > An explanation is not a solution. No, but knowing the cause leads to a solution... Hopefully! -- Tony.

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony Boom & everyone else, on 23-Mai-2005 at 18:25 you (Tony Boom) wrote: > my IMAP service provider is Which would mean, since I'm a 1&1 customer, too, if I'd be using IMAP, my threading headers would be broken, too. I have to try that. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:25:27 +0100 GMT (23/05/2005, 23:25 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: TB> You've either been on holiday, on Mars or asleep for a few Weeks... Or TB> laying on that nudist beach the other side of you island :) Unfortunately, no nudist beach over here. But I have had c

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Allie. --On 23 May 2005 11:05 -0500 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > This has been discussed at length. The problem is with the IMAP server > and Tony is trying to sort this out with his ISP. Thank you for your support Allie, had I rea

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Thomas, On 23/5/2005 11:17 PM +0700, you wrote: > The ISP is setting the Reply-to headers? This must be an aspect of > IMAP I wasn't aware of. I wasn't either until the problem arose and was explained. > You are saying the MUA (or its settings) has nothing to do with > it, but the ISP doe

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Thomas. --On 23 May 2005 22:42 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Don't think so. Thinking is OK for some people, knowing for an absolute fact is far more reliable when engaging in public debate. A reasonable amount of research

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Allie, On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:05:27 -0500 GMT (23/05/2005, 23:05 +0700 GMT), Allie Martin wrote: AM> I'm using the same client and do you see the problem??? AM> This has been discussed at length. The problem is with the IMAP server AM> and Tony is trying to sort this out with his ISP. The

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi Thomas, On 23/5/2005 10:42 PM +0700, you wrote: > Don't think so. You are using Mulberry/4.0.0 (Win32). On TBOT, someone > posted the RFC that says that mids must be enclosed in angular > brackets. You client seems to not do that. Threading is still broken, > as your message didn't appear un

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:25:34 +0100 GMT (23/05/2005, 22:25 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: >> Hm. Have you tried an RFC-compatible client? TB> Yes, and I'm still using it this very minute. Don't think so. You are using Mulberry/4.0.0 (Win32). On TBOT, someone posted the RFC that says th

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Thomas. --On 23 May 2005 22:11 +0700 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Hm. Have you tried an RFC-compatible client? Yes, and I'm still using it this very minute. --

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:07:03 +0100 GMT (23/05/2005, 22:07 +0700 GMT), Tony Boom wrote: TB> I'm trying my hardest. I've notified my provider, they asked for examples TB> and I sent them. Other than traveling to the other end of the Country and TB> supervising the work myself I don't kn

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris. --On 23 May 2005 16:52 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > It would be /very/ nice if this wouldn't happen any more. It's really > really really annoying for me! With your permission I'll forward your message to

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris, On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:52:05 +0200 GMT (23/05/2005, 21:52 +0700 GMT), Boris Anders wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] BA>^^ BA> It would be /very/ nice if this wouldn't happen any more. It's really BA> really really annoying for me! AC

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris. --On 23 May 2005 16:52 +0200 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > It would be /very/ nice if this wouldn't happen any more. It's really > really really annoying for me! It would be very, very nice indeed, more so for m

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Tony, Tony Boom wrote (in ): > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Leif. --On 23 May 2005 07:48 -0600 you wrote about Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested: > Please don't feel singled out anyone :) -- Tony. M. Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA'

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin, Saturday, May 21, 2005, 11:22:17 PM, you wrote: M> No please again - stop this silly game with official betas, private M> betas, closed betas, daily betas - it's absurd. It's really not a game. The daily betas are there to test one or two bugfixes at a time and they're generally mea

Re[2]: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hi, >> Context menu in message list: >> Attachments - Open... |Save...|Delete|Print... >> doesn't work. MS> Can't confirm. Are you sure that an attached file is MS> marked/highlighted before you use a command? If there is no one MS> marked - nothing goes - of course. but the option "Save all" sh

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin, Martin Schoch wrote (in ): >> Context menu in message list: >> Attachments - Open... |Save...|Delete|Print... >> doesn't work. > Can't confirm. Are you sure that an attached file is > marked/highlighted before you use a command? You are right - I didn't sele

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Boris, On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:17:49 +0200 GMT (22/05/2005, 15:17 +0700 GMT), Boris Anders wrote: BA> Context menu in message list: BA> Attachments - Open... |Save...|Delete|Print... BA> doesn't work. Not confirmed. works fine here. -- Cheers, Thomas. "I've noticed that the press tends

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Peter, Peter Ouwehand wrote (in ): Context menu in message list: Attachments - Open... |Save...|Delete|Print... doesn't work. Moreover "delete" produces an AV, when message auto-view is disabled (since start of TheBat!). -- Regards, Boris Anders, http://www.batboard

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

On Sat 21-May-05 9:13pm -0500, I wrote: > On Sat 21-May-05 1:42am -0500, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > >> Fixes and changes are compiled into "daily builds" >> and everyone can get them. > > I check for the daily builds here: > > http://www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/beta/daily.txt > > The l

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

On Sat 21-May-05 1:42am -0500, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Fixes and changes are compiled into "daily builds" > and everyone can get them. I check for the daily builds here: http://www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/beta/daily.txt The last one is dated 7.05.2005 - that's batspeak for May 7t

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin, Martin Schoch wrote (in ): > Why don't you trust it - it's to buggy? I trust my "backup" more, than the internal. > So it's something for the bug list then. Maybe, but I can't confirm any of them. >>> No "On-The-Fly Pwd" installation: >>> mid:[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Ian A. White & everyone else, on 21-Mai-2005 at 12:53 you (Ian A. White) wrote: > I asked about the version because there was a promised version on the > Monday (that is last Monday) after 3.5 was released. Yes I know. That announcement was made by Stefan Tanurkov on TBUDL, and he made ano

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Peter, > User Interface: > === 'Watch folders' not displayed in message list context menu Special/Watch Replies In. See -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.5 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4 ___

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin, Martin Schoch wrote (in ): > "Delete" icons disappears: > mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Confirmed. > Restore problems: > mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you use internal backup? So I'm not able to test whether it's reproducible here (I for mine don't trust the internal b

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin Schoch & everyone else, on 21-Mai-2005 at 10:53 you (Martin Schoch) wrote: >> If you get a message from a dev "please test if the bug you had is fixed >> with the daily build [URL]", would you return to the old version after you >> tested it? > So why don't you do it? Ehhh? Did you

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin Schoch & everyone else, on 21-Mai-2005 at 10:26 you (Martin Schoch) wrote: > But as far as I see at least two users (are they called > super-beta-testers) have this version. Yes, they are superior beings, above human. You have read my previous message. But did you understand it? I

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin Schoch & everyone else, on 21-Mai-2005 at 08:21 you (Martin Schoch) wrote: > I really don't like if there is a two-class system with testers - > some getting recent versions, others not so recent one... Whats the problem with that? The official version is 3.5 at the moment, there *i

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Ian, On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:02:53 +1000 GMT(5/20/2005, 8:02 PM -0600 GMT), per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian A. White wrote: > I see you are using 3.5.0.11. Where do you get this? Good question! It is not from the download page because I tried. -- Best Regards, Greg Strong Using The Bat!

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Peter, On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:58:35 +0200 GMT (20/05/2005, 07:58 +0700 GMT), Peter Ouwehand wrote: PO> - PO> Empty lines if you scroll total on the bottom with the mouse in the PO> message list. PO> 3.5RC7: PO> - There appears to be improvement in the Account

Re: 3.5.0.11 / 3.5 Postfix a preview of issues to be tested

Hello Martin, Martin Schoch wrote (in ): > What I have to do that all me reported bugs and problems get on your > list? Say the magic word: Beer *SCNR* Maybe you'll give us the mid's of your reported bugs, and we'll tell you why it wasn't added or we add it :-). Please e