Hello Thomas,
V Come on guys, a little sense of humor...
All is fine. I understood your intentions correctly from the
beginning, only my posting came over too dry. ;-)
Than everything is fine :)
--
Vili
Current beta is 3.98.03 |
Hello Alexander,
Is not version numbering used to note how much work was done in the
release?
It would be entirely new to me that there are strict guidelines how
developers should use version numbering. :-)
Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
Hi Vili and fellow beta testers,
Sunday, March 4, 2007, 8:24:56 AM, you wrote:
V Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
V http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. (from an old U.S. TV commercial)
--
Regards,
Hello Vili,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:24:56 -0500 GMT (04/03/2007, 20:24 +0700 GMT),
Vili wrote:
V Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
V http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
Tricked in the middle of March, long before April fool's day. I
disconnected
Hello Thomas,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:24:56 -0500 GMT (04/03/2007, 20:24 +0700 GMT),
Vili wrote:
V Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
V http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
Tricked in the middle of March, long before April fool's day. I
Hello Alexander,
Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
lol Vili!!!
Shall we kill him? Only virtually, of course ;-)
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.98.3 on Windows XP
Hello MAU
On Sunday, March 4, 2007 you wrote:
Hello Alexander,
Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
lol Vili!!!
Shall we kill him? Only virtually, of course ;-)
No - he would just come back as version 1.1
Hello Alexander
On Saturday, March 3, 2007 you wrote:
Hello Rick Grunwald everyone else,
on Saturday, March 3, 2007 at 16:00 you (Rick Grunwald) wrote:
Is not version numbering used to note how much work was done in the
release?
It would be entirely new to me that there are strict
Hello MAU,
Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
lol Vili!!!
Shall we kill him? Only virtually, of course ;-)
:
--
Vili
The Bat 3.86.03 ALPHA (beta) on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Szervizcsomag 2
Hello Alexander,
Is not version numbering used to note how much work was done in the
release?
It would be entirely new to me that there are strict guidelines how
developers should use version numbering. :-)
Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
Hi Vili,
Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:
http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html
ROFL !
--
Robert van der Hulst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! 3.98.2.2 on Windows XP.5.1.2600 Service Pack 2
and Bayes Filter Plugin v2.0.4
Hello Vili,
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:35:42 -0500 GMT (04/03/2007, 21:35 +0700 GMT),
Vili wrote:
Tricked in the middle of March, long before April fool's day. I
disconnected from the internet and reconnected for safety reasons,
hoping you don't know who I am, as I don't have a fixed IP address.
On Sunday, March 4, 2007, 10:55:10 AM, MAU wrote:
Shall we kill him? Only virtually, of course ;-)
you can send him a stale bottle of beer
--
Dwight A. Corrin
928 S Broadway
Wichita KS 67211
316.303.1411 fax 316.265.7568
dcorrin at fastmail.fm
Using IMAP with The Bat! 3.98.3 on Windows XP
Hello Alexander
On Friday, March 2, 2007 you wrote:
Whats the point of naming the thing 3.98.02.2? Why not use 3.98.03
instead? You skipped the entire 3.97.x branch after the 3.96.x betas,
and you don't owe me an explanation (maybe its some sort of moldavian
superstition that 3.97 is an evil
Hello Alexander
On Saturday, March 3, 2007 you wrote:
Hello Rick Grunwald everyone else,
on Saturday, March 3, 2007 at 16:00 you (Rick Grunwald) wrote:
Is not version numbering used to note how much work was done in the
release?
It would be entirely new to me that there are strict
Hello all,
Saturday, March 3, 2007, Rick Grunwald wrote:
Sorry but there are strict guidelines although I would have to
research who and where. Nothing that could or should be enforced
If a version goes from v3 to 3.1 then 10% of the code has been
updated. When you change from v3 to v4 then
On Saturday, March 3, 2007, 21:33:48, Rick Grunwald wrote:
Sorry but there are strict guidelines although I would have to
research who and where. Nothing that could or should be enforced
If a version goes from v3 to 3.1 then 10% of the code has been
updated. When you change from v3 to v4 then
Hello Marek
On Saturday, March 3, 2007 you wrote:
and do You really think, any company uses this? As I remember, we were
able to see Google Desktop 1.x, 2.x 3.x and 4.x during one year. So should
we expect, they completely rewrote its code threetimes in one year?
It doesn't matter what I
Hello Jernej
On Saturday, March 3, 2007 you wrote:
Find me MS Word 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 (And Windows NT 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 :)
It is not a set of rules but rather guidelines
It is not a set of rules but rather guidelines
It is not a set of rules but rather guidelines
It is not a set of rules but
Hello Ian,
A reminder of what Ian A. White on TBBETA typed on:
13 May 2005 at 22:40:20 GMT +0200
I shall forward them the message in its entirety and ask them why it
was considered infected.
It's probably because the name of a common virus is included in the text
but I'll be interested
--On 13 May 2005 23:41 +0200 MAU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably because 'document_word.pif. *.pif are typical infected files.
I didn't send any pif files, just plain text with a NOD32 virus report in
it.
--
Tony.
M.
Current beta is
Hello MAU everyone else,
on 13-Mai-2005 at 13:06 you (MAU) wrote:
I installed this plugin a few days ago just for testing it, but I have
not received any infected messages since then. Do you have any in your
Quarantine folder that you could forward to me?
You can create your own test virus:
Hello Marek,
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:58:03 +0200 GMT(5/13/2005, 5:58 AM -0600 GMT),
per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Marek Mikus wrote:
Ok, i managed to get the version number of the plugin, it's 1.1092.
this is correct plugin and correct version number,
I downloaded from http://www.ritlabs.com/en
Hello all,
Saturday, May 14, 2005, Greg Strong wrote:
this is correct plugin and correct version number,
I downloaded from http://www.ritlabs.com/en/solutions/avirus.php.
The version number I see in Options | Preferences | Protection |
Antivirus | Virus checking Plug-ins | version is 1.1096
Hello Marek,
On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:48:42 +0200 GMT(5/14/2005, 12:48 PM -0600 GMT),
per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Marek Mikus wrote:
The version number I see in Options | Preferences | Protection |
Antivirus | Virus checking Plug-ins | version is 1.1096.
this is number of virus base currently
Hello all,
Saturday, May 14, 2005, Greg Strong wrote:
The version number I see in Options | Preferences | Protection |
Antivirus | Virus checking Plug-ins | version is 1.1096.
this is number of virus base currently available in NOD32.
Ok how do I get version # of the plug-in?
I'm
!
this is not possible, there is no such info in this version and this
is last one :-)
Either I misread or how can you say the following?
,- [ per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
| Ok, i managed to get the version number of the plugin, it's 1.1092.
|
| this is correct plug-in and correct version number
Hello all,
Saturday, May 14, 2005, Greg Strong wrote:
,- [ per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
| Ok, i managed to get the version number of the plugin, it's 1.1092.
|
| this is correct plug-in and correct version number,
`-
Unless you meant version # of the virus signature database
Hello Tony,
Probably because 'document_word.pif. *.pif are typical infected files.
I didn't send any pif files, just plain text with a NOD32 virus report in
it.
Yes, but the text 'document_word.pif was in your message, wasn't it?
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Hello Alexander,
I installed this plugin a few days ago just for testing it, but I have
not received any infected messages since then. Do you have any in your
Quarantine folder that you could forward to me?
You can create your own test virus:
http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm
Hello MAU,
just now (on 05/14/2005 at 21:49) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't send any pif files, just plain text with a NOD32 virus report in
it.
Yes, but the text 'document_word.pif was in your message, wasn't it?
No, Tonys message didn't have a file *.pif in its message, nor was its
--On 14 May 2005 21:49 +0200 MAU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but the text 'document_word.pif was in your message, wasn't it?
No it wasn't. All I did was to create a *new* message and then pasted the
NOD32 report into it. There was nothing different about it to this message
whereby your text
Hello Greg,
Antivirus | Virus checking Plug-ins | version is 1.1096.
Hmmm! A new version or just a typo?
That I know of, the version displayed is that of the last _signatures_
file which, as of today, is 1.1096.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5
Hello Manuel,
I didn't send any pif files, just plain text with a NOD32 virus report in
it.
Yes, but the text 'document_word.pif was in your message, wasn't it?
No, Tonys message didn't have a file *.pif in its message, nor was its
content pasted in the message.
I know, but the text
Hello Tony,
Yes, but the text 'document_word.pif was in your message, wasn't it?
No it wasn't. All I did was to create a *new* message and then pasted the
NOD32 report into it. There was nothing different about it to this message
whereby your text is pasted as a quote above.
It was a
--On 14 May 2005 22:31 +0200 MAU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That probably that's
what Ian's ISP virus scanning saw and flagged Tony's message as
infected.
Well if that's the case Ian will probably let us know because you included
those words in the past 3 or 4 of your posts, And if it picks it up
Hey MAU,
just now (on 05/14/2005 at 22:31) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, does that text contain the words/letters document_word.pif in it,
or not?
Ohm, hmm,... have to go now. :D
It is actually a copy of the message headers that some ISPs look at for
possible spam or viruses.
Okay, but
--On 14 May 2005 22:32 +0200 MAU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See my reply to Manuel, please.
I've seen it and replied to it. Just waiting for Ian's comments to see if
your posts got flagged.
--
Tony.
M.
Current beta is (none) | 'Using
Hello Tony,
Well if that's the case Ian will probably let us know because you included
those words in the past 3 or 4 of your posts, And if it picks it up from
within one of my messages, it'll certainly pick it up from yours.
Maybe not because there is a difference. Your message included
--On 14 May 2005 22:45 +0200 MAU [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe not because there is a difference.
My mailboxes have server side virus scanning and they never picked it up. Either way it's good it did get flagged, better safe than a penicillin shot in the buttocks :)
--
Tony.
M.
Hi Bat! folks,
Ok, i managed to get the version number of the plugin, it's 1.1092.
Hth.
And to the mods, do i still not have a cut mark? I see it in the
message editor as i compose so it's there at least until i send the
mail.
--
/Krister mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This mail brought to you
Hello Krister,
And to the mods, do i still not have a cut mark?
Yes, you have it and works fine.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4
Current
Hello all,
Friday, May 13, 2005, Krister Ekstrom wrote:
Ok, i managed to get the version number of the plugin, it's 1.1092.
this is correct plugin and correct version number, that's strange, I
am using plugin and NOD32 for months and never saw any warning during
sending :-(
--
Bye
Marek
On Friday, May 13, 2005 at 5:58:03 AM [GMT -0500], Marek Mikus wrote:
this is correct plugin and correct version number, that's strange, I
am using plugin and NOD32 for months and never saw any warning during
sending :-(
Does that plugin version work with the new NOD32 v2.5 that I just
Hello Marek,
this is correct plugin and correct version number, ...
I installed this plugin a few days ago just for testing it, but I have
not received any infected messages since then. Do you have any in your
Quarantine folder that you could forward to me?
TIA.
--
Best regards,
Miguel
Hello all,
Friday, May 13, 2005, Allie Martin wrote:
this is correct plugin and correct version number, that's strange, I
am using plugin and NOD32 for months and never saw any warning during
sending :-(
Does that plugin version work with the new NOD32 v2.5 that I just
upgraded to?
I am
Hello Allie,
A reminder of what Allie Martin on TBBETA typed on:
13 May 2005 at 13:04:44 GMT +0200
Does that plugin version work with the new NOD32 v2.5 that I just
upgraded to?
I'm using the very latest version of NOD32 and that pluggin is working
fine here. At least I get no errors
Hello MAU,
A reminder of what MAU on TBBETA typed on:
13 May 2005 at 13:09:05 GMT +0200
Do you have any in your Quarantine folder that you could forward to me?
I'd like to test that too if I may.
--
Tony.
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 Windows XP Home SP2
Pentium IV, 2.4Ghz Home Built
Hello all,
Friday, May 13, 2005, MAU wrote:
this is correct plugin and correct version number, ...
I installed this plugin a few days ago just for testing it, but I have
not received any infected messages since then. Do you have any in your
Quarantine folder that you could forward to me?
I
Hello Marek,
A reminder of what Marek Mikus on TBBETA typed on:
13 May 2005 at 15:01:50 GMT +0200
I have exported 10 infected messages I have in Quarantine, You can
download it from here:
What do we do with it?
I scanned it with NOD32 and got this:
date: 13.5.2005 time: 14:04:07
Hello all,
Friday, May 13, 2005, Tony Boom wrote:
I have exported 10 infected messages I have in Quarantine, You can
download it from here:
What do we do with it?
I scanned it with NOD32 and got this:
date: 13.5.2005 time: 14:04:07
Scanned disks, directories and files: C:\Documents
Hello Marek,
A reminder of what Marek Mikus on TBBETA typed on:
13 May 2005 at 15:16:57 GMT +0200
file is password-protected, so antivirus can't check its content.
I was talking about after I extracted it, after entering the password.
--
Tony.
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 Windows XP
Hello Marek,
Unpack it, import to TB and check folder via Folder | Check for
viruses.
That works, detected all of them. Now I have to send one of them to
myself and see if it is scanned/detected when receiving.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5
Hello Marek,
http://www.thebat.cz/files/quarantine.rar
Password is quarantine
:-)
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4
Current beta is 3.5
Hello Marek,
Unpack it, import to TB and check folder via Folder | Check for
viruses.
I have sent some of them between different accounts and plugin is
detecting them.
Thanks so muck.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 on Windows 2000 5.0
Hello MAU,
A reminder of what MAU on TBBETA typed on:
13 May 2005 at 16:39:41 GMT +0200
and plugin is detecting them.
Me too and I get this:
This part was removed because it was infected.
Anti-virus reports:
Win32/Netsky.D worm
The original part header follows:
Content-Type:
Hello Tony,
Me too and I get this:
This part was removed because it was infected.
I'm just sending them to Quarantine folder.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4
Hello Ian,
I shall forward them the message in its entirety and ask them why it
was considered infected.
Probably because 'document_word.pif. *.pif are typical infected files.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC9 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service
Hey,
Where do you guys tell that you have version 3.0.1.30 or whatever!
I can only se 3.0.1
--
Venlig hilsen / Best regards
Kian Andersen (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://neksus.dk | http://neksus.deviantart.com
Mail Program : The Bat! 3.0.1 (http://www.ritlabs.com)
Spam Filtering : Bayes
Hello Kian!
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 7:44:35 PM you wrote:
Where do you guys tell that you have version 3.0.1.30 or whatever!
I can only se 3.0.1
Hover your cursor over the EXE of TB and such info will be revealed.
Or right-click the EXE, choose properties and then the tab Version.
Hello Kian Andersen everyone else
12-Okt-2004 19:44, you wrote:
Where do you guys tell that you have version 3.0.1.30 or whatever!
see mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
using v3.0.1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2
They that can
Hi Kian,
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:44:35 +0200GMT, you wrote:
KA Hey,
KA Where do you guys tell that you have version 3.0.1.30 or whatever!
KA I can only se 3.0.1
Same here. The version downloaded this morning has the same size as the
one from the afternoon, although a comparison in my file
Hi Dierk Haasis,
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
you let us know -at least in parts- :
Where do you guys tell that you have version 3.0.1.30 or whatever!
I can only se 3.0.1
Hover your cursor over the EXE of TB and such info will be revealed.
Or right-click the EXE, choose properties and then the
of the home version.
Just checked it, both exe-files have the same version number: 29
But it might have been ;-)
--
kind regards
Charlene Ferrara
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current beta is 3.0.1 RC/7 | 'Using TBBETA' information
Dierk Haasis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) skrev / wrote:
Hello Kian!
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 7:44:35 PM you wrote:
Where do you guys tell that you have version 3.0.1.30 or whatever!
I can only se 3.0.1
Hover your cursor over the EXE of TB and such info will be revealed.
Or right-click the
Hello TB! beta testers
with all this big improvements in the Beta 1.42 series (new message
base, many long standing bugs corrected), there is perhaps the time
for a major jump in the version number.
I would propose 1.50, but as RIT Labs don't seem to like numbers
ending in zero (quoting Max
66 matches
Mail list logo
