-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Yuki san,
--- Yuki Taga / Dienstag 12.03.2002, 10:30:54
beta/47
EC -a- PowerArchiver 2001 at http://www.powerarchiver.com/ and
EC -b- Ontrack's PowerDesk at http://www.ontrack.com/
Yes, and if they upload self-extracting
Hello Krzysztof,
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 8:05:23 AM, you wrote:
On 02-03-11, 22:24, you wrote:
The correct executable has been re-uploaded as
http://www.ritlabs.com/ftp/pub/the_bat/beta/tb154b47a.rar
Hmmm ... maybe thi one:
Hello Wolfgang,
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 1:22:42 AM you wrote in
msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (at least in part):
W Sometimes I want to use Wolfgang Reszel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W instead of Wolfgang [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the FROM-Field.
W The list shows only the Names of the accounts, not the
Eddie Castelli wrote:
As a last argument for Archiving files is that .exe files could carry
unwanted codes where archived files are not executables and so a
better security. I know a lot of people who will never accept anything
except archived files.
IMHO there is three possibilities:
1)
Hello Maxim,
11. marca 2002, 20:22:21, you wrote:
MM beta/47 will be packed with RAR 3.0. This makes the file 400KB
MM smaller, but unextractable by RAR 2.x.
AFAIK, this is not exact:
Cut--
RAR 3.0 archives can be unpacked by any RAR version beginning
from RAR 2.9,
Hi Eddie,
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 6:52:53 PM, you wrote:
Yes, and if they upload self-extracting archives, the whole thing
becomes moot. Nobody has to download anything except the beta.
Ever.
EC I confess having an archived file is much more convenient for me.
EC I have three different
Hello Richard,
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 12:40:53 AM you wrote in
msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (at least in part):
O Still I do not think that TheBat! should use this ReplyTo when
O redirecting.
RMNOf course it should not use your ReplyTo.
That's a philosophical question :-)
I do in fact
Hello Eddie,
There are 2 tools that work without problems:
-a- PowerArchiver 2001 at http://www.powerarchiver.com/ and
-b- Ontrack's PowerDesk at http://www.ontrack.com/
I use both of them but unfortunately none could open the latest beta
compressed by RAR 3.x. Both programs showed a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:03:56 -0600, Dean [D] wrote these comments:
...
D just a small compact thought. In saving bandwith, how much did we
D save in discussing to Rar3 or Rar2;)
I get the distinct impression that it's specifically the Ritlabs server
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:31:44 +0200
Stefan Tanurkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
D just a small compact thought. In saving bandwith, how much did we
save in D discussing to Rar3 or Rar2;)
In reality, it is about 200M bytes a day - I've just checked the Web
site log :-) Not bad...
I
Hello Eddie!
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 10:52:53 AM you wrote:
Also I think that in these days every 'Standard' configured System has
a good Archive Tool.
Right to the point. And nobody having a good archiving tool will be
happy to get yet another one.
The beta 47 archive is *not*,
Hello Syafril,
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 12:07:44 PM you wrote in
msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (at least in
part):
SH Maybe later we can try *.tar.bz2 :-)
You wont need '.tar' for packing a single .exe :-) *SCNR* :-)
--
Regards
Peter Palmreuthermailto:[EMAIL
Hello Josef,
12. marec 2002, 1:32:27, you wrote:
JK why don't you use winace when you're so happy about a few bytes?
JK the compression ratio of ace is imo much better than any other packer
JK can reach.
It used to be till RAR3 came. Now RAR is better...
--
Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Tony,
12. marec 2002, 0:00:56, you wrote:
TB I'll agree with that. As soon as the 40 day trial period is up with
TB this Winrar3 I'll be stuck with whatever version of TB is released
TB when that time comes.
Actually not, after 40 days are through, WinRAR will only pop up a
Hello Joseph!
On Monday, March 11, 2002 at 10:13:15 PM you wrote:
WinRAR is an outstanding program that should not be dismissed out of
hand.
That's not the point. Most of us will have chosen a packer/unpacker
long time ago. I gather no-one chose a programme that only supports
one algorithm.
Good afternoon List Members,
on 12.03.2002 at 12:00, Allie C Martin wrote:
I get the distinct impression that it's specifically the Ritlabs server
bandwidth that they're concerned about and not just bandwidth in
general.
Which is important enough when you have to _pay_ for bandwidth.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
@ 12:40:43 +0100 [ Tue, 12 Mar 2002], Dieter Hummel [DH] thoughtfully
wrote the following:
...
I get the distinct impression that it's specifically the Ritlabs
server bandwidth that they're concerned about and not just bandwidth
in general.
DH
Hello TBBETA,
Just out of curiosity, how many bytes does changing the version number
take up?
154 beta47a = 4,652,032 bytes
154 beta47b = 4,839,424 bytes
Does changing an a to a b take that many bytes or are there any other
changes that have been slipped in?
--
Best regards,
Hello Nick,
12. marec 2002, 17:26:24, you wrote:
NA Thanks Marck. Actually, I do like WinRar 3.0 and might just purchase the
NA product. I'm kind of fooling around with it now, and it's compression
NA ratio is fantastic. I am able to RAR up a few Folders I never seem to
NA use much and am
Am I invisible man? Have people killfiled me ? Is anybody seeing me ?
--
George M. Menegakis, System Network Administration
Using The BAT! v1.54 Beta/47
on Microsoft Windows 2000Service Pack 2 v5.0 Build(2195)
--
_
Archives :
Hello Tony!
154 beta47a = 4,652,032 bytes
154 beta47b = 4,839,424 bytes
Does changing an a to a b take that many bytes or are there any other
changes that have been slipped in?
I've tried to fix AV issue reported in beta47a by a few people.
They've confirmed that the AVs have
Hello Tony,
12. marec 2002, 20:06:32, you wrote:
TB 154 beta47a = 4,652,032 bytes
TB 154 beta47b = 4,839,424 bytes
Are you looking at the The Bat 1.54 beta47a version or SecureBat 1.54
beta47, which was accidentally posted first?
--
Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallo George,
Op een dinsdag 12 maart 2002 om 20:24:43 schreef jij over test, is anybody seeing me
?:
GMM Am I invisible man? Have people killfiled me ? Is anybody seeing me ?
grin
loud and clear!
--
-=/ Cees /=-
http://www.wpp.dynamic-site.net/
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Male
Hello Kenneth!
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 7:07:44 PM you wrote:
However, if the company is so concerned about saving the bandwidth
cost, then perhaps they should go private . . .
Nothing against the pros and cons Maxxx and you mention or
acknowledge. I just think that all in all public
Hello George,
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 8:24:43 PM you wrote (at least in part):
GMM Am I invisible man? Have people killfiled me ? Is anybody seeing me ?
No. I don't see you.
Well ... I see your mails, but you seems to be to far away for me
being able to see you :-)
--
Regards
Peter
Hello Maxim,
12. marec 2002, 20:27:01, you wrote:
MMI've tried to fix AV issue reported in beta47a by a few people.
MMThey've confirmed that the AVs have gone.
BTW: you can lower the executable size by about 180kB if you use
StripReloc from http://www.jrsoftware.org/striprlc.php.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi TB Beta list,
On 12 March 2002 at 20:12:40 +0100 (which was 19:12 where I live)
Jernej Simoni wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Before rushing, may I suggest you to test 7-zip
moderator
This topic has gone way off / too long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi TB Beta list,
On 12 March 2002 at 19:00:24 + Tony Boom wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your not suggesting I carry on and use it illegally are you?
moderator
This topic has gone way off / too long and I am forced to
Hei,
Richard M. Newman wrote:
Of course it should not use your ReplyTo.
[x] you're right. And Peter not (sorry for that ;-)). IMHO. Of course.
--
Regards, Günther ¤I$¤£¤
Automatic virus scanning with F-PROT, ROT13 and a list of changes in 1.54:
Dear group,
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 7:10:23 PM, you wrote:
However, if the company is so concerned about saving the bandwidth
cost, then perhaps they should go private . . .
snip
DH Some years ago, when Opera was a very small company, they had public
DH betas. Sometime around the 3.6
This message: 12/03/2002 20:00 GMT.
Hello George,
A reminder of what George ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on:
12 March 2002 at 21:24:43 GMT +0200
GMM Am I invisible man? Have people killfiled me ? Is anybody seeing me ?
Who said that?
--
Best regards,Tony. [EMAIL
Hello George,
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 9:24:43 PM, you wrote:
Am I invisible man? Have people killfiled me ? Is anybody seeing me ?
For starters, can you see yourself? :)
--
Best regards,
Costasmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
* Oleg Polishchuk [Tuesday, March 12, 2002] wrote:
* msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OP Hello tbbeta,
OP Try to look attached html, in beta 46 - (looks like in IE, correct)
OP In b47 - something wrong(biger ?)
Confirm ...
Attached HTML in The-Bat! bigger then IE ...
* Best regards ...
--
`
33 matches
Mail list logo
