Re[2]: 100% server CPU usage
Saturday, May 31, 2003, 1:47:09 PM, you wrote: MW I've run into the rogue email situation before, but only on a dialup MW connection where we hit some timeout before a huge email could be MW collected completely. I was on broadband when this happened to me. More importantly, I don't think the email was particularly big, so timeout issues weren't the problem. It's been a while though, like I said, so I'm afraid I can't suggest anything else. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Weird TB! crash problem
Wednesday, June 11, 2003, 4:56:16 PM, you wrote: MDP That's all I can think of. Edit the shortcut. A I have no idea how to do that, If you meant you don't know how to edit the shortcut, right-click it and look at its Properties. The Target: tab is the one you should check to see if it contains the word /EXIT at the end. Have a look at both the shortcuts. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Creating filters without having to create a new folder every time
Hi, Whenever I try to create a new filter using the context menu option for a particular message, TB creates a new folder corresponding to the name of the filter by default. This happens even if I choose the 'Edit' option in the initial filter creation dialog box. Most of the time I don't want to create a folder to move messages from that particular sender to, but would like to set other options such as priority, colors, flags etc. It is getting to be a pain having to delete the folder TB creates every time. Is there a way to prevent this, or am I doing something wrong? One option I've found is to change the 'Move to folder' option to 'Inbox', but since I really don't want to *move* the message anywhere(I just want to set flags or something), I think it's a design flaw for TB to make me go through this extra step. Any thoughts? Thanks, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Creating filters without having to create a new folder everytime
Friday, June 20, 2003, 10:03:20 AM, you wrote: BM On Fri 20-Jun-03 7:56am -0400, Vishal wrote: BM I'm not seeing the problems you've mentioned. I see by your sig that you're using 1.62r too, like me. Strange that you don't run into the same situation, since Leif mentioned that this is an ongoing problem. I presume he was talking about the current release version too. In a new incoming filter for me, inbox to inbox is not the default. The default is inbox to Sender Name. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Creating filters without having to create a new folder everytime
Friday, June 20, 2003, 10:34:22 AM, you wrote: LG The move to folder has long been an issue for people who just want to take LG action on a message, but don't want to move it. Most people just set it to LG inbox, but that could mess you up if your message is in a folder other than LG the inbox to start with. Right, that's what I figured. LG As for the folder being created, that's because you are letting it LG create the folder by choosing Ok with that person's name as the folder LG you want to move it to. I don't choose Ok. I choose Edit and set my filtering options, but the folder gets created regardless. LG Change it to inbox, or the folder you're most LG likely going to need it in. Yep, I do that before clicking Edit and setting my further options. Wish I didn't have to remember to do that every time though. Thanks, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Creating filters without having to create a new folder everytime
Monday, June 23, 2003, 7:54:03 AM, you wrote: AM That's for quick filter creation. The Special's/Create filter option, is by AM default geared to moving the message to be filtered to a special folder. AM For manual filter creation, the default is inbox to inbox. Ah, I see what you mean. I've never tried creating a filter manually, as I find the context menu process much more intuitive. I guess I picked that up from OE, but it does seem that the most logical way to create a filter from a particular message would be to right click it and look for an option to do so. Even for quick filter creation, though, it would make more sense for TB *not* to create a folder by default unless the user clicks Ok. 'Edit' should not be considered an implicit Ok. A dropdown list containing a list of available folders (perhaps with the currently available 'Sender name' option on top)would be an excellent choice. The reason I've never really thought about creating a manual filter is that the 'Detect by' options in quick filter creation are very good and save much typing. Thanks for your help. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Creating filters without having to create a new folder everytime
Monday, June 23, 2003, 10:26:24 AM, you wrote: LG Hello Vishal, LG Sunday, June 22, 2003, 5:57:31 PM, you wrote: V I don't choose Ok. I choose Edit and set my filtering options, but V the folder gets created regardless. LG Yeah, a little bit of a pain, but I guess half the people would want LG it to autoset to Inbox and the other half want it to default to LG something else. So I suppose nobody is going to be really happy with LG it until you can set the default in the account properties. yeah you're right. like i said in another reply though..if we could have a drop down box with a list of folders in place of this single Sender Name folder, possibly with the Sender Name folder on top, it would be ideal! thanks anyhow -vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Creating filters without having to create a new folder everytime
Monday, June 23, 2003, 1:30:19 PM, you wrote: nwd H, thats odd. I created a lot of filters with the context menu lately nwd and never had any folders auto-created. Maybe it only happens when you nwd change the tab without adjusting the target folder first? yep, that's what i was talking about when i started this thread. TB makes you adjust this all the time and creates a new folder even if you didn't want to. -vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Creating filters without having to create a new folder everytime
Monday, June 23, 2003, 12:45:08 PM, you wrote: AM Yes, I understand. However, in contrast, I've never used the context menu AM method to create filters. I've always done so manually. I guess one sticks AM to the method they got themselves accustomed to. true. AM It's really not that bad. I tend to just copy and paste the string. It does AM involve more configuring, but I prefer the control and being able to keep AM track of my filters. It also makes you more likely to create your rules more AM efficiently in that you're more familiar with how to setup OR strings and AM use other filtering options. point taken. AMThe context menu filter setup options are basic. i admit that i usually end up entering the main configuration panel too. the basic options often suffice, but aren't always enough. my main gripe was that the context menu is a common way to start the filter creation process, but TB creates a folder unasked. it's not too difficult to get around, but i do hope the default folder creation is removed as the default behavior. it's obvious by some of the replies that quite a few people aren't using the context menu as a 'quick filter', but as their main filter creation entry point. -vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mac OS X Client
Does anyone have a recommendation for an email client for the MAC OS X that is close to TB!? Thanks. try whether you can get Sylpheed to work. CT Sylpheed, yes. Or maybe Gnus which runs under (X)Emacs. It isn't CT very similar to The Bat! but an extremely powerful news and mail CT client. My recommendation would be to try Evolution. It's becoming the de-facto email client for a *lot* of people I know. From what I read on slashdot and other sites my friends aren't alone. Very nice client, similar to Outlook without the problems. Most Linux binaries work without problems on FreeBSD. Since OSX is based on that, I wouldn't think there would be many problems there. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mac OS X Client
Sunday, July 6, 2003, 3:50:44 PM, you wrote: MW Sylpheed's web site (http://sylpheed.good-day.net) says the following MW are confirmed to work: MW Mac OS X 10.1.4 (Darwin 5.4) + XDarwin (without XLocale support) + libxpg4 MW Mac OS X 10.2.3 (Darwin 6.3) + Apple X11 PublicBeta 0.1 + XLocale fix patch There you go then. Sylpheed seems like a good choice too. MW Evolution looks interesting, but no message templates and no S/MIME. MW Doesn't make it sound very TB-like. I haven't used Evolution since I prefer to keep my mail on Windows. You're right, it may not be TB-like, like the original poster requested, but it's probably still a good option to keep in mind. V Most Linux binaries work without problems on FreeBSD. Since OSX is based on V that, I wouldn't think there would be many problems there. MW Not quite true, but the fink project goes a long ways towards making MW packages generically available. I've found it's true for FreeBSD. Must confess I've never used OSX though. I was guessing that getting linux packages to work on that (derived) platform wouldn't be *too* hard. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Nothing to send?
Hi, TB never seems to know when there are really messages to send. Even when I have 4 messages lying in my outbox, it always pops up this window saying Nothing to send. It usually ends up sending the messages anyway, but having the window pop up for no reason is irritating. Has anyone else noticed this? It usually happens when I choose 'Send and receive for all'. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Nothing to send?
Monday, July 14, 2003, 10:43:26 PM, you wrote: AM - - Now just use the check mail for all command. If there's message to AM send in the Outbox, then they will be sent as well. You can setup a AM system hot-key for the check command as well. RMR even with the options setup like this, I have seen it happen here. RMR It's a very erratic but recurring bug, unfortunately. I agree with Ricardo. I already have the options set up as you mentioned, Allie. Thanks though. btw..sorry for the late reply..I was out of town. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Nothing to send?
Monday, July 14, 2003, 1:35:42 PM, you wrote: MT thats because it is trying to send from an account that has nothing to send. MT then it ends up in the account that has mail to send and sends that account. Ah, I see. I was under the impression that the message was displayed when there was no mail to send in *any* account. This is what made it seem like it was erratic, since there clearly was mail to send in at least one account. Thanks -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: A wish...
Friday, July 25, 2003, 12:44:11 PM, you wrote: DW Because I would highlight the first account I want to check, then use DW ctrl-click to highlight the other accounts I want to check, then press DW F2 to check the highlighted accounts :-) Excellent suggestion. This is something I would like to see myself. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
dupes dupes dupes!
I'm getting extremely frustrated with TB's poor handling of dupes. It's almost making me go over to another email client. I remember another thread a few days ago regarding dupes, but the situation there involved messages that were deleted from the server when downloaded by TB. My setup is different. I have several POP accounts, including some yahoo ones that I retrieve through web2pop. I have the setting for these kept at 'delete from server when deleted from trash'. The problem is that I routinely end up with dozens of dupes of messages which are months old. I then empty my trash and hope it will clear things up on my next mail check. I think it does, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I see the same problem again a couple days later - lots of dupes of ancient messages. When I choose the menu option to kill dupes in all folders, TB apparently is not able to identify two identical messages as dupes. Perhaps the message IDs are different? Anyway I gritted my teeth and tolerated this. I finally got sick of this today and decided to store all messages locally. I emptied the trash in all folders and changed the mail management options in all accounts to 'delete mail from server'. Next thing I end up with every single email that was stored on the server. Apparently, though I had deleted them from trash locally, TB had not yet correspondingly deleted them from the server. They were treated as new messages (even though they had been downloaded SEVERAL times by now). I am now stuck with over 1500 duplicate messages that kill dupes in all folders completely ignores. Can anyone suggest what I should do about this? thanks, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: dupes dupes dupes!
Sunday, August 10, 2003, 8:44:04 PM, you wrote: AM Examine the dupes and see if they have the same message id's and AM creation dates. Once those are the same, TB! really aught to be getting AM rid of the duplicates. Unfortunately I've deleted the messages now in my massive cleaning-up exercise. I remember that the creation dates were identical, though I didn't check the message IDs. Thanks for your help. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! Hotmail Yahoo mail
Monday, August 11, 2003, 5:23:44 PM, you wrote: W An item of interest I noticed with web2pop and mrpostman. I download W hotmail and yahoomail. If I download both with the same tool, the W tool blows up after 2 or 3 sessions. Works fine for me though. three yahoo accounts and one hotmail. What version of web2pop did you try? -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: dupes dupes dupes!
Friday, August 8, 2003, 9:09:36 PM, you wrote: MDP It sounds to me like a trick of the server - that it is allocating a MDP rash of message IDs all of its own choosing at point of download MDP instead of preserving the originals. Otherwise Kill dupes will MDP work. Yeah, something must be wrong with the message IDs. It does not only happen with one server though - happens with myrealbox and yahoo/hotmail retrieved through web2pop. This made me think it was a TB problem rather than a server one. Sorry for the late replies..my network was down for a day. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: dupes dupes dupes!
Sunday, August 10, 2003, 11:58:24 PM, you wrote: TF No, I just checked, I have no dupes coming into my myrealbox.com TF account (see From address). Lucky you :) I get them very regularly, and am now on the lookout for another email client because I'm getting tired of this. I think I'll wait for the new version though..there are too many good things in TB. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: dupes dupes dupes!
Hi Thomas, Friday, August 8, 2003, 12:32:38 PM, you wrote: TF It sound like web2pop creates new UIDs for the messages every time you TF invoke it. TB uses uses the UIDL to check whether messages have been TF downloaded yet. So it won't recognise messages downloaded earlier if TF the UIds are changed. TF I confirm there is no problem with real POP accounts. Actually there is. myrealbox.com does not have to go through web2pop, yet I see the same problem with that account. It is not restricted to my yahoo/hotmail ones. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: dupes dupes dupes!
Friday, August 8, 2003, 8:37:38 PM, you wrote: AM . Since this is so strange, I have to ask the AM obvious. I assume the duplicates are in the same folder, right? Yep, they sure are. Same folder..even get arranged right next to each other when i sort on date or anything else. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB! Hotmail Yahoo mail
Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 9:47:55 PM, you wrote: PC I noticed there is now a fastmail module, I wonder if that PC would work any better than TB's IMAP, or should I bother.. Probably a bit slower due to the extra level of indirection that web2pop presents. The people on the web2pop forums (I think there were some forums on the site) would be able to answer that better though. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! Hotmail Yahoo mail
Monday, August 11, 2003, 2:59:02 PM, you wrote: S It appears from recent posts that SOME are having success with using S web2pop to access Hotmail and yahoo mail with TB!. Maybe my posts? Yes they're working fine for me. I use web2pop version 1.0.3.8 and TB 1.62r. How about you? -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: dupes dupes dupes!
Friday, August 8, 2003, 8:41:46 PM, you wrote: MDP ... not entirely :-). The fact is, that when you change store on MDP server settings to not, the last message downloaded memory is MDP reset and *all* messages still on the server are downloaded for a MDP final time. That's what it seemed like. Thanks Marck..though I do think it's a real headache to deal with now. I still think the dupe handling is extremely poor. I see no reason why identical messages would not be deleted when I delete dupes, nor why they would be downloaded in the first place. Why the final downloading occurs, I understand now though. -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Vishal Monday, August 18, 2003, 1:25:56 PM, you wrote: RO Yep, on the 'Advanced' tab of your filter. RO Scroll down till you find: RO 'Address(es) must not be listed in the Address Book' RO You can check this and use some options... Thanks from me too Roelof. I also run into this situation often. I have two related queries: 1. I think I set an option somewhere to automatically add the people I reply to to my address book. I can't remember where I set this though. Any idea? 2. Is there a way for TB to ask me whether to create a new entry or not if the sender *name* already appears in the address book? This is to take care of those situations where I reply to friends who send mail from alternative email addresses. I would like to have the option to modify an existing addressbook entry to add the new address and not create a new entry. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Dan Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 7:06:39 PM, you wrote: DG You can enter all addressees of your outgoing mail into your address DG book by creating an Outgoing Mail filter. DG Rule:Name: Add recipients to AB DG String: @ | Location: Recipient | Presence: Yes DG Actions: [x] Add Addresses to Address Book | Recipients Is *that* what I did? Somehow it doesn't seem familiar :) I thought there was a menu option somewhere..or maybe it was in Outlook Express. Thanks for your help though..I'll use this. Any idea on how to handle my other question about pre-existing addressbook names? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Dan Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 7:06:39 PM, you wrote: DG Actions: [x] Add Addresses to Address Book | Recipients I just tried your suggestion and I see no entry for add addresses to address book in the Actions panel. Where do you see it? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Roel Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 8:22:32 PM, you wrote: R It's there, but you'll have to scroll down (it's the ninth select-box R visible) I must be blind..never even noticed the scrollbar :) Thanks! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Roelof Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 3:47:52 PM, you wrote: V 2. Is there a way for TB to ask me whether to create a new entry or not if the V sender *name* already appears in the address book? RO No. I guess that settles it. It would be a useful feature though..don't you think? Is there a way to do it through filters? Thanks! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Roelof and Allie Thursday, August 21, 2003, 12:31:08 AM, you wrote: AM This is actually automatic, provided that the address is AM identical to that of another entry that's in the same group you're AM adding the new entry to. RO Yes, but that compares addresses, not names. And when you go back to RO Vishal's original post, you'll see that he asked for a 'same name RO different addresses' pop-up. Yep, I was just about to respond with the same myself. Any other suggestions? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Multiple Addresbook entries when added automatically
Hi Dan
Thursday, August 21, 2003, 12:20:21 AM, you wrote:
DG You might want to try modifying your Outgoing Mail, Add Recipient to
DG Address Book filter as follows:
DGAdvanced Tab:
DG [x] Addresses must not be listed in the Address Book
DGFirst Recipient {All Recipients?}
Interesting. I'll try it out and let you know. Thanks Dan.
Cheers,
-Vishal
Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB and Opera/Crazy Browser
Hi John Thursday, August 21, 2003, 9:58:31 PM, you wrote: JB 1. I used TB with no problems and it double clicked URLs and opened JB Opera just the way I wanted. Then I started messing with Crazy Browser JB because several sites do not work with the Sun Java version used by JB Opera. Suddenly, a double click on an email URL dumped me into Crazy JB Browser instead of Opera. Now I can't get back to where I was. Opera JB is still associated with .html files but not when accessed from TB. You need to set Opera to be the default handler for HTTP. Go to the 'default application' tab in Opera's preferences and check HTTP and HTTPS off. Things should work as before. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: TB and Opera/Crazy Browser
Hi John Thursday, August 21, 2003, 10:13:24 PM, you wrote: JB Thanks, that worked except I now go to Opera 7 instead of Opera 6 JB which I prefer. I'm sure I'll be able to handle that. Thanks again. You're welcome. Just in case you get stuck with making Opera 6 the default, just uncheck what you did in Opera 7 and check them off in Opera 6 instead. 6 should now be the default. I'm a regular Opera user myself. Curious - why do you prefer 6 over 7? Perhaps you'd better reply to me offlist as this is getting OT. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: TB and Opera/Crazy Browser
Hi John Thursday, August 21, 2003, 11:09:12 PM, you wrote: JB I'm sure I would prefer Opera 7 if my touchpad would work with it. Ah I see. definitely extenuating circumstances :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: firewall software and TB, was Re: blah!
Hi Roelof Saturday, August 23, 2003, 8:30:35 PM, you wrote: RO The problems I had were easily solved by deleting the RO config and start ZA again and after a day or two all necessary RO programs had been entered again. Interesting. I'm using ZA and having problems too, but I've learned to live with it. After you delete the config and all the necessary programs had been entered, did TB work fine with ZA? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: firewall software and TB, was Re: blah!
Hi Roelof Sunday, August 24, 2003, 5:49:34 PM, you wrote: RO Yep, until the next time ZA's config got corrupted. Happened quite a RO few times for me. Most of the time creating problems with other RO programs than TB, since TB only connects local on my system. (Local RO mailserver.) I see. I'll give it a shot then. Thanks for the tip Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: OT: Vote for The Bat! :-)
Hi Allen Wednesday, August 27, 2003, 7:26:31 AM, you wrote: A whereas TB users results will reflect perfection -- after all, what -can't- TB do? As of 1.62r, - Handle dupes properly when you do not delete mail from the server. - Allow you to quit the program in peace when it is in the middle of doing something. - Allow you to easily copy something in an email you receive to an entry in the address book. Try opening an entry in the address book and then copying all the new contact details that someone just emailed you. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it done since it is not possible to copy anything once an address book entry is the active window. - Offer a very good help file. It's decent, but there are so many undocumented features that everyone keeps running across that I hesitate to call it 'good'. TB is good, but not perfect by any means. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
different reply quotes for different people
Hi, I have a subscription to a yahoo group. Let's say the name of this group is TheGroup. The email digest for this group comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] My problem is that when I reply, the reply template chooses the group initials from the email address for quoting, which are TYC. I checked my account properties and that is where I have specified the text to use for quotes. I tried creating a reply template for this address but it provides no way to customize the quote prefix. Is there any way I can: 1. Change the quote prefix from Sender email address Initials to Sender Full Name initials? This yahoogroup is stored in my address book as The Group, so the initials TG instead of TYC as my quote prefix would be great. 2. If not TN, is there any way I can get The Group as my quote prefix just for this one group? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi, I know, I know, this has been discussed before. But has ANYONE managed to get TB to do automatic mail checks with Zonealarm Pro installed? I'd rather not shift to Kerio yet as ZA is otherwise an excellent firewall. ZA does not appear to be blockign outgoing SMTP connections, so I don't know what the problem is. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: OT: Vote for The Bat! :-)
Hi Michael Thursday, August 28, 2003, 2:17:32 PM, you wrote: MT Nothing can be perfect, there is always room for improvement. Exactly what I was saying. See the mail I replied to. MT And MT those people at RITLabs are making some pretty heavy improvements. So I've heard. Let's hope the new version is even better! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Wishlist item for scrutiny
Hi Pixie Saturday, August 30, 2003, 8:54:55 AM, you wrote: P When TB starts and message auto-view = ON, default to preview of no P message. Or perhaps if it's ON by default, turn it OFF on initial P startup until a message is specifically selected. I disagree. I think it increases the work and I'd rather get down to reading my email immediately. P It's annoying to have spam or whatever happens to gain focus P at startup get tagged read, shown and so-on. Perhaps I prefer it the way it is because I get close to zero spam. But having to mark messages unread can be a problem, I agree. The way I work around this (quite effective, if I may add) is to increase the time limit after which a message is marked read. Change it to around 7-8 seconds. This will give you enough time to delete spam or move on to the next message if you prefer that this one remain unread. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi DG Tuesday, September 2, 2003, 2:07:50 PM, you wrote: DRS What do have layered between ZoneAlarm and The_Bat!? I have Symantec Antivirus, latest version. This used to be known as NAV Corporate Edition. I remember reading somewhere that NAV uses port 110 for its email scanning, but that may or may not be accurate anymore. DRS If you are DRS running an Antivirus program that either intercepts port 110 or a DRS plugin for The_Bat! and/or have an antispam program running then you DRS can expect such delays. I have ZA's 'E-mail protection' enabled as well. The problem here is that explicit mail checks using alt-F2 work fine, but the automatic checking every 5 mins does not. I checked the ZA logs and did not see any outgoing connections blocked at the times of the automatic mail checks. There is also not a delay as you said, but simply that the checks never occur at all. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: 2.0: slower - and other issues
Hi Krister Tuesday, September 2, 2003, 3:05:49 PM, you wrote: MM Hello all, MM Tuesday, September 2, 2003, Krister Ekstrom wrote: MM (completely new filtering system, customizable interface etc.). Many What do you mean by customizable interface. Please, oh please don't say you mean skins, cause if you do, i would like to be informed of another MUA, cause when developers say: New cool looking easy-to-use interface, it all to often means that accessibility for the blind goes down the drain. Personally, I think a new skin for TB is a great idea. I've often found myself wishing for one. As long as there is a default skin that caters to the blind, having alternatives to spice up TB's otherwise bland interface would be great. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 2, 2003, 9:29:41 AM, you wrote: MDP Yes. MDP Many have. So could you suggest someone who has? It would be a big help. MDP A *significantly* larger proportion have *not*. Yep, I'm aware of this. V I'd rather not shift to Kerio yet as ZA is otherwise an excellent V firewall. MDP Kerio is an *excellent* firewall. It works well and in a seamless MDP manner for all. ZA is a good firewall for many, but not for most. MDP That precludes it from the excellence tag in my mind. In your mind, yes. In my mind and that of most others who use it not in conjunction with TB, ZA is excellent. One app does not a reputation destroy. MDP Oh yes, and MDP Kerio is free. I don't see why the resistance. I've paid for the Pro version. I like the interface and trust its protection. I'm not sure if Kerio offers all the features ZA Pro does. I haven't had time to check out Kerio and have not discussed it with people who can vouch for it as much as ZA. MDP If ZA works for you, MDP fine - stay with it. If it is impeding you, as it has impeded many MDP others - get it out of there! :-). I've thought about it. But ZA works for the most part, and if there's a way to get it working properly with TB I'd rather do that. TB isn't as indispensable to me. Maybe version 2.0 will change that :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: different reply quotes for different people
Hi Thomas Tuesday, September 2, 2003, 12:34:36 PM, you wrote: TF I have a weird feeling I replied to this in the morning. Either you TF posted the same question on another list, or I just received a TF duplicate of your message, or I'm experiencing a deja-vu. Maybe you did. I posted some messages twice on TBUDL because my posts haven't been showing up on the list for some reason. I seem to get everyone else's except my own, but it's erratic. Sorry if you had to expend extra effort! For some reason I never got your first reply either. TF Check out the %QuoteStyle=expression macro in the help file. I am TF using %QuoteStyle=Mutti for messages to my mother. Awesome! It worked. Thanks a lot! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Edited glyphs file for download if you wish...
Hi Michael Tuesday, September 2, 2003, 11:10:51 PM, you wrote: MH Hi, MH For those interested, I have made some very minor changes to the MH glyphs.bmp file for TB!2.0 MH I just added a little bit of colour, and made the Outbox folder red if MH it has anything in it (I often forget to send things). I just downloaded version 2.0 and I'm glad to see an interface change over 1.62r. I definitely like it better so far, but more color is definitely nice :) If there's any way you could mark specifically which icons you changed, it would be great. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Allie Interesting to read about your experiences. I haven't faced anything like as severe the problems that you have. It is only TB that misbehaves with ZA. For you TB is irreplaceable, but I have yet to start using the advanced features like Quick templates that everyone keeps raving about on here, on a regular basis. Perhaps when I do TB will appear more useful. For the moment it doesn't appear to be especially ahead of its competitors. I've also experienced a number of bugs that I've discussed on here, so I still think of TB as a kind of flaky client with not-great usability. But 2.0 appears to have significant improvements - I hope to be pleasantly surprised as I delve more into what TB can do. Thanks for a very balanced point of view. I think I'll consider replacing ZA now. Out of interest, could you list a few features of TB that you find especially unique/indispensable/valuable? I recommend it to people, but I'm at a loss to really give them examples of powerful features and complex uses that no other email client can match. Forget recommending other people, I'd like to see examples of ideas users on this list have so that I can improve my own mail-handling efficiency. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Robyn Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 9:09:56 PM, you wrote: A I used TB! 1.62 with ZA Pro 2.6 until recently using automatic mail A checking on one mail account and it worked fine. I've now switched to A TB! 2 and ZA Pro 4 and it still works just fine. RW I use TB! 2 (and v1.62 before upgrading) with the free version of ZA (as well also RW behind a hardware firewall) using automatic mail checking on two mail accounts and have RW had no problems. RW Nor do I remember having to go to any great lengths to get the automatic mail RW checking to work. Hmm, so there's hope :) Did you do *anything* special at all in ZA to make it work with TB apart from saying Yes to ZA's questions about whether to let TB access the internet and send mail? Like add an SMTP server to the trusted zone or something? What antivirus do you have running? For the person who Robyn replied to (sorry I only know your initial is 'A'), I don't seem to have received your message from the list. Could you let me know the same? Thanks! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Allie Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 7:33:23 AM, you wrote: AM Vishal, [V] wrote: V So could you suggest someone who has? It would be a big help. AM I've had problems. When I did, the problems weren't restricted to just AM TB!, though t snip By the way, your signature doesn't validate when I click on TB's icon to do so. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: 2.0: slower - and other issues
Hi Krister Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 2:43:57 AM, you wrote: KE I can see where you're coming from and your wish is ok, imho, as long KE as functionality is the same. I don't want to miss functionality just KE because i can't see to use it, so if we have the same functionality KE but different looks, that's ok, otherwise it's not. I completely agree. Let's hope someone's listening :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Wishlist item for scrutiny
Hi Pixie Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 2:03:24 AM, you wrote: P Perhaps it wasn't clear, this was not suggested as a replacement to P the default operation unless you want it.. as in _alternative_ P default. I'm assuming you don't disagree with options? As an alternative it seems fine. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: different reply quotes for different people
Hi MAU Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 2:19:58 PM, you wrote: M Hello Thomas, I'll keep a list of people who owe me beers, just like MAU. M It's not worth it, they never pay ;-) Did you know that the Thai word mau (pronounced mao) translates into drunk (adj.), as in: I am drunk? M Nice :) And the Spanish beer I like best is Mahou and is pronounced M mau. Oh *you're* the MAU Thomas was talking about. I spoke too soon :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: different reply quotes for different people
Hi Thomas Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 12:54:35 PM, you wrote: TF You owe me a *big* beer. ;-) lol..sure. send me the bill for next weekend. TF I'll keep a list of people who owe me beers, just like MAU. Did you TF know that the Thai word mau (pronounced mao) translates into TF drunk (adj.), as in: I am drunk? um..no. I don't even know who MAU is..more's the pity. Could have had a good laugh at his/her expense. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 8:12:59 PM, you wrote: A Yes Vishal I have - it works fine for me.. (I did reply earlier but A you maybe didn't see it). Lucky you :( Oh yes, I actually did reply to you earlier. But I included my reply in a reply to Robyn. I referred to you as The person whose initial is 'A', because I don't know your name. :) It's all part of another problem I was having with some messages being delayed a lot before arriving here. I got her reply to you before your original message. A I used TB! 1.62 with ZA Pro 2.6 until recently using automatic mail A checking on one mail account and it worked fine. I've now switched to A TB! 2 and ZA Pro 4 and it still works just fine. Are you using Win98/Me? A If you can't get automatic checking to work with it it must be a A setting somewhere that needs changing - does TB! have permission to A access the net always without asking through ZA? Yep. I even tried adding my mail servers to the Trusted zone but it didn't work. A It might be useful if you tell us what you TB! settings are for the A mail checking also - Account » Properties » Options » Mailbox A Checking. Check at startup. Periodic checking every 8 minutes. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Edited glyphs file for download if you wish...
Hi Michael Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 8:50:24 AM, you wrote: MH I can list them... MH If the gylphs file is considered a grid, with numbers along the MH horizontal and letters along the vertical: MH A1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MH B MH C MH D MH . MH . MH I changed A1, A2, A3, F3, F5, F10, F11, F12 Very nice. Thanks :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Thursday, September 4, 2003, 4:09:29 PM, you wrote: A Thursday, September 4, 2003, 6:22:01 AM, Vishal wrote: V For the person who Robyn replied to (sorry I only know your initial is 'A'), I V don't seem to have received your message from the list. Could you let me know V the same? Thanks! A Hi Vishal it was me (Anne) _ I've copied the full mail I sent below: Ah so you did see it. I just replied to your second post. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Robyn Thursday, September 4, 2003, 1:30:27 AM, you wrote: RW No, I do not remember doing anything special when I installed TB and ran it for RW the first time. It was very straight forward installation. Oh well, draw a blank there. RW I currently run F-Secure anti-virus software. I'm using Symantec. I wonder if there's some kind of incompatibility here. Anyway, thanks for your help! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi tracer Friday, September 5, 2003, 8:11:54 PM, you wrote: t Anyway, Zonealarm on my machine, with lots of crap loaded, using the t bat, running for many hours at a time, often all night using Kazaa, I t havent seen any problems. t I use Xp Pro... It can check email automatically? No need to press Alt+F2? It looks like everyone who can do this properly is not running Win2k..connection somewhere? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Scheduler - reasons to go V2
Hi Steve Saturday, September 6, 2003, 12:29:23 PM, you wrote: SMK I'm beginning to feel that the standard 30-day trial SMK period just isn't enough, and that maybe users should push for 60 to 90 days. For TB? How about one year? It might be enough :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
messages that are picked AM up by the ticker. You can configure the ticker to display new messages only AM for particular folders. In this way, I can browse new messages from AM particular folders from a single message list. Interesting again. When you say virtual folder, you don't actually mean a folder somewhere in the account tree do you? I'm thinking of two things here - one is a folder that is visible in the tree but does not actually 'contain' messages, rather it contains 'links' to them. The other is that there is nothing in the folder tree at all, but you're just referring to the ticker as a 'virtual folder'. Which do you mean? AM - TB!'s filtering is great and allows for a lot of possibilities. It AM also allows me to pick important incoming messages out of the heavy AM traffic through the use of sounds and using colour groups. Yep I do that. But it's fairly common in other clients too. AM - I like TB!'s PGP integration. With its macro support, I can automate AM my PGP use in terms of signing +/- encrypting outgoing messages. Outlook has PGP integration too. I haven't used it though. AM There are other niceties, but these are the winning features for me that AM I can never really duplicate while trying other Windows clients. Thanks for a very polite and helpful reply Allie. I'm sure everyone appreciates your advice as much as I do. If any other power users are following this thread, I would love to hear about innovative ways in which you use TB. Someone else voiced the same opinion as well, so let the ideas pour forth! On your advice, I uninstalled ZA today and tried BlackICE PC protection 3.6. Automatic mail checks still don't work for me. Could you tell me how you configured your installation to handle this? It's very disappointing. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Scheduler - reasons to go V2
Hi Jack Saturday, September 6, 2003, 10:56:16 AM, you wrote: JM Many of TB's features go unused by me because: JM 1. I don't even know some of them are there JM 2. I don't know how to put them to good use Hear hear. I'd *really* like to see some nice complicated things that people do with TB. I'm sure there are people here who can us better ways to handle our email. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Deborah Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:01:10 AM, you wrote: DW - HTML slows the recipient's computer - not always noticeably, but it DW always does. Would you elaborate on this? Rendering might be slower, but the computer as a whole? The rendering does not take up so much extra CPU power that the computer as a whole would be observed to slow down. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Thomas Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 12:49:19 AM, you wrote: TF Hello Vishal, TF On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 00:34:14 -0400 GMT (09/09/2003, 11:34 +0700 GMT), TF Vishal wrote: It can check email automatically? No need to press Alt+F2? It looks like everyone who can do this properly is not running Win2k..connection somewhere? TF Account / Properties / Options / Periodical Check every xx Minutes. That's what my original post was about. ZA doesn't allow this to happen. Only manual mail checks using alt-F2 or the 'check mail' button work. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:11:20 AM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the D spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. I think it *is* correct. The ability is not at fault. If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. That said, I'm a fan of plain text email myself. Most tasks can be accomplished easily with it and it definitely seems cleaner. Very rarely do I see the need for HTMl mail. The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen legibility. Nothing outlandish. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Broken threads and general threading question
Hi Jeffrey Monday, September 8, 2003, 1:30:46 PM, you wrote: JAS I notice that many of the threads in this group end up broken. This JAS seems especially obvious when The Bat! is threading based upon JAS reference (Alt-1). I would have thought that since the bulk of us are JAS using The Bat!, we would be able to maintain a consistent thread. Yes, same problem here. And no it shouldn't be a fastmail problem as you mentioned elsewhere since I don't use it. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi tracer Monday, September 8, 2003, 9:01:52 PM, you wrote: t There was a problem in the past that in Zonealarm you had to make the t internet connection itself trusted. Ridiculous. And this has been fixed, you say? t Due to a very flakey connection I see not all posts or see them very t late but on MY system, not this crummy box I use I have latest ZA 4 t PRO, with latest bat and essentially havent had any nproblems during a t year. t Before that there was a known zonealarm problem as mentioned above, t not the bat... I wonder what the problem is then. I tried BlackICE last night and automatic mail checks *still* don't work for me. I've asked Allie about it since he uses BlackICE too - let's see what happens. t AV shouldnt matter, I use F-secure as Norton and Mcafee are useless.. How do you figure that? Norton, Symantec and F-Secure all have Virus Bulletin's approval. I'm sure you know what that means since VB is widely acknowledged as the world's best name in this field along with ICSA. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Daniel Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 10:40:14 AM, you wrote: Now *that* I find really interesting. How do you do this - by having different quick templates for different signatures? DR Yes. If so, doesn't remembering all those keyboard combinations get to be a pain after a while? DR When in the mail editor, you can select the quick template from the DR menu as well(look in the Utilities menu for Insert Quick Template). Idon't see such an option. I remember seeing it in 1.62r though. TB doesn't require you to actually *have* any quick templates before displaying the option, does it? I don't have any. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: some threads not sorted as threads
Hi Roelof Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:39:58 AM, you wrote: WM Can someone tell me wy the thread: Re[3]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks WM - works for anyone? is not sorted as thread ? I see only 1 reference every WM time and the Re[x] is always incremented. RO I'm viewing threads by references and the whole thread is threaded as RO one. As can be seen in: www.krakeel.cistron.nl\thread.jpg RO Only reason I can imagine it isn't threaded at your place is that you're RO purging your messages too soon. I'm having the same problem. I don't purge the messages, but I do delete them quickly. I also have it set to delete from server, but it doesn't always do that. Does that help you any? I've never used the purge option. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: some threads not sorted as threads
Hi Roelof Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:40:34 PM, you wrote: RO That amounts to the same. When you delete messages from the beginning RO of a thread, the rest won't thread properly. They will appear as RO separate thread, because the root they ought to have in common is RO gone. That doesn't seem right. I've often deleted the root message only to see many properly threaded replies the next day. It's only since I installed v2 that this is happening. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Thomas Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:31:19 PM, you wrote: TF Isn't that an indicator that ZA has outlived its usefulness? Perhaps. I'm reluctant though. I've already voiced my thoughts on this in previous replies to Marck and Allie. But I did try uninstalling it and replacing it with Blackice PC Protection 3.6. Same problem - no automatic mail checks. I'm waiting to see if Allie or someone else who uses BlackICE can help me with this. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Leif Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:17:47 PM, you wrote: LGNow take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and LGeventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious LGwaste of money. Assuming, of course, that your estimations were correct. You said yourself that they were arbitrary, so a claim that HTML mail costs hundreds of millions extra a year isn't really valid. Add to that the fact that many people consider a fair amount of those emails useful, and the damage doesn't look so bad. LG 2. Most mobile devices have limited space. Why would I want an HTML LGmessage twice the size of a plaintext one with no value added LGeating up all my available memory. I wouldn't say they have no value added. A lot of people like HTML mail. For them that's value. LGHowever, I don't need a one line e-mail from a LG friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background LG image of trees swaying. Right. People like us on this list don't appreciate that. But we aren't really representative of the majority. People think of email in different ways. The average end user thinks about how to make his messages look good, perhaps tries to relieve some of the monotony of plain email, perhaps have some fun doing something which isn't always fun when you deal with a lot of it. Many reasons, but I know a lot of people who *like* receiving messages with fancy stationery. I don't see that changing. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Broken threads and general threading question
Hi Jeffrey Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:19:34 PM, you wrote: JAS Hi Vishal, JAS On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:19:54 -0400 you wrote: V Yes, same problem here. And no it shouldn't be a fastmail problem as you V mentioned elsewhere since I don't use it. JAS Good to hear that someone else is seeing it with The Bat!. I think JAS that Thomas' point was that it was our providers fault. He indicated JAS that the delay in receipt is breaking the threads. If you are using JAS myrealbox.com, I have heard that they are having terrible issues lately. Yes they are. However, the problem isn't confined to myrealbox. And I think it's unlikely that everyone's providers suddenly went haywire. JAS Not totally sure what is causing it at this point, but the provider idea JAS might have some merit. Normally I would say yes, but so many providers precisely after upgrading to v2? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:23:17 PM, you wrote: V Are you using Win98/Me? A Yes Win98SE, and the ZoneAlarm is ZA Pro v4.0.123.012 I thought you might. Anyone not on Win2K seems to be working fine. V Yep. I even tried adding my mail servers to the Trusted zone but it didn't work. A On the Control Centre window click on the Program Control option and A then the Program tab on the right and there's a list of Programs with A their permissions... these can be Allow (tick) Block (X) Ask (?) - A what settings are shown there for TB!? Yep those permissions are ok. TB has Allow permissions so it should work ok. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Quick Templates usage (was: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?)
Hi Daniel Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 4:32:05 PM, you wrote: DR It might be possible that you require at least one to be defined, DR since the option lists the quick templates directly in the menu. Looks like it then. I'll definitely try out the multiple signatures thing. Thanks. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 12:13:35 PM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is D the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I D think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. D I think it *is* correct. MDP You believe the statement HTML spam is the reason that HTML mail is MDP despised is correct? Surely not! Nope. I believe the statement While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think is correct. It is the spammers who are at fault, not HTML, like the original poster said. Your post seemed to say that the spammers are *not* at fault. Looks like a miscommunication to me :) D The ability is not at fault. MDP I didn't say it was. The ability to *write over-formatted messages* MDP - thus to *use* the facility /freely/ - is at fault, not the MDP ability itself - the provision of the facility. The selective MDP quote is leading to a misunderstanding. I should probably have made MDP myself clearer. You're saying that if HTML mail weren't so easy to use, it would be ok? I still disagree. I don't think the ability to use it freely is at fault. The actual fault lies with the *person* who abuses this capability. If HTML weren't so easy to use (and thereby abuse), we'd have web developers up in arms. D If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his D prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. MDP That's a paraphrase of what I actually said. It didn't seem like that. miscommunication indeed :) MDP Although I don't MDP consider it his prerogative, since his intent is to impose it on me. MDP There is a responsibility issue there. I agree. D HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. MDP The problem is that more abuse than use, when even just the use is MDP widely unwelcome. Widely? Well, ISTM the truth of the matter is the MDP vast majority are *completely indifferent* on this issue - they use MDP OE - it gives them HTML - they use it and have no idea whether they MDP like to or not. Exactly. MDP Of those expressing a preference you will find the MDP majority of them *against* the indiscriminate use of HTML in email. I wouldn't know. I've never talked to people about this. D The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to D change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen D legibility. Nothing outlandish. MDP I would never do that. The person receiving my message has a MDP favourite reading font. Not always. Most people stick with what the default is. A lot wouldn't know that Verdana might make their life a little easier. I think of it as a harmless and possibly beneficial suggestion. But I agree that they should be free to use what they want, which is why I don't use HTML mail. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:13:59 PM, you wrote: A Yes this is no longer the case in ZA4 - internet connections go in the A Internet zone not the Trusted zone - Oh, I know they go in the Internet zone. I really meant to ask whether you had to put the connection in the Trusted zone in order for it to work with TB. Looks like I didn't word it properly. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 10:40:15 PM, you wrote: MDP Try is a very interesting word to use in this context. The MDP un-install procedure for ZA is less simple than it appears. Allie MDP can tell you more of this. ZA is insidious and merely disabling or MDP uninstalling it the obvious ways does not curtail its influence on MDP the inflicted system. Ah, wonderful :) Just what I needed to hear. I'm running a registry scan right now to see if any tidbits got left behind. You think any ZA remnants might be responsible for my automatic checking still not working? Do keep in mind that Allie last used ZA over a year ago, version 2.6 I think. This is 4.0 Pro. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi malexander Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 10:24:44 PM, you wrote: m Just noticed this, so apologies if you've been told this before, but m Outpost works fine with no problems. I don't know what your AV is m however, mine is Norton. Thanks for the tip. No I haven't been told it before, but I did already know because I ran a search on the archives yesterday and noticed that other people had mentioned Outpost as trouble-free. I'll see if I can sort BlackICE out. If not, next is Kerio. If not, next is Outpost. If not, away goes my permanent connection and in comes my dialup connection so I can live without a firewall :). Right now I get nervous when I don't have one installed for even a few minutes because of the attacks I see all the time. Even with the other security checks I have in place, a firewall is indispensable. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Brook Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:18:54 PM, you wrote: BH have you tried outpost I'm ussing it here with no issues. Not yet. I'm aware of it though and someone else just brought it to my attention as well. I'll definitely keep it in mind if I can't get BlackICE to work. Thanks. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:38:13 PM, you wrote: A S'ok ;-) No, all that's in my Trusted zone is our own network. Ok. Well I'm not sure what's wrong then. I'll keep looking Anne, thanks for your suggestions :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:35:43 PM, you wrote: A Just as a thought, is it perhaps anything to do with admin A permissions on Win 2K? (scratching my head for suggestions as to A the cause here). It shouldn't be a problem. The same firewall rules are in place no matter which account you're using. Worth thinking about though. I never run TB as admin, btw. I've had no end of problems with TB and administrator accounts that I've found no solution to. Part of the reason I'm not so enamored of this client. Check the archives if you're interested. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Ok, great. I just automatic mail checking with NO firewall installed and it still doesn't work. I'm using the eval version of 2.0.0.6. It looks like ZA wasn't to blame after all. What could be wrong? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Julian Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 3:35:32 AM, you wrote: JBL Application protection scanning was slow, Yes, I have complaints with that too. I don't even like the idea of using my existing system as a baseline. Even though I take great care with all my software, this still leaves me uneasy. JBL and had a modal dialogue box that would JBL sit on top of the screen whilst scanning and could not be dismissed. JBL Very frustrating. Yep definitely. I've found that I can continue working, after a fashion, while the window is still there, since it doesn't retain active focus for the whole duration. But I can't even move the damn thing, which is a problem. However, as of last night it appears that my problems aren't firewall related. I am unable to do automatic mail checks even with NO firewall installed. TB simply doesn't check unless I do it manually by Alt+F2 or clicking the check mail button. Any thoughts on that? The intervals are all set up properly so I don't see the problem. The log shows no attempts were even made. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 9:35:01 PM, you wrote: A Allie and Vishal, A Over on TBBETA Marek has just advised Melvyn who has this same A problem to try using the Scheduler to do the auto downloading and A Melvyn tried it and he says it worked. Perhaps if Vishal tries A this also and then lets Marek know - he's doing some kind of A feedback for devs about this. Thanks a lot Anne! I'll try it out and let you know. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Scheduler - reasons to go V2
Hi Allie Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 8:30:23 PM, you wrote: AM If you have your own domain, you can accurately tell, based on the AM In-Reply-To header which messages are direct replies to yours. Useful. I remember a thread in which this was discussed earlier. I'll keep it in mind for when I do get my own domain. Thanks for the tip. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: some threads not sorted as threads
Hi Roelof Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 5:56:44 AM, you wrote: RO The ZoneAlarm thread you were mentioning had lots of separate branches RO that kept going on. Since they all started with the same thread, shouldn't they have had a common root though? Or does all the Re[2]: business spoil things somehow? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Broken threads and general threading question
Hi Jonathan Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 12:36:54 AM, you wrote: JA Is there a common thread as to who is sending them, or is it a bunch JA of people? A bunch of people. JA Is there a common thread amongst them? Yes, several. One was the Zonealarm thread that I started, but the problem seems to exist with most other threads too. Subject threading helps matters enormously though. References just doesn't seem to work. JA Is just one example, however that email has a few References, and an JA In-Reply-To. So it'd appear TB is breaking threading somewhere. Yes, I'd agree with that. JA Although, a real oddity, I changed threading to subject (which is JA broken as has been pointed out a few times), then back to references, JA the threads _nearly_ built themselves correctly, however it is now JA showing a whole bunch of emails as replied to, though I didn't, and it JA keeps loading the wrong emails when I select them. *investigates some JA more* Very odd. It does look like TB's getting confused somewhere. Hopefully I'm wrong :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: some threads not sorted as threads
Hi Julian Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 6:44:58 AM, you wrote: JBL I checked the references on the broken threads that I have, and found JBL that I no longer had the messages with the MID: in my message base, JBL because they had purged. As I use a maximum limit of 200 messages for JBL deletion purposes, and the list has been generating lots of traffic JBL recently, I have had lots of broken threads because the earlier JBL messages in threads are being lost. Well, how does that explain how 1.62r handled these issues perfectly most of the time? I use much the same system as you, and having the original root deleted never messed things up before. JBL YMMV, of course! Sure looks like it :) Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Allie Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 8:34:32 PM, you wrote: AM I'm wondering if it's ZA at all. :/ You're right..it's not. I posted earlier that automatic checks don't work even with no firewall in place. AM What other software are you running. Are you running anti-virus software AM that does POP3 scanning? Symantec Antivirus version 8. As of yesterday, BlackICE PC Protection 3.6. AM Any TB! plug-ins? No. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Thomas Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:38:04 PM, you wrote: TF The internet was designed for plain-text emails only. MIME attachments TF (allowing HTML) was added much later and under much protest. Check it TF out on the internet. The internet was not designed *for* email at all. The ARPANET, its predecessor, was meant to be a US DoD network that could survive a nuclear attack. If you mean that the initial conception did not involve MIME etc., then that's correct. But claiming that it was designed specifically for plaintext email isn't correct. It was SMTP that was designed with support for only 7-bit ASCII in mind. Was that what you meant? TF It always amazes me that many people think the internet was invented TF by Outlook or AOL 6 or Al Gore... Internet invented by outlook? I must meet this person :) Gore, on the other hand, seems to have actively perpetuated that myth himself during the time he stood for election. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Julian Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 3:31:34 AM, you wrote: JBL Is it something to do with the settings under Options|Network and JBL Administration. I thought of that. But I don't see how there could be. There's only one option when you're on a permanent connection as I am. Nothing further to choose at all. The administration options wouldn't be relevant here regardless. JBL, I am using the Network JBL Connection option, so the options are greyed out. Same here. Thanks though..can you think of anything else? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Allie Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:53:11 AM, you wrote: AM When I say the formatting is preserved, I mean that the line breaks are AM preserved etc. Agreed. That helps. AM Try using the alternative editor. If you use it, while AM composing, your message will be nicely wrapped at your editor defined AM setting. In actual fact the text isn't wrapped at all and the recipient AM receives unwrapped text. Now *that* is a gross disparity in perceived AM formatting as opposed to what the recipient receives. No matter which AM font your recipient uses, they'll never see the message the way you did AM before hitting 'send'. Yep, I've always hated that problem too. And it's not only confined to email clients. V I've had problems with this. And since a number of people reading my V mail use HTML viewing, and therefore usually not Courier or other V fixed-width fonts, I can't be guaranteed that anything I send them V will look identical on their machine. AM It need not look *identical* in the majority of instances. Proportional fonts could accomplish that equally well, I suppose, if hard line breaks were put in like in MicroEd. Plus they'd look better at my end. AM For example, say I wish to split a quoted paragraph into two and reply AM to each part separately. I reflow the paragraph, split it into two, AM separate the parts so that I can insert my own text, reflow the second AM part of the paragraph and then have the cursor in position to start AM typing. With the use of a PowerPro macro, I achieve all of that with a AM single keyboard macro triggered by hitting Alt-D. Nice. I wish there were some way to do this in TB itself. I'm rather against the idea of installing another piece of software. AM For each signature template (for me these are kept as quick templates), AM I include the '%issignature' macro. What this macro does, is to delete AM all text below the signature delimiter in the editor, and replace it AM with the output of the quick template. In effect, you delete one AM signature and replace it with another. Remember that you can add AM anything to the template, so often, doing this not only changes my AM signature, but also changes my From name/address, whether the message AM should be signed or not etc. AM So I may typing a message and decide to change signatures, I then type AM the quick template handle and then hit CTRL+spacebar. Voila .. new AM signature appears. Many thanks. I'll certainly use this now. AM Quoting the clipboard contents quotes without quoting blank lines AM between paragraphs. AM Using the 'Paste as Quotation' option in the editor, leads to blank AM lines between paragraphs being quoted. Hmm..I never knew that. I've never used the paste from clipboard option, though, but this will be good to keep in mind. AM The blue button moves to the next and previous AM message in the message list. The red buttons do the same, however the AM previously viewed message is deleted. Yes, I know that. What I meant is that it's never clear what 'next' and 'previous' mean in different contexts. Depending on how your messages are sorted, they could mean anything. Delete and move to next could be disastrous here, which is why I never keep the main window out of sight. By the way, Eudora also supports viewing messages in two windows. If I recall correctly, so does Outlook Express. It's nothing unusual in the TB. V Interesting again. When you say virtual folder, you don't actually V mean a folder somewhere in the account tree do you? AM No. Though the ticker messages have been filtered to their various AM folders, opening the ticker virtual folder, What do you mean by opening the ticker virtual folder? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Thursday, September 11, 2003, 10:28:36 PM, you wrote: A Daniel also on TBBETA is using Win 2000 +Service Pack 4 Build A 2195 and his auto checking is working fine... s. the next A question is... what Service Pack/s have you installed with your Win A 2000? If it's SP3 then perhaps installing SP4 will resolve the A problem? Unfortunately I have the same - SP4 build 2195. Is Daniel using v2 or some beta? Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 9:35:01 PM, you wrote: A Thursday, September 11, 2003, 1:34:32 AM, Allie wrote: AM I'm wondering if it's ZA at all. :/ A Allie and Vishal, A Over on TBBETA Marek has just advised Melvyn who has this same A problem to try using the Scheduler to do the auto downloading and A Melvyn tried it and he says it worked. Update - it worked for me too! Thank you VERY much Anne..this problem has plagued me for as long as I can remember :) Here's a reason for people to upgrade to version 2 - ladies and gentlemen..please welcome..the scheduler! Now there's something for the developers to ponder over..scheduler working but regular automatic checking not? Also, as a reminder to them (in case they're following this thread), it's not that my firewall (ZA, BlackICE, whatever) blocked the connections. The logs show that the attemtps to connect were never made. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi Anne Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 9:35:01 PM, you wrote: A Perhaps if Vishal tries A this also and then lets Marek know - he's doing some kind of A feedback for devs about this. How do I let Marek know? Do you think you could forward the mail I just sent about it working? I'd really like the developers to know. Thanks! Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: zonealarm and automatic mail checks - works for anyone?
Hi icem2 Friday, September 12, 2003, 11:47:51 PM, you wrote: i Seems to me if you go into msconf and 'kill' the task manger on bootup How does killing the task manager help, exactly? And do you mean msconfig? i and tell zonealarm to allow access all the time for the bat it will i work. I'd done this before. Didn't do the kill task manager bit though.. i it to work with hotmail accounts Try web2pop. Works for me. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Dial-Up, TB and Firewalls
Hi malexander Thursday, September 11, 2003, 10:58:32 PM, you wrote: m Hi m Just a point I wanted to make as I've seen one or two comments where m people have said with The Bat, and with dial-up, they don't need a m firewall. I made a comment to that effect..that if these firewall problems went on any longer I might have to shift to dialup to rid myself of the bother. Is that what you're referring to? m Sorry, but you're leaving yourself open if you don't use at least a m software firewall, even with a dial-up. Open to the possibility - yes. Vulnerable - no, if your pattern of behavior is like the following: - You don't stay online very long: This is the primary reason DSL/Cable users are at risk. If you're online for a long time you become a much more attractive target. Even if scripts are used, your chances of being cracked are much less if you're on dialup, simply because you may terminate your connection at any time and have no fixed IP to attack. If you stay online for 8 hours at a time, then sure you're at risk. How many dialup users do that though? - You stay up to date with all security patches for your OS. - You run a frequently updated antivirus. - You take sensible precautions such as not opening suspicious attachments. ABlaster/LovSan tells you. Blaster and its variants spread initially via an email attachment. If you didn't click on it you were safe. Infected hosts attempted to spread to other hosts via a DCOM RPC vulnerability that MS had released a patch for a long time ago. If you were up to date with the patches, there is no way a dialup user would have been infected. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Dial-Up, TB and Firewalls
Hi Clive Saturday, September 13, 2003, 3:12:55 AM, you wrote: CT Hi Vishal, You don't stay online very long: This is the primary reason DSL/Cable users are at risk. If you're online for a long time you become a much more attractive target. CT You couldn't be more wrong, Vishal. Not at all. My point above was that the elevated risk to broadband users, as compared to dialup, comes from the increased time and static IP address that make them more attractive targets. That was the original debate, and the reason why a firewall makes more sense in this case. CT I provide support and training for home-based PC users, 95% of whom are CT on dial-up around here. Though not as a business, I have done the same, unofficially, for many people. Also overwhelmingly dialup. CT I can tell you that it doesn't make a jot of difference how they CT connect - the vulnerable ones who contract viruses and worms are those CT who don't or won't install or update their AV progs or Windows. You didn't read the rest of my post, I presume :) Your experience completely supports what I said in my subsequent points. The four factors I mentioned were all meant to be taken together, not on their own, as a way of decreasing the odds that you would be compromised. Though of course if I were to rank them, people not updating their systems would rank the highest. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: some threads not sorted as threads
Hi Roelof Friday, September 12, 2003, 9:09:58 AM, you wrote: RO Well they had a common root, but when that common root is purged or RO manually deleted, the separate branches appear as different threads. I'm not clear on how exactly the different branches are formed when they all had a common root. Is it the case that every reply that generates further replies becomes a new thread? If this is so, the thread by reference appears to work like this - B replies to A. C replies to B, so their root is B, not A, even if A has not been deleted yet. Right? V Or does all the Re[2]: business spoil things somehow? RO No, that doesn't matter. Didn't think so. Good to know. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
