Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun 27-Jul-03 4:08pm -0400, Allie Martin wrote: Bill Mccarthy, [BM] wrote: Just a little addition: providing an easy way to forge X-Mailer/Received headers would immediately classify The Bat! as spamware. BM This just sounds like paranoia. BM For sending mail, there are more than enough net tools available to BM spammers the provide far more power than the typical user clients BM like The Bat!. Restricting the ability to change the X-Mailer field BM is a nanny feature we don't need - I prefer to customize mine and BM their are already tools (like X-Ray) to perform simple changes like BM this. XRay makes this a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Yes, except it hangs with long emails or with attachments. If you wish to alter the X-Mailer header, use a tool like that. I do agree that it should be made optional though. Good. However, being able to define it to be whatever you like is a different thing. I take the view that it's my email and I want it my way. BM However, there are legitimate reasons to change both incoming and BM outgoing email - which The Bat!'s silly nanny obsession prevents. BM Here's an example of a pre-Inbox and pre-Outbox filter that SHOULD be BM available to a user: BM Pre-Inbox Example - Most mailing lists are used by people that use BM email clients that don't support threading. Threading by subject is BM less useful when incoming mail can't be cleansed of such BM abominations as Re: [list-name] Re: . I don't see why the current inbox filtering can't be enhanced to do this. It would seem that all you need is for TB! to be able to alter text in message headers and message body. If TB! has this ability, then all you'd need to do is to simulate a pre-inbox filter is to put the filter at the top of the inbox filter rule list and have TB! continue processing with other filters. That doesn't work - try it out yourself. Filtering doesn't continue with the changed email. Try this simple test. For any email that's from and to you, have your filter delete it, export it to a UNIX mailbox and import it with thebat.exe AND, of course, set continue processing. Notice how it stays in the inbox? I do think that this falls out of the scope of a simple MUA. That's why I purchased The Bat! :-) BM Pre-Outbox Example - If the first name in the To: field contains a BM family member, a child or a grandchild, I modify my From field and BM signature to Bill, Dad or Grandpa. When I have other addresses in BM the To: field, I manually change things. A pre-Outbox filter could BM check for mixed addresses (family and friends) and park them BM instead of sending them. That avoids accidentally sending an email BM to my son and a friend that ends with Love, Dad. Have you thought of using an %IF macro to help deal with that? Anyway, I don't know if you're seeking a solution rather than just siting an example of where pre-outbox filtering would be useful. Although it was merely an example, a proper macro solution is far more complicated that merely determining that there may be a problem. - -- Best regards, Bill The Bat! 1.63 Beta/11 is now 45 days old. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Bill McCarthy's GPG Signature iD8DBQE/JOprto6P8brTvEMRAo2PAJ9iQGpWUKyLOrdudYtVunapWavwIgCgmMsc cKeu+1v+ezsOZFpQlaEIXok= =96ib -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun 27-Jul-03 12:12am -0400, Stefan Tanurkov wrote: JA It seems to me that RITLabs has just saved themselves a world of pain JA for now. You've just saved me from a lot of typing. Thank you! ;-) That was exactly what I was going to say. Just a little addition: providing an easy way to forge X-Mailer/Received headers would immediately classify The Bat! as spamware. This just sounds like paranoia. As far is received mail is concerned, once it hits my computer, it's mine to do what I please. The Bat! already allows any user to manually change whatever the user want's changed. For sending mail, there are more than enough net tools available to spammers the provide far more power than the typical user clients like The Bat!. Restricting the ability to change the X-Mailer field is a nanny feature we don't need - I prefer to customize mine and their are already tools (like X-Ray) to perform simple changes like this. However, there are legitimate reasons to change both incoming and outgoing email - which The Bat!'s silly nanny obsession prevents. Here's an example of a pre-Inbox and pre-Outbox filter that SHOULD be available to a user: Pre-Inbox Example - Most mailing lists are used by people that use email clients that don't support threading. Threading by subject is less useful when incoming mail can't be cleansed of such abominations as Re: [list-name] Re: . Pre-Outbox Example - If the first name in the To: field contains a family member, a child or a grandchild, I modify my From field and signature to Bill, Dad or Grandpa. When I have other addresses in the To: field, I manually change things. A pre-Outbox filter could check for mixed addresses (family and friends) and park them instead of sending them. That avoids accidentally sending an email to my son and a friend that ends with Love, Dad. - -- Best regards, Bill The Bat! 1.63 Beta/11 is now 44 days old. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Bill McCarthy's GPG Signature iD8DBQE/JCXCto6P8brTvEMRAskhAKCAKcjo/VbcDgIM7V1ozkNijYe9fQCdHcLz qMdnbO4hyzlVgcSY0kS72Fk= =zjv+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun 27-Jul-03 11:35am -0400, Jan Rifkinson wrote: At 12:33 AM on Sunday, July 27, 2003 it seems you posted the following to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in regards to %SETHEADER etc. macros: How about an option to not show any X-Mailer? Of course, there's always x-ray but, to me, using that feels like cheating. X-Ray is a fine tool but is a bit buggy. I regularly run into it hanging on output filtering when I send longer emails or emails with attachments. On input filtering, X-Ray hangs on certain emails. I've been keeping track of which ones. In my case, all of them are from the same mailing list. About 10% of emails from gnupg-users cause this hang - I've seen it occur nowhere else thus far. Yes, I've informed the author of X-Ray of these problems - he may look into this. - -- Best regards, Bill The Bat! 1.63 Beta/11 is now 44 days old. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Bill McCarthy's GPG Signature iD8DBQE/JC10to6P8brTvEMRAlyJAJ4/ivFQ/RmF9B9cs7rbBx/J3iNzUQCfRmf2 M8ZLVA2uaZOFkHvC2d3NIyE= =tNAk -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Bill Mccarthy, [BM] wrote: Just a little addition: providing an easy way to forge X-Mailer/Received headers would immediately classify The Bat! as spamware. BM This just sounds like paranoia. BM For sending mail, there are more than enough net tools available to BM spammers the provide far more power than the typical user clients BM like The Bat!. Restricting the ability to change the X-Mailer field BM is a nanny feature we don't need - I prefer to customize mine and BM their are already tools (like X-Ray) to perform simple changes like BM this. XRay makes this a non-issue as far as I am concerned. If you wish to alter the X-Mailer header, use a tool like that. I do agree that it should be made optional though. However, being able to define it to be whatever you like is a different thing. BM However, there are legitimate reasons to change both incoming and BM outgoing email - which The Bat!'s silly nanny obsession prevents. BM Here's an example of a pre-Inbox and pre-Outbox filter that SHOULD be BM available to a user: BM Pre-Inbox Example - Most mailing lists are used by people that use BM email clients that don't support threading. Threading by subject is BM less useful when incoming mail can't be cleansed of such BM abominations as Re: [list-name] Re: . I don't see why the current inbox filtering can't be enhanced to do this. It would seem that all you need is for TB! to be able to alter text in message headers and message body. If TB! has this ability, then all you'd need to do is to simulate a pre-inbox filter is to put the filter at the top of the inbox filter rule list and have TB! continue processing with other filters. I do think that this falls out of the scope of a simple MUA. This sort of processing should be done by the MTA, nuh? It would seem that with a good mailserver you should be happy. :) It would do all you want, i.e.,. MDaemon is certainly capable of all that. BM Pre-Outbox Example - If the first name in the To: field contains a BM family member, a child or a grandchild, I modify my From field and BM signature to Bill, Dad or Grandpa. When I have other addresses in BM the To: field, I manually change things. A pre-Outbox filter could BM check for mixed addresses (family and friends) and park them BM instead of sending them. That avoids accidentally sending an email BM to my son and a friend that ends with Love, Dad. Have you thought of using an %IF macro to help deal with that? Anyway, I don't know if you're seeking a solution rather than just siting an example of where pre-outbox filtering would be useful. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Bill Mccarthy, [BM] wrote: BM X-Ray is a fine tool but is a bit buggy. I regularly run into it BM hanging on output filtering when I send longer emails or emails with BM attachments. I've noted this as well. However, if you use X-Ray with a local mailserver, negotiations are rapid and the problems seem to disappear. I'm using it with Mercury/32 at present. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Hello Allie, I do think that this falls out of the scope of a simple MUA. This sort of processing should be done by the MTA, nuh? It would seem that with a good mailserver you should be happy. :) It would do all you want, i.e.,. MDaemon is certainly capable of all that. There are other things to consider such as available ISPs, their TOS, your individual purpose for email, and costs. If you use email professionally, then you may want a business account that provides the ability to have your own mailserver. If not, then why incur the additional costs. Most if not all of the ISPs I've had in the past do not let you use an Enterprise application which a mailserver would be classified. Given the above argument there is substantial basis to ask for such a feature for personal use. Just my 2 cents worth. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Greg Strong, [GS] wrote: GS There are other things to consider such as available ISPs, their GS TOS, your individual purpose for email, and costs. If you use email GS professionally, then you may want a business account that provides GS the ability to have your own mailserver. You don't need a 'business' account to use your own mailserver. I've never had a business account and my only regret is that I took so long to start using my own mailserver. It was actually saving me money in the early stages of using one since it avoided my having to pay for an extra POP account for my wife. GS If not, then why incur the additional costs. Most if not all of the GS ISPs I've had in the past do not let you use an Enterprise GS application which a mailserver would be classified. I used MDaemon while I had a dial-up connection. In fact, I gravitated to using MDaemon since it had so many features that made it suitable for just what I needed. Currently, all my domain mail for ac-martin.com is collected and placed in a single remote POP account. One POP account that works just like yours. Not a 'business' account. MDaemon downloads mail from it and then distributes the mail to local POP accounts. My wife and I then use our clients on our different machines to fetch our mail from MDaemon. MDaemon sends mail so there's no need to be concerned about ISP and the SMTP server restrictions involved. A local mailserver can really get rid of a lot of the headaches involved in using multiple remote POP accounts, ISP's and SMTP servers while managing e-mail. Not to mention if you have your own domain mail to manage, a not too far fetched concept now that domain names are cheap to acquire. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Hello Allie, You don't need a 'business' account to use your own mailserver. I've never had a business account and my only regret is that I took so long to start using my own mailserver. It was actually saving me money in the early stages of using one since it avoided my having to pay for an extra POP account for my wife. Ok my error. I should have simply stated you need a ISP whose internet gateway will provide the ability for having a mailserver. I should probably check into such an account due to my interest here. I used MDaemon while I had a dial-up connection. In fact, I gravitated to using MDaemon since it had so many features that made it suitable for just what I needed. Options flexibility. Currently, all my domain mail for ac-martin.com is collected and placed in a single remote POP account. One POP account that works just like yours. Not a 'business' account. Since I've never used my own mailserver I may ask some questions that sound stupid, but I'll ask anyway. Is this one Pop account at your ISP, or do you have MDaemon receive mail directly from the Internet? If it is direct than I would imagine you have a static IP, correct? MDaemon downloads mail from it and then distributes the mail to local POP accounts. Sounds like one Pop account at your ISP goes into your own mailserver, MDaemon. My wife and I then use our clients on our different machines to fetch our mail from MDaemon. What differentiates your mail from your wife's? It sounds like you have a domain name registered with email forwarding. You have the various email accounts with your domain name at your registrar being forwarded to the one Pop account at your ISP, then have MDaemon download from your ISP. Is this correct? MDaemon sends mail so there's no need to be concerned about ISP and the SMTP server restrictions involved. Again I get back to the TOS of your ISP. You must have a gateway to the internet which does NOT provide restrictions in this area such as blocking port 25. A local mailserver can really get rid of a lot of the headaches involved in using multiple remote POP accounts, ISP's and SMTP servers while managing e-mail. Not to mention if you have your own domain mail to manage, a not too far fetched concept now that domain names are cheap to acquire. I have to many Pop accounts. Once they are set up in TB it isn't much of a problem, but still to many. I'd like to check into your configuration, but it would require a change in my ISP. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Running own mailserver (was: Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros)
Greg Strong, [GS] wrote: I'm cc'ing this response to TBOT so we can continue there. GS Ok my error. I should have simply stated you need a ISP whose GS internet gateway will provide the ability for having a mailserver. I GS should probably check into such an account due to my interest here. I think you will find it useful. I used MDaemon while I had a dial-up connection. In fact, I gravitated to using MDaemon since it had so many features that made it suitable for just what I needed. GS Options flexibility. Yes. GS Since I've never used my own mailserver I may ask some questions GS that sound stupid, but I'll ask anyway. Is this one Pop account at GS your ISP, I originally used a single POP account at my ISP. Now I use two POP accounts remotely on a friends server. But they are POP accounts just the same. MDaemon and Mercury/32 the two mailservers I'm most acquainted with have support for downloading mail from remote POP servers pretty much like how a normal e-mail client does. The advantage of the mailserver here is that it can parse the downloaded mail and sort them to local POP accounts. You can use filters to do this or let the mailserver use it's parsing mechanisms to sort the mail to specific accounts based on the recipients for each message. One immediate example of what this allows you is funnelling mail from many remote POP accounts to one local account that TB! downloads from. It also elegantly provides a solution for the wish that is often expressed, i.e., the wish to download mail from one POP account into two TB! accounts so that the filters for each TB! account will work on the messages that reach each TB! accounts inbox. GS or do you have MDaemon receive mail directly from the Internet? No, I don't do this. Never did, though I've thought about it. GS If it is direct than I would imagine you have a static IP, correct? Never did have one. :) MDaemon downloads mail from it and then distributes the mail to local POP accounts. GS Sounds like one Pop account at your ISP goes into your own GS mailserver, MDaemon. Yes. Instead of TB! doing the downloading, which it could. I however, use MDaemon so that I can sort the mail to be downloaded by multiple clients, from separate MDaemon POP accounts. GS What differentiates your mail from your wife's? Her e-mail address. Her's is [EMAIL PROTECTED] while mine is [EMAIL PROTECTED] . GS It sounds like you have a domain name registered with email GS forwarding. Yes. I used to use e-mail forwarding. Now I have a server that collects my domain mail and put them in a single POP account for me to retrieve at my convenience. GS You have the various email accounts with your domain name at your GS registrar being forwarded to the one Pop account at your ISP, then GS have MDaemon download from your ISP. Is this correct? Yes. I did *exactly* this about a year ago, until I found someone willing to handle my domain mail. However, as I said, the system works no differently from what I did with my ISP. GS Again I get back to the TOS of your ISP. You must have a gateway to GS the internet which does NOT provide restrictions in this area such GS as blocking port 25. For sending mail? No. My ISP doesn't block outgoing SMTP connections from their customer IP's. Not for dialup and not for ADSL, which I now have. If this happens to you then this is an exception rather than the rule. GS I have to many Pop accounts. Once they are set up in TB it isn't GS much of a problem, but still to many. I'd like to check into your GS configuration, but it would require a change in my ISP. Why? -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Running own mailserver (was: Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros)
Hello Allie, GS I have to many Pop accounts. Once they are set up in TB it isn't GS much of a problem, but still to many. I'd like to check into your GS configuration, but it would require a change in my ISP. Why? I believe the TOS expressly states use of enterprise solutions. ISPs in the states are starting to get more serious about spam, so therefore there are limitations within the TOS. Although the wording is broad and therefore vague the TOS in a legal sense prevents running of your own mail server. My memory tells me I looked at it, but I couldn't find the link. It could have been RR. I'll have to check into it and get back to you. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Hello Bill, On Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 15:39 GMT -0400, engineers were awed when Bill Mccarthy [BM] constructed: BM First of all, you are only addressing pre-Inbox (not pre-Outbox) BM filtering. Very true, which is why I said it might not be elegant enough. BM Secondly, this approach, AFAIK, does not continue the filtering BM process - the reason I've been requesting a pre-Inbox filter in the BM first place. You mean have a general clean-up filter then process the cleaned messages through arbitrary other filters? Then you're absolutely right, the current filtering fails again. And yet another reason why I said my solution might not be elegant enough. BM These are the approaches I've considered and both are awful :-( Very true. -- Thanks for writing, Januk Aggarwal Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
%SETHEADER etc. macros
Hi! How do they work? I cannot make them work for me... %SETHEADER(field,value) %ADDHEADER(field,value) no action at all... What am I doing wrong? -- |\ /| \~~~/ \~~~/ WWW: http://none :( | \/ | /\ \~/ E-M: maxxx[at]rpg.pl || /__\ /___\ /_\ /___\ ICQ: 3146019 Todays assembler command : EXOP Execute Operator Flyin' high with The Bat! v1.63 Beta/10 over the swamps of Windows 2000 5.0 build 2195 Dodatek Service Pack. 2 Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
B-stok/PL, Saturday, July 26, 2003 Hello MaXxX, On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, at 10:44:43 (which was 10:44 where I live) in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: M no action at all... What am I doing wrong? You have to add it to the list in Messages - Message headers in TB! preferences first. -- Michal Kosinski 0xA0448618 TB! 1.63 Beta/11 (1C2D55D1) | Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 4 Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: %SETHEADER etc. macros
Hi MaXxX, On Saturday, July 26, 2003 at 10:44:43 [GMT +0200], you wrote: How do they work? I cannot make them work for me... %SETHEADER(field,value) %ADDHEADER(field,value) no action at all... What am I doing wrong? The header fields you try to change have to be set as Allow to edit this field in the message editor. The relation between the message editor and the macros for editing isn't really obvious, though. :-/ Unfortunately, you can't change this property for the predefined header fields, IIRC. -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current beta is 1.63b11 | Using TBBETA information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
