Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hail Nick On 11 May 2002 at 22:18:29 -0700 (which was 06:18 where I live) Nick Andriash emanated these words of wisdom John.O'[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not displayed correctly David... I don't think that is a bug, as most Mail Client will not display that correctly, so it must have something to do with the RFC that outlines what a valid address can and cannot contain. This might be true as I have not looked up the relevant RFC's. The problem is that I have some one with this address so this is how I first spotted it. Is there an RFC guru who can state wether this is allowed in an email address. - -- Bye, ___ David | SecureBat! 1.60 d / iKey1000 | E-mailaholics | _| Win 2K Server 5.0.2195 SP2 | International | | 29A - the Hexadecimal number of the Beast. | ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQE83NTl+Yrx5mUPRTQRAjR1AJ9MK+QOwiEUL5fBDlOx5Cq6FnCrXwCcDnB+ dX8MgTU1t/6Pii/ulX/XbJM= =/oJh -END PGP SIGNATURE- _ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bugs/Wishes: https://bt.ritlabs.com/
Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi David, @11 May 2002, 09:22:58 +0100 David Elliott wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John.O'[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not displayed correctly David... I don't think that is a bug, as most Mail Client will not display that correctly, so it must have something to do with the RFC that outlines what a valid address can and cannot contain. This might be true as I have not looked up the relevant RFC's. The problem is that I have some one with this address so this is how I first spotted it. Is there an RFC guru who can state wether this is allowed in an email address. I'm not a guru but I've read enough to know that it's valid. The ' is not a reserved character. is. The problem is with Delphi and the programming. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator SB! v1.60d/iKey1000-5523848F0B1 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ยท -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQE83Np+OeQkq5KdzaARAp9FAJ99f/oQTCNhBsFFsLckLxnDUTLxTACfcB50 5dPxUeeFxXuPzvSP4c+qL1Y= =frbv -END PGP SIGNATURE- _ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bugs/Wishes: https://bt.ritlabs.com/
Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report
Hello David Elliott, On Friday, May 10 2002 at 01:26 PM PDT, you wrote: Steps to reproduce the bug: John.O'[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not displayed correctly David... I don't think that is a bug, as most Mail Client will not display that correctly, so it must have something to do with the RFC that outlines what a valid address can and cannot contain. -- Nick Andriash Courtenay, B.C. Canada _ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bugs/Wishes: https://bt.ritlabs.com/
Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report - Forward Flag not being set.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Stefan On 16 January 2002 at 00:27:36 +0200 (which was 22:27 where I live) Stefan Tanurkov emanated these words of wisdom DE Forward Flag not being set on all messages. ST This one has been fixed last year :-) I had thought that it had been seen before. I am sorry to say that I can reproduce this on both SecureBat! Version 1.54 Beta/15/iKey1000 and The Bat! Version 1.54 Beta/24. I would like to test it on Beta 29 but I can not upgrade it. (see separate message) - -- Thank you for your time, ___ David |David Elliott| Software Engineer| _| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP Key ID 0x650F4534 | | So you know they're pure. Mostly. | See you in Cyber space, ___ David | SecureBat! 1.54 B15/iKey1000 | E-mailaholics | _| Win 2K Server 5.0.2195 SP2 | International | | He's In the shopping mall of the mind, he's in the toy store. | ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: GnuPG Signed, sealed, delivered. iD8DBQE8RpXT+Yrx5mUPRTQRAnk2AKD0YdYCrqp5Xz3+sWO/8Y7zVvo+cgCfXgSS G3+uV+9QgG58spLyxwq9wG4= =hM9o -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- _ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wish List : http://wish.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report - Address autoview on top
Hello Marck! The Address auto-view always on top option isn't optional. No matter what the setting, the window is always on top. Currently, the always on top in the address auto-view and memo view is the global option. It affects how are these windows are ordered among windows of other applications. Within The Bat!, these windows are always on top, because these windows are tool-tip windows, and they work like floating toolbar windows which are also always on top as well. I guess the behaviour was the same in 1.53. -- Maxim Masiutin http://www.ritlabs.com/ -- _ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Beta: 1.54 beta/15 Wish List : http://wish.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 at 20:10:04 +0100 Marck D. Pearlstone wrote: This is very far from easy with SecureBat! because the folder names are encoded and the mailbases are encrypted. You've got to do some real work to find out where a particular folder is stored. Ah-so, looks like SecureBat! goes farther (in terms of security) than I imagined. They moved just fine in real time. I later had to shut down and restart the system (it may be Win2k, but it's still Windows and we all know what that means for up-time cycles). It was on reload that the folders turned up missing. Sounds like it's a SecureBat!-specific problem. Maybe the beast isn't really ready after all, and maybe that's why they haven't release it to the general public. -- Best regards, Ming-Li The Bat! 1.52 Beta/4 | Win2k Pro SP1 -- __ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Ritlabs SecureBat! - bug report
Hi Ming-Li, On 10 April 2001 at 07:14:03 -0700 (which was 15:14 where I live) Ming-Li wrote to Marck D. Pearlstone on TBBETA and made these points: Lost folders after moving. ML Just to clarify things: how did you move the folders, within TB Yes. ML or outside (with a file manager)? If the latter, was TB running at ML the time? This is very far from easy with SecureBat! because the folder names are encoded and the mailbases are encrypted. You've got to do some real work to find out where a particular folder is stored. ML I'm asking because you said: Move some folders from one level to another within the hierarchy - ones with mail and target filters. ML Sounds like you moved them within TB. But then you uses "folders" ML (plural). As TB could move only one folder at a time, I wonder how ML it happened. (You moved several of them, and then suddenly all of ML them disappeared, or each one disappeared right after you moved ML it?) They moved just fine in real time. I later had to shut down and restart the system (it may be Win2k, but it's still Windows and we all know what that means for up-time cycles). It was on reload that the folders turned up missing. One thing I'm not 100% clear on is whether or not it was an orderly shut-down or an OS crash needing a power cycle to get out of. I *think* it was the former but, if it was the latter, then I'm not completely surprised at the memory lapse on reboot. Many options and changes aren't fully committed until TB is exited and restarted. I'm not in a hurry to try it again because the damage is much more severe in SecureBat! than in TB! And, with backup broken, there's no way back. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- Moderator TBUDL / TBBETA / TBTECH [ PGP Key ID: 0x929DCDA0 | www: http://www.silverstones.com ] [Any opinions are my own and not those of RIT labs ] TB! v1.52 Beta/4/iKey1000 S/N 14F4B4B2 on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1 -- __ Archives : http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
