Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hi Thomas, TF I am using PC-Cillin. It works good, the interface is easy, it good a TF 100% score on hackfix; the only thing I am waiting for is the TB TF plug-in. Does PC-Cillin itself have a command line interface? Trend's engine is what's behind OnTrack's AV package (SystemSuite) but OnTrack doesn't provide a command line to it so it's almost useless for e-mail protection. If PC-Cillin doesn't do command line interaction then TB may have trouble using it. Just a thought. -- Tom G. http://blarp.com -- Free tech support The Bat 1.61 - Windows 2000 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hello Blarp, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:59:27 -0700 GMT (12/09/02, 14:59 +0700 GMT), Blarp wrote: B Does PC-Cillin itself have a command line interface? No, I think not. B If PC-Cillin doesn't do command line interaction then TB may have B trouble using it. Just a thought. Most programs use more interfaces than just the user interfaces GUI and CLI. The SDK (Software Developers Kit) of any program will tell you where you can interface with the program. Forgot for the A stood for, but the rest of API means Programmers' Interface. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. CHRISTOPHER HOPE was disappointed by the warning he spotted on a gallon container of the laboratory disinfectant Hibitane. Avoid contact with brain, it told him, thereby spoiling his plans for a fun-filled afternoon drilling holes in his skull and pouring disinfectant into them. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hello Thomas, Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:40:20 AM, you wrote: I am using PC-Cillin. Which version are you using? -- David Cohen Using The Bat! v1.60c on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Mangled attachments
For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be blaming on NAV. When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. Thanks! Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 7:39 AM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio http://www.technology-corner.com == NEW HOME FOR THE SHOW! Featured speaker: CorelWORLD - http://www.corelworld.com Random thought: There are two kinds of books: those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read. - H.L. Mencken Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Technology, Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:47:51 AM, you wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in BBTE TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be BBTE blaming on NAV. BBTE When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments BBTE are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs BBTE will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually BBTE guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. BBTE When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. BBTE Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to BBTE retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. I've seen corruption of various file types. Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results in the files fixing themselves. For me, this is a work-around, not a fix. Mark. -- Regards, Mark mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bat! Version 1.61 OS info: Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
TB! freezes when in Start menu
Hi fellow TB!ers, I've had a problem occurring for some time, but haven't really worried about it since it's just an annoyance. Ever since version 1.59, TB! will not minimize (either automatically or manually)when it first comes up in my Start menu on a computer boot/reboot. If I close TB! and restart it, it works fine. Any ideas? Regards -- Art Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB Backup/WinXP ?
Hello Lou, On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, at 10:06:04 GMT -0400 (9/11/02, 9:06 AM -0500 GMT here), you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: LY SysCmdr is not really needed unless you want to boot Linux, etc. LY or want to use multiple primary partitions, hiding the unused ones. If I want to hide unused primary partitions, then it sounds like SC7 is the way to go. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.62/Beta4 on Windows 98 PGP public keys: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=0xB1FE63FABody=Please20send20keys Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mark, @12-Sep-2002, 05:07 -0700 (13:07 UK time) Mark Bernard [MB] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a BBTE bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that BBTE I should be blaming on NAV. ... snip BBTE When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive BBTE intact. ... snip MB I've seen corruption of various file types. MB Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results MB in the files fixing themselves. MB For me, this is a work-around, not a fix. I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other real-time POP3 virus scanner? I don't. I have been a TB user for over 4 years and receive 200-400 messages per day, many of which have attachments; JPG, DOC, GIF, HTM, PDF, PPS, EXE, SQL - the list goes on. I have *never* seen TB corrupt an attachment... and I mean *never*. The only way to prove the error (but not where it is coming from) is to submit a MIME forward of the original message from the sender's system and an exported (.msg) copy of the received version to the BugTraq. I'll wager it's nothing to do with TB though. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gIw0OeQkq5KdzaARAnFrAKD4ENOICgT7eh+1C6y6jAQ1KagrHwCfTW4z 8EMQJKi0ZI/WB7K5+0wWRkk= =/Dn6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi, This problem has been discussed in other threads. Same over here: Attachements (Word, RTF, TXT...) are regularly messed up. I first thought that the problem is sender-dependent but then realized it is not. The spoilt attachments alwas stem from messages with multiple attachments of different file types, though, so that one could suspect a connection. No NAV installed on my system, so that can't be the cause. Resending to myself doesn't work in my case. Attachment management is crucial for me, so I guess, I'll have to switch to another program - at least for the time being. All the best, Anselm For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be blaming on NAV. When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. Thanks! Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 7:39 AM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio http://www.technology-corner.com == NEW HOME FOR THE SHOW! Featured speaker: CorelWORLD - http://www.corelworld.com Random thought: There are two kinds of books: those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read. - H.L. Mencken Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html __ Anselm Buehling - Translations EN/RU DE [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 30 6950 4870 |phone +49 30 6950 4898 |fax +49 170 961 2072 |mobile Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: TB Backup/WinXP ?
Thursday, September 12, 2002, 8:33:26 AM, you wrote: GS Hello Lou, GS On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, at 10:06:04 GMT -0400 (9/11/02, 9:06 AM -0500 GMT GS here), you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: LY SysCmdr is not really needed unless you want to boot Linux, etc. LY or want to use multiple primary partitions, hiding the unused ones. GS If I want to hide unused primary partitions, then it sounds like SC7 is GS the way to go. That would be my choice. On one NT network I care for, I use a maintenance partiton to do backups. In that case I use primary partitions for both systems. I have since decided that it is easier to just install the maintenance OS in a logical drive and make a boot diskette in case the primary partition is corrupted. Lots of ways to do the same things, I beleive that my way is a way, not the way. As someone else pointed out, you can use Linux to control the boot process as well. I am hoping to convert from multi boot systems to using VMWare. Nothing like running XP and Liunux as guest OS's under 2K...Great combo for debugging software. I am about done with my trial version, have to find the money to buy the thing. Lou -- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:47:51 AM, you wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a bug in BBTE TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I should be BBTE blaming on NAV. BBTE When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments BBTE are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs BBTE will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually BBTE guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. BBTE When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. BBTE Is this a problem anyone else on the list has seen? I'd really like to BBTE retire Eudora, but I can't until I solve this little problem. I've been using NAV together with TB for 3 years or more, which means through several versions of NAV (up to NAV 2000) .. I don't recall which version of TB I started with, but it was before 1.53. In that time I've received all kinds of attachments. I can't swear that none has ever arrived corrupt, but it's been rare. I've been running it all on NT4, and now w2kp ... I don't suppose this helps much, but ... Lynn 1.60m on Win2kPro SP2 -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * *Aun Aprendo I'd rather be WARP'ed* * * Team OS/2 http://www.sites.onlinemac.com/hawthorne/ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: AbacusBat
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 6:34:43 AM, Thomas Martin wrote: is there a shareware version for testing somewhere to download? Not sure. Visit www.abacuslaw.com -- Dwight A. Corrin P O Box 47828 Wichita KS 67201-7828 316.263.9706 fax 316.263.6385 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP version 5,1 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 07:47 your local time, (17:32 my local time), you [BBT] wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a BBTE bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I BBTE should be blaming on NAV. At one time, I did receive a lot of corrupt attachments in TB! But that was not because of NAV, but Zone Alarm. Ever since I discarded ZA, things are fine (and I use NAV). Not only were the attachments corrupt, but at times the file names were messed up. The files names would be something like: report.doc; x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 People in this list said the attachments originated from Mac user but that wasn't the case. They came from my colleagues using NT4. It was Mail Safe settings of ZA that was messing them up. Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ Anything in parenthesis can (not) be ignored /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 07:47 your local time, (17:32 my local time), you [BBT] wrote: BBTE For quite some time, I've seen a problem that I thought was a BBTE bug in TB, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's something that I BBTE should be blaming on NAV. At one time, I did receive a lot of corrupt attachments in TB! But that was not because of NAV, but Zone Alarm. Ever since I discarded ZA, things are fine (and I use NAV). Not only were the attachments corrupt, but at times the file names were messed up. The names would be something like: report.doc; x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 People in this list said the attachments originated from Mac user but that wasn't the case. They came from my colleagues using NT4. It was Mail Safe settings of ZA that was messing them up. Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ Anything in parenthesis can (not) be ignored /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi Sudip, Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. I, for one, do, so that might be a clue! But would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB if you want to receive correct attachments? using a broadband access without firewall seems way to dangerous these days... Regards, Anselm __ Anselm Buehling - Translations EN/RU DE [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 30 6950 4870 |phone +49 30 6950 4898 |fax +49 170 961 2072 |mobile Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, September 12, 2002, Anselm Buehling wrote... Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. I, for one, do, so that might be a clue! But would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB if you want to receive correct attachments? Not at all... try turning off the mail filtering options, and see if that helps cure things. I haven't used ZA in a long while, so I cannot point you to where it is. Either that, or try a different firewall for a short while. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPYCoxiuD6BT4/R9zEQLIYACguAzCgz8fvUZeLnI3X9FDw1oEuP4AoNIE NdOwUCCemV8qo51l3b3bowB1 =cohr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
I HATE this BAT-Feature - any help?`
When I run a search, and want to reply to one of the results, I right-click onto it and say REPLY. Now, the BAT just uses the account that I am in OUTSIDE the search, and it does NOT use the account this mail actually went to. Is this another one of the GREAT FEATURES or is there any way around this? THANK YOU, Seb Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Anselm, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 16:40:29 [GMT +0200], you wrote: AB using a broadband access without firewall seems way to dangerous AB these days... Might I recommend to read the FAQ of the (German speaking) newsgroup de.comp.security.firewall? http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/Firewall.html or the English version here: http://www.blood-thirsty-barbarians.de/Firewall.html Although some of the arguments might seem a bit exaggerated at first, I can tell from my own experience that not using a personal firewall isn't much of a loss. You only have to keep up with security updates for your system, but shouldn't everyone do that? ;-) -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Anselm, @12-Sep-2002, 16:40 +0200 (15:40 UK time) Anselm Buehling [AB] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. AB I, for one, do, so that might be a clue! But would that mean AB that no firewall can be used together with TB if you want to AB receive correct attachments? It most certainly does not. Search the archives of this mailing list to see the many rants against ZA as a firewall. I use Kerio and it protects me well without compromising any apps running on my systems. Another highly rated firewall is OutPost. ZA is a villaim of many pieces, working well for some, but interfering with the peaceful computing of others, going beyond its bounds and remit. Anyway, it may be, as advised, that disabling the mail scanning functions of ZA (... why it's a firewall - what business does it have scanning mail for pity's sake!) will be sufficient to clean up its act in your case. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gK3hOeQkq5KdzaARAiw0AKDFjTqQsOoGd6wPKrJk9uMWfrCx2ACfeNrN YZoaJzdBYZVsyWso22CmLCo= =NTrN -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hello Sudip, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:21:21 +0545 GMT (12/09/02, 16:36 +0700 GMT), Sudip Pokhrel wrote: TF NAV uses an algorithm that tries to find as yet unknown malware. TF Other AV-software will check in their database whether any known TF malware is found in the file being scanned. SP This is not entirely true. Other packages use this method (called SP Heuristic analysis) as well. In NAV's case this is called Bloodhound. OK, so AVG uses it too. But then, AVG seems to catch only 60-odd percent of the viruses, according to hackfix. SP Besides, you always have an option to turn Heuristic/Bloodhound off. Also in NAV? TF I am using PC-Cillin. SP How much does it cost? What about footprint? For prices see: www.trendmicro.com I don't know the footprint - how do I check in in Win98? Since I have kicked out SETI@Home, I don't have 100% memory usage any more, so I guess PCC's footprint is within range for my box. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Laughing stock: cattle with a sense of humor. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hello David, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:23:42 -0400 GMT (12/09/02, 16:23 +0700 GMT), David Cohen wrote: I am using PC-Cillin. DC Which version are you using? I'm still using PCC6. as the updates still work, I see no reason to pay again and get PC-Cillin 2000. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. 24. Dueling is legal in Paraguay as long as both parties are registered blood donors. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:44:34 +0100 GMT (12/09/02, 19:44 +0700 GMT), Marck D Pearlstone wrote: MDP I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other MDP real-time POP3 virus scanner? MDP I don't. I have been a TB user for over 4 years and receive 200-400 MDP messages per day, many of which have attachments; JPG, DOC, GIF, MDP HTM, PDF, PPS, EXE, SQL - the list goes on. I have *never* seen TB MDP corrupt an attachment... and I mean *never*. Me neither. Until Eddy forwarded a zipped message.tbb and message.tbi pair to me. I have subsequently confirmed the problem. I have never had NAV on my system. See thread starting with [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and my message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MDP The only way to prove the error (but not where it is coming from) is MDP to submit a MIME forward of the original message from the sender's MDP system and an exported (.msg) copy of the received version to the MDP BugTraq. ACK. MDP I'll wager it's nothing to do with TB though. Let's see. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. 31. 'Stewardesses' is the longest English word that is typed with only the left hand. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: I HATE this BAT-Feature - any help?`
Hello Sebastian, Now, the BAT just uses the account that I am in OUTSIDE the search, and it does NOT use the account this mail actually went to. What version of TB are you using? It works fine for me, it uses the account of the folder where the message is stored when the search is done, no matter if it was moved from one account to a different one. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.60c Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: I HATE this BAT-Feature - any help?`
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Sebastian, @12-Sep-2002, 17:06 +0200 (16:06 UK time) Sebastian [S] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: S Is this another one of the GREAT FEATURES or is there any way S around this? On the status line of the new message editor your account name appears second from the right. Right click on it and choose the account you want to use. That will fix it. Or, if you are using the tray icon, choose the correct account from there before starting the reply. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gLY6OeQkq5KdzaARAu/cAJ9oMrfIvxLvbTdefX/xWtlJZ/jogQCgy6VN /mEasj9aDNwccvT/xT3E7K0= =HbLr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, BBTE I prefer not to disable it because I BBTE consider it a last line of defense for outbound traffic in the event BBTE that something slips through my defenses. Get Kerio Personal Firewall. MUCH better than ZA+. Smaller footprint and more configurable. KPF has a few quirks of its own but none of them affect how other programs operate like ZA can/does. -- Tom G. http://blarp.com -- Free tech support The Bat 1.61 - Windows 2000 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hi Thomas, TF Most programs use more interfaces than just the user interfaces GUI TF and CLI. The SDK (Software Developers Kit) of any program will tell TF you where you can interface with the program. Forgot for the A stood TF for, but the rest of API means Programmers' Interface. Of course, but a CLI makes it possible to do things very quickly and easily. -- Tom G. http://blarp.com -- Free tech support The Bat 1.61 - Windows 2000 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, @12-Sep-2002, 22:28 +0700 (16:28 UK time) Thomas F. [TF] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MDP I'll wager it's nothing to do with TB though. TF Let's see. And now ZA peeps over the parapet yet again. If it were TB doing it, more of us would be affected. I said never and I mean never. That's not to say it doesn't happen. I accept that looking at a corrupted message as stored in a TBB would reveal that it had happened to someone, but that certainly doesn't mean TB did it! There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip - the message must pass through other ports of call before TB gets it. It is interesting that the problem can sometimes be cleared up by forwarding the message. Hey - perhaps ZA re-corrupts the attachment and renders it legible on the way back round :-). - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gLoOOeQkq5KdzaARAk/0AJ9glkyHMx7wByxIL+R0EQXyNQsfYQCgxyeZ ewUZUlSdbEOjczfDtRQccVc= =2yjI -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello William Thank you for your email dated Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:35:12 PM, in which you wrote: BBTE If nothing else, I have been introduced to AVG Antivirus! Let me introduce you an even better one :-) www.eset.com -- Regards William Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Anselm Thank you for your email dated Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:40:29 PM, in which you wrote: AB ... would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB if AB you want to receive correct attachments? Certainly not. I have broadband, NOD32, and Sygate Pro firewall. No problem. Yes I know, I'll probably regret that last statement! -- Regards William Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi William, @12-Sep-2002, 17:02 William Moore [WM] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: BBTE If nothing else, I have been introduced to AVG Antivirus! WM Let me introduce you an even better one :-) www.eset.com But the price is infinitely worse! - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62/Beta5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE9gLt2OeQkq5KdzaARAjMCAKDPa9KczzH9WBScd8ygpDyXg3NwKACfXzEJ i/NrLA4/hk6SAx/zzjMB1r0= =Cvh0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:I HATE this BAT-Feature - any help?`
Hi Seb. At 11:06 AM on Thursday, September 12, 2002 you [S] wrote the following about 'I HATE this BAT-Feature - any help?`': S When I run a search, and want to reply to S one of the results, I right-click onto it S and say REPLY. S Now, the BAT just uses the account that I S am in OUTSIDE the search, and it does NOT S use the account this mail actually went S to. S Is this another one of the GREAT FEATURES S or is there any way around this? I guess it must be another one of those GREAT FEATURES because, like Miguel, it works fine for me. But if it doesn't work for you, another GREAT FEATURE is that it can be changed easily as Marck pointed out. This is why I, along with many others, LOVE all the features available in The Bat!. Except for very few things, the program can be customized to the user's convenience one way or another. I've found it usually pays to ask if something is possible before commenting on The Bat's feature set. So far I've been pleasantly surprised by its possibilities. -- Jan Rifkinson Ridgefield, CT USA TB! V1.61/W2K_SP3 ICQ 41116329 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi Lars, Although some of the arguments might seem a bit exaggerated at first, I can tell from my own experience that not using a personal firewall isn't much of a loss. You only have to keep up with security updates for your system, but shouldn't everyone do that? ;-) Hmm, while one certainly shouldn't overestimate the effect personal firewalls, I wonder whether you're really safer off with M$ security updates... ;-/ Kind regards, Anselm __ Anselm Buehling - Translations EN/RU DE [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 30 6950 4870 |phone +49 30 6950 4898 |fax +49 170 961 2072 |mobile Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: I [don't] HATE this BAT-Feature - any help?`
Well, this is pretty weird! I accidentally sent out SEVERAL emails with the wrong account by just hitting the reply button in the search results. Now I finally saw that you can just choose the account name, and I thank you all for pointing things out - BAT is ok after all, hehe. ;) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hi Jonathan, Not at all... try turning off the mail filtering options, and see if that helps cure things. I haven't used ZA in a long while, so I cannot point you to where it is. Either that, or try a different firewall for a short while. Thanks, will try that and hope it will be the solution of the mystery! Kind regards, Anselm __ Anselm Buehling - Translations EN/RU DE [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 30 6950 4870 |phone +49 30 6950 4898 |fax +49 170 961 2072 |mobile Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Turning off ZA mail filtering options did not help. So i'll have to test on. Next step would be to completely deactivate ZA. Will do as soon as I have time and a partner to test. Kind regards, Anselm -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, September 12, 2002, Anselm Buehling wrote... Are you using ZA or behind any firewall? This may be worth looking into. I, for one, do, so that might be a clue! But would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB if you want to receive correct attachments? Not at all... try turning off the mail filtering options, and see if that helps cure things. I haven't used ZA in a long while, so I cannot point you to where it is. Either that, or try a different firewall for a short while. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPYCoxiuD6BT4/R9zEQLIYACguAzCgz8fvUZeLnI3X9FDw1oEuP4AoNIE NdOwUCCemV8qo51l3b3bowB1 =cohr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html __ Anselm Buehling - Translations EN/RU DE [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 30 6950 4870 |phone +49 30 6950 4898 |fax +49 170 961 2072 |mobile Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
BB When a message with multiple attachments arrives, if the attachments BB are Word files or JPGs, I can count on some file corruption. The JPGs BB will be unreadable or partly readable, for example. This is virtually BB guaranteed to happen if there are 3 or more attachments. BB When the attachment is a zip file, it always seems to arrive intact. I don't use any sort of antivirus software on my system, so it isn't that. I don't use any sort of firewall software on my system, so it isn't that. I've seen every type of file corrupted, be it a .JPG, .PPT, .ZIP, .DOC... you name it, it has arrived corrupted at one time or another. (Not all attachments arrive corrupt; the larger the attachment, the more likely the corruption is to occur.) I have seen it occur when there has been just a single attachment and when there are multiple attachments. Recently, I created a folder called Test, into which I put several messages which are corrupt in TB!. I zip'd the Test folder (containing the .TBB and .TBI files) and mailed it to several TB! users. When they created a Test folder and placed the .TBB/.TBI files from my .zip in it, they were able to experience the corruption first-hand. Forwarding a message with a corrupt attachment to a non-TB! user always results in an attachment that is perfectly valid for the recipient, meaning that the message was received, and stored, without any errors. Others have said that forwarding the message back to yourself also works, although I haven't tried it. What I usually do is export the message as a Unix mailbox and re-import it, and that USUALLY corrects the problem (but not always). Because of the import/export, I end up with two seemingly identical messages in my Inbox, but one is corrupt and one works. This most certainly appears to be a problem with TB!. I used 'Help Feedback Bug Report' to submit a bug (an even included my zip file of the corrupted Test folder) but never received any acknowledgement or any sort of response from RIT Labs. Eddy Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck Thank you for your email dated Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:06:12 PM, in which you wrote: MDP But the price is infinitely worse! Spoken like a true Londoner ;-) -- Regards William Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 12:26:55 PM, Eddy wrote: Forwarding a message with a corrupt attachment to a non-TB! user always results in an attachment that is perfectly valid for the recipient If the file is alright after it is forwarded, it can't be corrupted when you get it. Where do you store your messages? Do you save them separately when they come it? In what way are they corrupted when you try to use them? What are you trying to do with them when they appear to be corrupted? -- Dwight A. Corrin P O Box 47828 Wichita KS 67201-7828 316.263.9706 fax 316.263.6385 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP version 5,1 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hallo Anselm, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:40:29 +0200GMT (12-9-02, 16:40 +0200GMT, where I live), you wrote: AB But would that mean that no firewall can be used together with TB AB if you want to receive correct attachments? No, it doesn't. I use TB, AVG and ZA (free version) and have never received a corrupt attachment. BTW I run W98 and have got ADSL. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Eddy said ... E This most certainly appears to be a problem with TB!. I used 'Help E Feedback Bug Report' to submit a bug (an even included my zip file of E the corrupted Test folder) but never received any acknowledgement or E any sort of response from RIT Labs. I've been hoping that it might be something other than TB, but since others see similar problems with and without firewalls, with and without AV software running, TB appears to be the most likely suspect. The fact that I can send a single message to two accounts on the same server, retrieve one with TB (corrupted) and one with Eudora (not corrupted) or with any version of Outlook (not corrupted) or on a Mac (not corrupted), that further suggests it's something TB is doing. I can also add this: I see the same problem on a W2K desktop, a WXP notebook, and a WXP desktop. Further, I can leave a message with attachments on the server and use dispatch mail to retrieve it several times, with varying results. One of my jobs involves receiving a message with 5 to 20 attachments each week (dog and cat pictures for an animal shelter website). In more than 75 weekly attempts, I cannot remember even ONE time when all of the attachments arrived successfully. Sometimes only 1 or 2 of the attachments fail; sometimes they all fail. Fortunately, I have very little hair left, so pulling out what's left is less painful than it might otherwise be. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 1:32 PM Technology Corner, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up. -- Anonymous Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Technology, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:35 your local time, (20:20 my local time), you [BBT] wrote: BBTE I'll try contacting Zone Labs, too. I had a bad experience with them. They kept sending me a same stock mail suggesting to turn off Mail Safe setting. When this didn't work, I asked them again and guess what? They sent me the same friggin' stock mail again !! -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Now here's an odd one?
Hi Thomas, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 22:22 your local time, (21:07 my local time), you [TF] wrote: TF OK, so AVG uses it too. But then, AVG seems to catch only 60-odd TF percent of the viruses, according to hackfix. So does Kaspersky though, and it does 100% :) SP Besides, you always have an option to turn Heuristic/Bloodhound off. TF Also in NAV? Yes. In fact, NAV takes this once step further where you can even adjust the sensitivity level of the Heuristic Analysis. TF For prices see: www.trendmicro.com Thanks.. I'll take a look -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ When sign makers go on strike, is anything written on their signs? /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Hi Marck, On Thursday, September 12, 2002 16:08 your local time, (20:53 my local time), you [MDP] wrote: MDP Anyway, it may be, as advised, that disabling the mail scanning MDP functions of ZA (... why it's a firewall - what business does MDP it have scanning mail for pity's sake!) will be sufficient to MDP clean up its act in your case. But, in my case, turning off Mail Safe setting didn't help either. Uninstalling ZA was the only way out. -- Be Well, Sudip Pokhrel Sudip Kathmandu-NP. ___PGP Key ID: 0xD93F5185 TB! v1.61 on XP Pro| http://pgpkeys.mit.edu P4-1.6Ghz 256MB RAM| ___ My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail X / \ Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
ON Thursday, September 12, 2002, 7:26:55 PM, you wrote: E Recently, I created a folder called Test, into which I put several E messages which are corrupt in TB!. I zip'd the Test folder E (containing the .TBB and .TBI files) and mailed it to several TB! E users. When they created a Test folder and placed the .TBB/.TBI E files from my .zip in it, they were able to experience the corruption E first-hand. Hi Eddy, I am no expert on this but it sure looks like a corrupted Tbb or TBI file. I belive you can delete index file and TB! will recreate it. Have you tried that with a corrupted file in the folder? It could be just a case of mis-indexing. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Wethern's Law -Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 1:36:01 PM, Dwight wrote: DAC On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 12:26:55 PM, Eddy wrote: Forwarding a message with a corrupt attachment to a non-TB! user always results in an attachment that is perfectly valid for the recipient DAC If the file is alright after it is forwarded, it can't be corrupted DAC when you get it. Correct. I have said all along that the message is received and stored correctly by TB!, so it is not a network or ISP issue. I believe it is an issue with how TB! decodes the attachment when it comes time to actually EXTRACT the attachment for viewing/use. DAC Where do you store your messages? Do you save them DAC separately when they come it? Nope. I do not separate out the attachments; I leave them as is. DAC In what way are they corrupted when you try to use them? In the case of JPEG attachments, clicking the little tab at the bottom of the window that allows you to view the image results in nothing but a blank pane when the attachment is corrupt. Double-clicking the attachment to view it with TB!'s internal image viewer results in a JPG Err# 11 or JPG Err# 68. Saving the attachment (by dragging the icon from the attachment sidebar, or right-clicking it and choosing Save) and viewing it in an external viewer, such as IrfanView, ACDSee, Internet Explorer, Photoshop, etc. results in a JPEG image that is partially viewable, and then corrupt at some varying point in the image. Forwarding the mail to a non-TB! user results in a perfectly valid, error-free image, as does exporting and re-importing the message (in most, but not all cases). DAC What are you trying to do with them when they appear to be DAC corrupted? I'm just trying to use whatever attachment is sent to me! .DOC files can't be opened in Word (it complains about the file being corrupt), .PPT files won't open, ZIP files have CRC errors and abort extraction, etc. In _all_ cases, forwarding the message (in many of my tests, I would forward it to my wife's email account; she uses Outlook) results in a perfectly useable file for the recipient. Lately, I've been able to avoid the extra steps associated with forwarding it to her, saving the attachment to one of her shared folders, copying to my computer via the network, etc. by doing the Export/Import trick. But on occasion, even that hasn't worked. I have to believe the problem has to do with how TB! is decoding MIME attachments. If it was anything else (such as corruption in my mailbox folders, etc.) I wouldn't be able to forward or export/import the message and have a useable attachment. So the only explanation is that 100% of the attachment data is there, and decodeable by other mail programs, but _not_ by TB!. Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. Eddy Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Eddy, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 15:38:37 [GMT -0400] (or 20:38 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: E On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 1:36:01 PM, Dwight wrote: DAC On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 12:26:55 PM, Eddy wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. E Eddy Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? a. -- 12 September 2002, 21:35 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X When Gerber first started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as here in the USA - with the cute baby on the label. Later they found out that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what's inside since most people can't read. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
ON Thursday, September 12, 2002, 9:38:37 PM, you wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. Eddy, I would like a go at this. Can you pls sent me the test files to. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Eat right. Exercise. Die Anyway. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? A Adam ... Everyone who has this problem has bad memory? And I have bad memory on THREE computers? And the problem doesn't manifest itself with any other e-mail program? (Not even with that inferior thing Microsoft ships.) I don't think so . Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 5:23 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: I think everyone knows that the DoS is real. Lots more were hit today. eBay doesn't count, since that entire operation is a self-inflicted DoS. -- Mike Batchelor Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 17:25:21 [GMT -0400] (or 22:25 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? BBTE A Adam ... BBTE Everyone who has this problem has bad memory? And I have bad memory on BBTE THREE computers? And the problem doesn't manifest itself with any BBTE other e-mail program? (Not even with that inferior thing Microsoft BBTE ships.) Tell you what, rather then just knocking me back like that. Take your main machine it happens with and try it. FYI I'm a Senior Support guy and the first thing I teach my staff under me is to attack a problem from all likely angles. ANd you say its impossible to have bad ram on three computers - no not impossible. Unlikely, but not impossible. Remove the impossible and whatever is left, even the unlikely - must be suspected. I've seen stranger things that happen. Lets look at what you've said. Attachments come in and on those machines they seem corrupted. JPG's show some file corruption within them right? Documents don't open. Therefore something isn't being read from message store correctly. Seeing as (IIRC) you're storing attachments with the message in the store its safe to assume that for some reason the decoding of the attachment from store is not going right. I said that I suspect a) Its being corrupted in memory as the attachment is being reconstructed. Because its obvious (as other people can read your attachments when forwarded) that the deconstruction process is going wrong. If they are stored in the message base coded then there is no real reconstruction going on in forwarding them - they are merely block copied and sent out. Also you mentioned ZA and mail checking - well I had to rebuild an exchange server with a 12gb database because a virus checker was silently corrupting attachments due to what is called (oh how I laugh) Known Issues So any software that sits between you and the mail store is also suspect. Mainly because the process of checking goes on (1) when writing the message to store and (2) retrieving from store. So there are several angles to try. Me - I'd isolate the easy ones first. Change the RAM - try it. Still the same? then strike ram from it. Check to remove overheating from the equation. Many people just slam in any old RAM into their PC's without a second thought for the issues. Mismatching RAM is a big troublemaker If you have three machines then strip one down to windows and TB!. Remove all extraneous software from it. You may, for example, have an esoteric bit of software that conflicts. a. -- 12 September 2002, 22:32 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X My opinion is neither copyrighted nor trademarked, and it's price competitive. If you like, I'll trade for one of yours. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB! freezes when in Start menu
Art- Check the shortcut in the Startup folder - try adding the /minimize command line argument if it's not already there. -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.60h on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 17:25:21 [GMT -0400] (or 22:25 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? BBTE A Adam ... BBTE Everyone who has this problem has bad memory? And I have bad memory on BBTE THREE computers? And the problem doesn't manifest itself with any BBTE other e-mail program? (Not even with that inferior thing Microsoft BBTE ships.) BBTE I don't think so . Perhaps everybody who has this problem does have mismatched memory - because I don't see a lot of other people suffering from it. I haven't seen it, and I send and receive a lot of mail and a LOT of attachments. But. try this. Export the messages from TB! into *another* mail client. Mozilla/OE/Calypso whatever verify they open or not Export them back repeat.. What gives? Got an IMAP server? Then copy them to that and repeat. a -- 12 September 2002, 22:56 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X Life is a sexually transmitted disease. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hello Marck, Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:44:34 AM, you wrote: MB I've seen corruption of various file types. MB Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results MB in the files fixing themselves. MDP I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other MDP real-time POP3 virus scanner? I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was my email client. -- Regards, Mark mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bat! Version 1.61 OS info: Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Mark, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 15:04:08 [GMT -0700] (or 23:04 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: MB Hello Marck, MB Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:44:34 AM, you wrote: MB I've seen corruption of various file types. MB Forwarding/redirecting the corrupt files back to myself results MB in the files fixing themselves. MDP I think you've missed the point. Are you using NAV? Some other MDP real-time POP3 virus scanner? MB I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from MB PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, MB never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was MB my email client. Obviously then you all share a common theme - and so far there's little to go on. Why not register for a free account at www.myrealbox.com - as they have imap access. Worth trying the copy back and forth from imap to test? a -- 12 September 2002, 23:05 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X You've heard about the computer programmer that died while washing his hair in the shower. The instructions said, 'Lather, rinse, repeat.' Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Mark, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 15:04:08 [GMT -0700] (or 23:04 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: MB Hello Marck, MB Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:44:34 AM, you wrote: MB I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from MB PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, MB never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was MB my email client. The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 and other people are on Winxp or whatever? You all using fat32? Large disk? a -- 12 September 2002, 23:07 |\ _,,,---,,_ http://new-wales.net | /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | '---''(_/--' `-'\_) pgp key : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | You are here: X 31.69 nHz = once a year. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:36:21 PM, Adam wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. AR Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? I guarantee to five-9's that this isn't a hardware problem. I have had this same problem since the TB! 1.53 days, and that was two motherboards/CPUs ago! I just recently purchased a new system (I always build myself, using high-quality components, especially when it comes to RAM, and I don't overclock BTW) and after installing Win2K, and doing very little except applying the recommended updates, I installed TB!... Within 24 hours I had a corrupt attachment in my Inbox. If it truly was a dodgy chip, then (a) I would expect flakiness in other programs, which I absolutely do not see; I go for weeks on end without rebooting, and I frequently use memory-intensive applications that would surely have problems as well and (b) rebooting should have some effect, since TB! would be in a different location in physical memory, especially if you ran several other programs (IE, Word, Photoshop, etc.) first. But this has no effect on the corrupted state of the attachment, which, invariably, can be forwarded to a non-TB! user who can open it just fine. All the evidence I have encountered seem to point to a problem with how TB! is processing attachments after they are received. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 2:01:12 PM, Gerard wrote: G I am no expert on this but it sure looks like a corrupted Tbb or G TBI file. I belive you can delete index file and TB! will recreate G it. Have you tried that with a corrupted file in the folder? I don't think so; I can create a new Folder within TB!, drag a message with a mangled attachment to it (thereby creating a new .TBB and .TBI file for the new folder that was just created) and have the exact same problem with the mangled attachment in the newly-created folder that only contains that one message. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Eddy, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:09:44 [GMT -0400] (or 23:09 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: E On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 4:36:21 PM, Adam wrote: E Several TB! users have verified my claims after I sent them my Test E mailbox that contains 2 messages which are corrupt when viewed/saved E by TB! but are fine when forwarded to others. AR Tried swapping out your ram? You may have a dodgy chip somewhere? E I guarantee to five-9's that this isn't a hardware problem. I have had E this same problem since the TB! 1.53 days, and that was two E motherboards/CPUs ago! Notice I said may - it was merely a base check. E Within 24 hours I had a corrupt attachment in my Inbox. E All the evidence I have encountered seem to point to a problem with how TB! E is processing attachments after they are received. Or some sort of DLL conflict. I've posted another message with some questions - can you answer them and see if there is some sort of common ground we can look at. Its odd how a lot of people don't see this, and those WHO DO see it can forward to those who don't and it works. There's a common theme somewhere - all we need to do is find it. a. -- 12 September 2002, 23:16 (`-''-/).___..--''`-._ Checked by Antivir Mail Gateway | `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) http://new-wales.net | (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Adam Rykala http://new-wales.net | (il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' pgp key - pgp.arykalanew-wales.net | You are here: X Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A a) Its being corrupted in memory as the attachment is being reconstructed. Agreed, but would it not have the same effect when the message is being reconstructed in Eudora, Outlook, Outlook Express, Pegasus, Netscape Maill, or SOME other program? I have never seen one of these programs corrupt an attachment. If memory was the problem, wouldn't I see some evidence of it in other programs? Wouldn't I see BSODs on a regular basis? I agree absolutely that it's probably happening when the attachment is being reconstructed, but if it's bad memory, would the same image fail in the same way every single time? Wouldn't that be memory dependent? Wouldn't you expect the attachment to open sometimes and to fail sometimes? That's the nature of a memory problem -- transient. But once an image fails, it always fails. If an image is good, it's always good. I'm really not trying to knock you back or to be a smart ass, but I'm not about to take apart three computers (or even one) on what looks to me like a wild goose chase. A Also you mentioned ZA and mail checking - well I had to rebuild an exchange A server with a 12gb database because a virus checker was silently corrupting A attachments due to what is called (oh how I laugh) Known Issues Both ZA and NAV were out of the picture when I received a fax attachment earlier today -- it was corrupt. Fortunately my jFax account is set to leave mail on the server, so I retrieved the attachment with Eudora -- no problem. A So there are several angles to try. A Me - I'd isolate the easy ones first. Change the RAM - try it. Still the same? A then strike ram from it. Check to remove overheating from the equation. Many A people just slam in any old RAM into their PC's without a second thought for the A issues. Mismatching RAM is a big troublemaker I can't say that the RAM is perfect, but I pay extra for quality, matched RAM when I build a machine. I see no other indication that there is a RAM problem with any of the 3 computers. One of these is a computer that has been replaced during the time I have used TB. The problem occurred with the previous machine, too. So that would be FOUR machines (two that I built with known good components and two from decent manufacturers -- Sony for the notebook and Compaq for the desktop) with bad RAM. That's just too coincidental to fit. Possible, yes, but very unlikely. A If you have three machines then strip one down to windows and TB!. Remove all A extraneous software from it. You may, for example, have an esoteric bit of A software that conflicts. NAV and ZA were on all 3 machines (different versions). Except for that, running apps and processes differ quite a bit. Removing ZA and NAV had no effect, as others have already said. Trust me -- I *really* would love to find out that it's not TB because I really like this program. I've used it for 18+ months and, even with the problem I see, am not seriously considering any other program. There simply is no better or more configurable e-mail program than TB. Thanks to EVERYONE for the ideas, thoughts, and suggestions! Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:07 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Managing senior programmers is like herding cats. -- Dave Platt Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 A and other people are on Winxp or whatever? A You all using fat32? Large disk? I'm on XP. Wouldn't use FAT32 on a dare. All affected systems are NTFS. All are Seagate drives -- ranging from 7200RPM EIDE to 15000RPM SCSI. No significant fragmentation thanks to Diskkeeper. No evidence of impending hardware failure. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:26 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette. -P. Buhr Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:23:19 [GMT -0400] (or 23:23 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A a) Its being corrupted in memory as the attachment is being reconstructed. BBTE Agreed, but would it not have the same effect when the message is BBTE being reconstructed in Eudora, Outlook, Outlook Express, Pegasus, BBTE Netscape Maill, or SOME other program? I have never seen one of these BBTE programs corrupt an attachment. If memory was the problem, wouldn't I BBTE see some evidence of it in other programs? Wouldn't I see BSODs on a BBTE regular basis? Perhaps, perhaps not. The problem might lie in a support DLL that TB! uses that is being supersedeb by a newer one in the WIn directory... If it sounds like I'm pulling solutions out of my backside, its because I'm trying to see all sides of this to spot a common thread for a clue. I've just had to rebuild one machine in work that was being used in Test Equipment that would BSOD on ONE APP only - turns out it was mismatched memory. replaced a DIMM and the machine has been sweet... I did say MAY mind! As in, have you removed it as a suspect - obviously so. BBTE I agree absolutely that it's probably happening when the attachment is BBTE being reconstructed, but if it's bad memory, would the same image fail in BBTE the same way every single time? I would mention overheating/clocking but that looks like its also out to. BBTE But once an image fails, it always fails. If an image is good, it's BBTE always good. BBTE I'm really not trying to knock you back or to be a smart ass, but BBTE I'm not about to take apart three computers (or even one) on what BBTE looks to me like a wild goose chase. Rather then take one apart - I suggested just opening one and swapping RAM round. When faced with a situation that I can't explain I tend to go right back to basics. Mainly because sometimes it gives you a clue to the real problem. BBTE Both ZA and NAV were out of the picture when I received a fax BBTE attachment earlier today -- it was corrupt. Fortunately my jFax BBTE account is set to leave mail on the server, so I retrieved the BBTE attachment with Eudora -- no problem. Can you try the export-import thingy? I haven't been able to replicate this problem with the few computers I have here which is odd. Its a conflict of sorts, but where? BBTE NAV and ZA were on all 3 machines (different versions). Except for that, BBTE running apps and processes differ quite a bit. Removing ZA and NAV had no BBTE effect, as others have already said. Any other odd software - is one particularly clean or particularly app-laden? Does one get a lot of install/de-install. DLL hell is a bitch to diagnose... a. -- | 12 September 2002, 23:25 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://new-wales.net | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP Public Key Request Antivir scanned mail | It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level I'm really quite busy. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled messages
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A 1) FAt/FAT32 or NTFS? NTFS A 2) Storing attachments in seperate drectory or in message I've tried both. If the attachment is in the message body, sometimes I can recover from the problem by forwarding the message to myself. A 3) Encoding How do I tell. A failed attachment had this header: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary=Boundary-00=_Z7P340MWKGMMYJ0CCJD0 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:37:54 + Subject: 2 page(s) fax from 614 488 9243 Status: U A 4) Virus checker / firewall? Sometimes with, sometimes without. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:29 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: The rest is silence. - William Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act V, Scene II; [Hamlet] ) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:29:01 [GMT -0400] (or 23:29 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled attachments' you wrote: BBTE It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 A and other people are on Winxp or whatever? A You all using fat32? Large disk? BBTE I'm on XP. Wouldn't use FAT32 on a dare. All affected systems are BBTE NTFS. All are Seagate drives -- ranging from 7200RPM EIDE to 15000RPM BBTE SCSI. No significant fragmentation thanks to Diskkeeper. No evidence BBTE of impending hardware failure. Same here but SCSI drives, IBM. SO SCSI is out and NTFS is out. Ok keep narrowing the focus ;-) TB! on C drive or another drive? Spaces in folder name (here its d:\TheBat) Only real DLL in the folder are the PGP ones (present) and the Spell Checker. So DLL hell is possibly out as it looks like TB! is pretty self contained (and I got out of programming 10 years ago!!) Write caching on or off? Ultra DMA on? (possibility of some conflict between TB! and something?_) Is there any software on your machine between mail and client? Firewall's, Popup blockers, etc...? There MUST be a common thread here! a. -- | 12 September 2002, 23:32 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://new-wales.net | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP Public Key Request Antivir scanned mail | Then you are cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled messages
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:33:46 [GMT -0400] (or 23:33 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled messages' you wrote: BBTEHow do I tell. A failed attachment had this header: Account Properties - Files and Directories a. -- | 12 September 2002, 23:37 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://new-wales.net | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP Public Key Request Antivir scanned mail | Okay, Okay, so you won't go out with me unless I was the last man on earth ... what if you were a purple frog and I was a green cow? Okay , still no What if I had wings, too ? Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
On Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:09:44 PM, Eddy wrote: All the evidence I have encountered seem to point to a problem with how TB! is processing attachments after they are received. how about setting up an installation which saves attachments separate from the messages, and send some of these messages there to see if the same thing happens. -- Dwight A. Corrin P O Box 47828 Wichita KS 67201-7828 316.263.9706 fax 316.263.6385 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on Windows XP version 5,1 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled messages
Sh'mae Technology, On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, at 18:33:46 [GMT -0400] (or 23:33 in Wales) regarding 'Mangled messages' you wrote: Bill Do you run your own mail server - and if so, can you read through your logs in case anything untoward there,,? Just another random thought? a I'm going to sleep on this now. Work tomorrow. Will do some research and try to see if anything pops up as likely -- | 12 September 2002, 23:43 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://new-wales.net | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP Public Key Request Antivir scanned mail | For a while I didn't have a car...I had a helicopter...no place to park it, so I just tied it to a lamp post and left it running... [slow glance upward] Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled messages
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Account Properties - Files and Directories Oh. OK, but that's for outbound files, isn't it? I've never had a problem sending a file. Mime64. (From another message) A TB! on C drive or another drive? A Spaces in folder name (here its d:\TheBat) TB on C: in C:\Program Files\The Bat! Mail in D:\BatMail\WTVN (and other directories for other accounts) MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS: On any given mail check, I'm checking 17 accounts. This could be an issue. That's common among all machines (although some check only 10 or so). A Only real DLL in the folder are the PGP ones (present) and the Spell Checker. So A DLL hell is possibly out as it looks like TB! is pretty self contained (and I A got out of programming 10 years ago!!) Spell checker only. A Write caching on or off? Varies from one machine to the next. A Ultra DMA on? (possibility of some conflict between TB! A and something?_) On this machine, yes. Office machine, probably not. Notebook-possibly. Are we having fun or what! (I'm outta here for the rest of the day. Again -- THANKS sincerely to everyone who has commented on this.) Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:41 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: The language needs a statistical mood. -- Anonymous Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled messages
It seems that Adam Rykala said ... A Do you run your own mail server - and if so, can you read through your logs in A case anything untoward there,,? I wish. No, my domain is at Communitech.net, but I see the same problem with messages that pass through ... blinn.com procomp.com rr.com questcorp.com rayjutkins.com so I tend to rule out the server as a problem. Some of these are Unix, some are Linux, and some are who knows A I'm going to sleep on this now. Work tomorrow. Will do some research and try to A see if anything pops up as likely I really am leaving now, too! G'nite! Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/12/2002 at 6:54 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Direct: 614-785-9359 Fax: 630-604-9842 http://wtvn.blinn.com http://www.wtvn.com Random thought: Tomatoes Come in Big, Little, Medium Sizes -- headline from the Charlottesville, VA, USA Daily Progress Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled attachments
Hello Adam, Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:07:55 PM, you wrote: MB I'm using NAV 2002, and NIS2002. I just recently switched to TB! from MB PMMail2000 Pro. About a month ago. In all my years using PMMail2000, MB never had a problem with corrupt attachments. Only thing I changed was MB my email client. AR The other thing that crosses my mind is filesystem - obviously you're on Win98 AR and other people are on Winxp or whatever? AR You all using fat32? Large disk? FAT32, 40GB HD - divided into approx 8GB partitions. -- Regards, Mark mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bat! Version 1.61 OS info: Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Mangled attachments
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Roelof Otten [RO] wrote:' RO No, it doesn't. I use TB, AVG and ZA (free version) and have RO never received a corrupt attachment. BTW I run W98 and have got RO ADSL. Hmmm. One of the lucky ones. I hope it continues for you. I had no problems at first and was a happy camper with ZA for some time but it didn't last. I can see one staying with an operating system that's known to be not the most secure and causes problems because they have invested time and money into it and furthermore, the alternatives may not amount to viable choices. However, the personal firewall thing perplexes me since there are so many viable, compatible choices out there. I don't see the point of running TB! and ZA if there are such known associated problems when running both together. Known problems that can be so insidious in their manifestations. Bad application interactions come and go. Some are universal in that they're experienced by all users and some aren't as is so troublesome with TB! and ZA. I was once neutral with ZA but I'm now frankly against using it ... period. OK, I can see the point of making sleeping dogs lie if there are no current problems but the answer seems clear to me with those having problems. Change the firewall. I'm amazed that the e-mail client is changed instead, when the e-mail is the application that involves more user interaction. Just my opinion though I couldn't keep it to myself any longer. :) PS// ZA can be factored out of the equation only after uninstalling it from your system. Merely deactivating it isn't enough. This is the other horrible thing about it. This should never be the case. -- Allie C Martin \ TB! v1.62/Beta5 WinXP Pro (SP1) List Moderator/ PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Help with kill filter please?
Hi Bat users, I was directed to this list by an automatic bot at bat ;] I am a long-time user of The Bat! - a single-user on a laptop running Win98. Recently because I was unhappy with Opera's upgrade, I wanted to check the userworthiness of Mozilla and so downloaded their latest. Just for fun, I picked up some mail through their system and I discovered their really nice kill filter. It's easy to get to, and allows killing by word or phrase in the body of the email message. With the way the clever spammers change the send column, searching by either subject or sender is useless most times. So the kill filter can't do anything except scan for general words in the subject line. That is very easy to circumvent by an intent spammer. I've been all over The Bat! looked at the tutorial on PC Wise and cannot figure out how to accomplish this type of filtering. Can anyone here help? Thanks, M.Meister -- mm mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mangled messages
Bats- Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:33:46 PM you wrote: A 2) Storing attachments in seperate drectory or in message BBTEI've tried both. If the attachment is in the message body, BBTEsometimes I can recover from the problem by forwarding the BBTEmessage to myself. I've found that switching from separate directory to message body works for future messages, but not for existing ones. And I've had tbb files corrupted before (but not individual messages). Used to have this all the time in Eudora, though. It might be worth trying to rename a copy (did I remember to say a copy?) of the tbb file as a uue file and try opening it with winzip or something. That would remove TB from the picture and tell you whether the database was stored correctly. If so, then that narrows it down to post-processing. -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.60h on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
