Re: Attachments in body or special directory?

2004-12-06 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
Dear Marten,

@6-Dec-2004, 20:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [MG] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

MG> Can anyone summarise the advantages and disadvantages of
MG> storing attachments in message bodies or in special folder?

In the message body, folder / entire message integrity is far easier
to maintain.

Extracting attachments to a special folder means easier access to the
files without having to load TB but less integration - messages can
sometimes become detached from their attachments.

-- 
Cheers --  //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user
TB! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2
'

pgpQqYtbMpW98.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Very slow opening attachments and opening directory to 'save to..'

2004-12-06 Thread admin
TB seems v slow at the moment in opening attachments and in opening the browse 
window for saving attachments. I have a local network so I can understand that 
causing a slight delay finding network drives etc but it can take up to three 
minutes to display the browse directory, and now it is being very slow opening 
some (Word for one) attachments.

-- 
Marten Gallagher
Annery Kiln Web Design
www.annerykiln.co.uk
Using The Bat! 3.0.1.33
with POPFile 0.22.1
on Windows XP 5.1 




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Attachments in body or special directory?

2004-12-06 Thread admin
Can anyone summarise the advantages and disadvantages of storing attachments in 
message bodies or in special folder?

-- 
Marten Gallagher
Annery Kiln Web Design
www.annerykiln.co.uk
Using The Bat! 3.0.1.33
with POPFile 0.22.1
on Windows XP 5.1 




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Thousands of .MSG files?

2004-12-06 Thread Andrew
Steven P Valliere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 
> If no one's noticed, explorer isn't very fast when there
> are 20,000+ files in a folder...  (and before you ask,
> yes, I get far, far too much SPAM).
> 

I'll let others answer the rest, but do you not have checked "Delete Attached
Messages when a Message is Deleted from the Trash folder" In Options > Files &
Directories? This way, when you delete your spam, the attachments, if any, go as
well?

Been my experience that by having the attachments stored externally that I can
find/search them better and that the bat reacts very quickly since the mailbase
is smaller. In any case, in the same location you will find the dropdown list
that parses out the attachments (Keep Attachment Files option). Also a setting
to bind attachments for sent mail.

(I messed up an earlier install when I was first starting out, as near as I can
tell, TB still knows that the e-mail is supposed to have an attachment, but all
the sizes are 0 bytes. Let others confirm this or maybe even a better solution,
just my anectodal observations). 


--
Hope this helps, Andrew





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Thousands of .MSG files?

2004-12-06 Thread Steven P Valliere
This is probably easy to fix, but I've not been able
to locate a setting for it anywhere...

Sometime before I upgraded to tb3.01 (but while I was
trying out beta versions of tb2.xx) I started getting
large numbers of .MSG files in my 'attachments' folder.

(A) Can I safely delete these without losing the bodies
of messages I want to save?

(B) If not, how do I tell The Bat! to keep the bodies
with the messages instead of on disk?

(C) If so, then how do I tell The Bat! to stop crapping
on my disk drive?

If no one's noticed, explorer isn't very fast when there
are 20,000+ files in a folder...  (and before you ask,
yes, I get far, far too much SPAM).

--
Steven P Valliere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: File Location, Permission, Spell Checker, etc.

2004-12-06 Thread Dan Grunberg
Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:22:08 -0500 (6:22 PM EST here) Chris wrote:

> Dan Grunberg @ 2004-Dec-1 10:30:19 AM "File Location, Permission,
> Spell Checker, etc." 

>>> If the DEFAULT location for The Bat!'s files became
>>> CSIDL_APPDATA\Rit Labs\The Bat!\ or some variant thereof, these
>>> problems would be solved. Axillary files, like BayseIt files and
>>> the custom dictionary would need to be moved there also.

>>> For those of us who want to have control over where our data files
>>> are stored, those options would still remain.

>> Is this procedure correct?

>>1. Spelling. Keep each email account's home directory in a user
>>controlled folder structure.

>> TheBat! +> Account +> Files & directories

>>   Home Directory {Browse]

>>   etc.

> Yes. Currently, those changes require modifying the registry.
> However, I think that the custom dictionary should be stored in the
> user's mail directory, not in The Bat!'s program directory. Each
> user has his or hew own custom dictionary. I may want
> antidifferentiation to be considered correct, while another user may
> not.

>> (If not, how do you redirect TheBat! to the TheBat"s applications
>> data?)

> The default should be that the user's mail goes into
> "CSIDL_APPDATA\Rit Labs\The Bat!\". Normally this would be
> "C:\Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\Application Data\Rit Labs\The
> Bat!", but a network administrator could change it to
> "\\server.company.com\Roaming Data\%USERNAME%\Application Data\Rit
> Labs\The Bat!".


I am my system's administrator. I've used Regedit before.

  1. What keys have to be changed? Changed from what to what?

  2. Would the registry changes work if I were using XP Home?

  3. Would there be any side effects to look out for?


Using: The Bat! v2.12.00, BayesIt! 0.5.9,
   MyMacros 1.11, gMacrosPlugin 0.80
   Windows XP v5.1 - Build 2600 - Service Pack 2

-- 

Daniel A. Grunberg   Kensington, Maryland, USA
homepage: www.nyx.net/~dgrunber/




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Duplicate Message Search

2004-12-06 Thread Andrew
After testing on a large volume of mail...

That work around isn't perfect, and does still misses some of the dupes that now
have everything the same.

Oh, well.

--
Andrew




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Duplicate Message Search

2004-12-06 Thread Andrew
MFPA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 
> According to TB! v3 help file:-
> 
> Duplicates are detected by the following combination of message
> attributes: Message ID, Sender and date of creation.
> 

Further investigation would lead to the following change:

"Duplicates are detected by the following combination of message
attributes: Message ID, Sender and date of creation as *listed* in the
bat!."

For a sample message, the headers are identical, the message ID, date,
and sender..

however there is a two hour discrepancy in TB's interface.

Message Headers (both read):
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:33:37 -0400

in TB Interface:
displays as 25 Aug 2004, 2:33 PM in the local message
displays as 25 Aug 2004, 12:33 PM in the imported message

2 hours went somewhere, and I don't see where in the message something
like that could be "set," EDT on both Yahoo and Here on the PC, but
there is nowhere on the PC where such a thing would be set
differently. Just sent myself a test message to test the time stamp.
Seems fine.

Once second, just had an idea...

However, after exporting the those two and reimporting them into
another folder  (as a joke) the creation dates match. Remove
Duplicates worked.

Go figure. And no, haven't reset my PC clock recently and these were
all donwloaded over the weekend.

Maybe something to look into, and a way to work around it. Not a bad
day's work.

Thanks everybody!






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Trusted Root CA address book - most entries have no certificates

2004-12-06 Thread MFPA

Hi

  I have 104 entries in my "Trusted Root CA" address book but only
  14 of them have certificates. Is this normal?

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPA   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Gmail POP settings

2004-12-06 Thread MFPA


Hi

On Monday 6 December 2004 at 11:23:23 AM, MFPA wrote:

> That probably means you have a certificate for Thawte Server CA in
> your address book. I have lots of entries in mine but for each
> one, the certificate tab is empty. :-(

> I know there used to be certificates there but restoring the
> address books from a backup does not bring them back.

Downloaded the required certificate from
https://www.verisign.com/support/thawte-roots.zip and all now
works fine.

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Gmail POP settings

2004-12-06 Thread MFPA


Hi

On Sunday 5 December 2004 at 12:36:55 PM, Nav wrote:

> I still can't get TheBat! to work with G-Mail. The authentication
> suceeds, but after that connection hangs forever.

[...]

> Could there be some bug in TheBat!

See https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=3979

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Gmail POP settings

2004-12-06 Thread MFPA


Hi

On Sunday 5 December 2004 at 3:17:11 PM, Tony Boom wrote:

M>> Each time I send or receive, I get a dialog box about the
M>> server not supplying a root certificate and I have to press
M>> "OK" to continue.

> Sorry my old Son but I can't help you with that. I've never had
> that happen so I wouldn't know how to fix it.

This is what the account log says.

 06/12/2004, 10:22:07: FETCH - Certificate S/N: 3E9C89, algorithm: RSA (2048 
bits), issued from 16 Sep 2004 to 16 Sep 2005, for 1 host(s): pop.gmail.com.
 06/12/2004, 10:22:07: FETCH - Owner: US, California, Mountain View, Google 
Inc, pop.gmail.com.
 06/12/2004, 10:22:07: FETCH - Issuer: ZA, Western Cape, Cape Town, Thawte 
Consulting cc, Certification Services Division, Thawte Server CA, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
!06/12/2004, 10:22:07: FETCH - TLS handshake failure. Invalid server 
certificate (The issuer of this certificate chain was not found).

(Then it sends or receives the messages, if I click "OK".)

> I just followed the instructions on site and left them as they
> was.

That probably means you have a certificate for Thawte Server CA in
your address book. I have lots of entries in mine but for each
one, the certificate tab is empty. :-(

I know there used to be certificates there but restoring the
address books from a backup does not bring them back.

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re: Duplicate Message Search

2004-12-06 Thread MFPA


Hi

On Monday 6 December 2004 at 5:47:18 AM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:

 AMG> Curious as to how TB! does its duplicate message
 AMG> search.

>>> IIRC on Message-ID

A>> then it isn't working fully, or there are some other criteria in play.

[...]

A>> (also explains why the sent folder never found any dupes, no
A>> Message ID).

Messages in my sent folders all have message id. This message has
message id mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and I am
still creating it.

> AFAIK dupes are identified both message-ID and Date header. Yes, that
> is the reason why dupes in the Sent folder are not detected.

If I copy a message from "Sent Mail" to another folder and then
move the copy to "Sent Mail", selecting "Remove Duplicates" leads
to the detection and removal of one copy.

A>> Using TB! 3.0.1.33

> OK, even though I use a v3, my wisdom usaully really applies to v1 and
> v2, so take my posting with a bit of grain. It happened two or three
> times on this list that what I said what not true for v3 any more, but
> I don't recall any change with regards to dupes.

According to TB! v3 help file:-

Duplicates are detected by the following combination of message
attributes: Message ID, Sender and date of creation.

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html