Re[2]: MIME Question
Sunday, February 2, 2003, 9:18:44 AM, Marck wrote: MDP Aha! You are talking about S/MIME! That's completely different In which case you are talking about PGP/MIME. Either way, you're not talking about MIME, which TB handles perfectly Umm, in all honesty, are you trying to split hairs or just obfuscate the intentions of the original poster? MIME is MIME. I don't think the focus should be on TB's ability to handle certain MIME types, but rather its presentation of disposition. And taste is all just a matter of taste to some degree. Just like someone have the opinion that TB!'s default editor is weak and awkward. :) ... and TB handles MIME digests very well indeed. Open any one of the attached messages and TB opens a virtual folder containing *all* of them. How is that handling very well? Maybe for you. I believe one of the points made in the beginning was that TB treated all MIME parts as attachments, even when they were not. The messages in a MIME digest aren't attachments. While TB displays the message in a unique and fairly useful way, it absolutely restricts you to its methodology. It does not _also_ display the message as an inline multi-part the way some other readers do. It does not have any idea of what a multipart/digest is or at least it does't present that to the user with special options. Like the bursting you mentioned - which if used as a filter should be done with a burst feature and not some convoluted set of exports and import filters (which do not seem to work for tbudl nor tbbeta). There should also be a context menu item for burst displayed only on digests. Again, the above is surely all a matter of opinion. So I say that TB accepts MIME messages, however its treatment of such messages does not conform to the wishes of all its users and does not follow certain conventions used by other programs. In the preview pane I'd like to see the whole digest for instance, with each message separated by a visual marker of some sort. Look at Agent to see how this is handled very cleanly - it also does the bursting. That gives people choice and is one of the things that might prevent someone from claiming TB doesn't support MIME. Until you open the digest, it is nothing but a carrier for the encapsulated messages. IMO TB behaves correctly here. Well, any message is just a carrier for your encapsulated text, isn't it? Yet your text appears in the preview pane, right? Your comment makes it sound like the digest parts are somehow encoded and not plain text. TB could just as easily show all the messages within the preview pane one after the other (along with showing them on the left which I like as well - even though manipulation of those messages is completely non-standard (try dragging one into another folder). As I have been finding around both this list and TBBETA lately, so much comes down to semantics. It's nice to educate someone on the use of the program and point out ways to get around problems. but, if the program genuinely has a weakness, let's point it out for what it is and not try to hide these facts. There's plenty of room for improvement with TB. If there wasn't then there would be no need for newer versions (in any stream, including 2.0+) As it is, I'm just going about my business using TB and reporting any bugs and oddities I find. I'm not holding my breath for interface or other fixes, but I appreciate them when they come. Everything's a compromise in the end with most software. It's a shame to have such an all-around great program marred by so many small issues. This i one program so close to being all the way there. Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Splitting TBUDL DIGESTS
I've read enough information in the archives to know TB! does not support automatic bursting of MIME digests. But that it's possible using filters as a work-around. First, I'd like to officially request that MIME digest bursting be added to the program. This is a pretty basic feature for a professional email program. Agent, as anyone who's researched this topic knows, handles this very well. So I have read and understood the details behind the filter method. Save out all attached messages that compose the digest and then import them back into TB! to your desired location. Sounds simple enough. However, this does not currently work for TBUDEL nor TBBETA. Searching the archives brings up some points about a strangely formatted MIME digest (multiple boundaries). Has anyone been able to work around this? If not, is anything going to be done to correct the digests? They also lack a reply-to address tagged to each message. Reading a single message at a time will then not allow you to reply to the list unless you use yet another work-around by creating a Reply folder filter. At this time, it seems most of TB's shortcomings are exposed when trying to use the support lists themselves. My only solution at this time is to configure the lists to never send me mail. I am not interested in receiving the messages individually - the count for TBUDL is far too high for my liking. If maintenance is being done to the digests, may I also suggest taht the list server be configured to send out only 2 digests per list per day? The whole point of a digest is to get the list in a tidy package. Receiving a ton of digests for one list each day is counter-productive. It also segments the postings because TB can't deal with bursting the contents (to allow for re-threading). Thanks. Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Trouble posting to list?
Anyone else having trouble posting to the list today? After getting around he fact that digests of these lists lack a reply-to address I'm finding that mail sent to the list is not going through due to some server authentication error with the list's address. Hrmpph. I suppose this message is somewhat of a test at the same time - to see if a new message (non-reply) goes through... Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat v2?
The new 1.63 beta introduces an experimental Windows style editor that uses soft formatting. You won't catch me using it - I like to know that what I see in the message edit window is what will be sent :-), but it may suit some newcomers I'm just trying the new version now (1.63b4). Once all the bugs get ironed out it's going to provide a nice improvement that should bring a lot of new users over to TheBat! So far I have spotted the following bugs in the new message editor: 1. resizing window causes very visible flashing of all window text and one or two header fields 2. Replying to a majority of messages (which are all in folders that contain a valid reply template) starts the message window EMPTY. ie. no template is being used. I don't know why this happens only to some messgaes but not some others. Seems to happen to all messages from Bat users on this list. 3. All replies indicate Modified in the message window status area even if I have NOT made any modifications. 4. Pressing ESCAPE to close a message for which bug#2 occurs, TB prompts for confirmation as if the message HAS been modified. 5. The status always reads Overwirte regardless of actual Insert/Overwrite setting. 6. Pasting as quotation does not properly observe the auto-wrap setting from the editor prefs. Set to 72 it was still wrapping some text at 60-something when the line was only 67 characters including the newly added quote marker. I haven't dared try anything but stream mode with the new editor yet though. I also see no way of toggling between the two editor modes while composing a ingle message. It seems to be all or nothing. No way to set editor prefs per user either (not an issue for me right now). And that's all for now. My GF is bugging me to get to bed. :) I couldn't resist finding and trying out this beta version as soon as I read you mentioning it though. I had to download it from the German TB web page as I didn't find any mentions in TBUDL or on the Ritlabs web page. Bruno Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Changing sender's address for reply
Monday, December 30, 2002, 1:31:45 AM, Thomas wrote: So, whichever address he uses to write to me, the reply will always go to his private GMX address. Your friend could also use the Reply-To header field - that's what it's for. :) Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Model/view design for text editor
Saturday, December 28, 2002, 4:03:03 AM, Victor wrote: Anyone know of a good text editor like that? Textpad. Http://www.textpad.com I have yet to find anything for Windows to match both its functionality and interface design. When I first started using Windows as my primary OS, I searched widely for something that would come close to the best editor I had previously used: CygnusEd for the Amiga. Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Expanding threads - revisited
Is there any way to have TB automatically expand *all* threads in a folder each time TB is launched? ie. Never collapse threads automatically. Or a way to have it automatically expand threads currently being read and collapse others? Searching the menus and help file threads section I also can't find any thread navigation commands (menu or keyboard). Don't know why I can't find a command to take me to the first unread message in the current thread. It also gets a little confusing and tiring having all messages in the thread marked in the unread font/colour when there is only a single new message. I can understand that when the thread is collapsed, but when expanded it would be much nicer (for me) to have only the actual new message marked this way. Anyone know if mail to TB's wish email address is finally being delivered? Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Expanding threads - revisited
Saturday, December 28, 2002, 1:12:02 PM, Gavin wrote: This has struck me as well. I know the moderators discourage me too remarks, but both paragraphs hit the nail on the head for me. Of course, after Allie wrote that reply, I saw that the navigation commands were also in the context menu when clicking on a threaded message. I could have sworn I looked in there before (i's the first place I would assume to look). Heh... Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Model/view design for text editor
It does seem like a heated political debate has begun. Right now, I'll step out on a limb and define the sides I see: 1. Those willing to accept the features TB provides while also wanting the option to do things in a way they consider more standardized and intuitive 2. Those firmly entrenched in the belief that TB is doing it the right way - the *only* way. And that anyone who disagrees is out to somehow destroy the program they prefer to use. First of all, let me take some text from the RitLabs website: a. The Bat! The Natural Email System b. Save your time - Extend your life! I think many problems, such as editor preference, stem from comments such as a and b above. Who's definition of natural has been used to qualify TB's usage? How many tests have been conducted to assure that time is being saved? Advanced or novice users? A few messages back someone pointed out that novice users would get confused at specifications detailing soft and hard breaks and they would not understand what the editor would do to their messages when sent. I propose that such a novice user would #1, not be using TB and #2, using TB would be infinitely more confused by the free caret and non-traditional formatting methodologies currently in place. I'm starting to distinctly paint myself into user type 1 now... :) Friday, December 27, 2002, 4:23:46 AM, Dierk wrote: Sorry, Agent uses soft-wraps during composition and will only change that to hard-wraps during send. Luckily the developers knew the rouble behind this and decided to soft-wrap at the pre-defined lengths - regardless of the window size. We agree that the Agent editor has many shortcomings but also has a number of strengths. I've been using Agent since the summer of 1995. I have been on countless beta runs with it and had quite a bit of input into various bug fixes and editor enhancements. Sadly, the time to increase the editor's robustness to the next level has not yet been allocated. My experience with TB started just over two years ago. I evaluated it for a brief time but found it would not be able to replace my other software at the time. I made several suggestions for improvement and I'm happy t say a number of them are now in place. My editor suggestions were well received at the time and were supposed to find their way as options into version 2. I didn't think version 2 would be this far off. Having re-evaluated TB about a month ago, I decided to make a complete switch while configuring my new network. The program should simply respect what the user entered. If I want a paragraph break, I'll press Enter. If I don't, I don't. That's not quite the right way with e-mail, the standard is to have a LB/CR (hard-wrap) at around 72 characters; PGP and Agent, BTW, use exactly that as default. Alas, you're now confusing e-mail with text composition. No one is asking for mail to be sent/delivered in a different way. Just for more options when composing. Saying there is a right and wrong way to compose is very closed-minded. Agent, as you mentioned, soft-wraps at the same point it will hard-wrap when sending. That's a very convenient option, IMO. Like many other features, it's nice to be able to configure such behaviour. TB doesn't allow for much configuration of its editor. Though it does feature some very powerful composition tools. So, you cannot just make up a paragraph by one new line, you need two. Says who? You can easily make a new paragraph in agent with a single new line. This is all in implementation. Which has become standard even in business letters Oh oh Someone bringing up standards while trying to make an argument against the very use of them. 3) How come I regularly get messages - mostly from OL/OE - which don't wrap at all, they show even lengthy posts in just one long line? Must be because your viewer isn't smart enough to wrap those lines. :) Or rather it simply lacks an option to wrap those lines at either a preselected length or at the window edge. TB wraps HTML/RICH mail without a problem that was composed with Outlook as far as I can tell. Does it have to be the same in appearance? Yes. Try making up a table. How often do I make a table in an email message? Not very often. And if one wants to make a table, one just has to enable the necessary editor features to do so. This again is not a reason for not supporting additional functionality in the editor. I can make a table fairly easily in TextPad for instance. The ability to have a free caret also should not affect the program's ability to wrap text properly (TB often leaves white space at the start of a line without a paragraph as you're typing - this is with auto-wrap on but auto-format off. You have to manually format to correct. Auto-format is too annoying, IMO.) Isn't it much more convenient if you can resize the window as you're typing, and have the text automatically conform to the new size of the window - and so can the
Re[2]: Model/view design for text editor
I would just hope that people would come away with the most important part of the debate portion of the model/view suggestion is that it could (fundamentally speaking) have a feature set to satisfy everyone. A mimic of the current editor with the added options some of us want (and would make the program more appealing to some potential customers). I'd love a way to disable the free caret. I'd love to be able to toggle my view between fixed-pitch and variable-pitch fonts (I rarely need to use the font for making columnar alignment) etc... Using an external editor has many shortcomings in addition to the ones already mentioned. An integrated mail-centric interface is the primary one that comes to mind - I like having editable mail headers at the top of my mail editors. It not the easiest thing to do with an established program, but any suggestions I may have for the program, I do not intend to replace existing functionality. Having the program be its best for the greatest number of potential customers makes some sense to me. I like what the bat offers, but I cannot recommend it to many friends because of some of its _uniqueness_ :) Bruno -- Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
