Re: One a day e-list
I'm quite happy with the current frequency of the digests. I am not. Once a day would be fine if I simply wanted to lurk, but responding to anything after the messages have been accumulating for 24 hours Then you should get all messages real-time. would just be unmanageable. What I'm finding unmanageable is the amount of daily traffic coming through. It's so bad that I'm afraid I'll have to drop the subscription. This is the only way I can control the traffic flow on my account because Bat has no digest format. The 'digest' it has now is nothing of the kind. It's bad enough this way with crossed messages. I would suggest just reading the web archives if anyone finds the digest frequency too hard to deal with. I would suggest doing it like every other mailing list on the planet and give people a choice in how they wish to receive it. Unsubscribing now, Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
One a day e-list
Why does the Bat elist send out so many digests every day. I'd really prefer just one per day. That is how all digests normally work. Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Free anti-trojan/spyware/adware/virus
In the free (for personal use) anti-trojan category, Backwork: http://www.framework.nl/backwork/eng/index.html M. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Free anti-trojan/spyware/adware/virus
Granville, It's an easy program to use and the interface is clean. File/Check for Problems scans your PC, and produces a list of problems. You can check which ones you want fixed. Then, lower right, Fix Selected Problems. That's it. Spybot is a slightly different program than anti-virus or anti-trojan though similarities exist. Spybots act a lot like trojans, but are generally not as malicious. It's good to have all three programs on your computer. As your test shows, they all find different things. If you (or anyone else) needs program-specific help on Spybot, I suggest registering and then contacting the author or his mailing list. Let's support authors of fine programs like this. http://security.kolla.de/index.php?lang=enpage=news Regards. Mark -- I have also downloaded this same software but even after reading the tech. info am finding it difficult to get it to work. I'm not critising the programme, only I've been able to scan my computer for trojans and this programme has found 4 listed. I previously scanned my machine with AVG and Tauscan and found none. The only problem is now haveing found these trojans is how to delete then using Spybot. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: AVG's 'Move to Virus Vault' Parenting
Mike, As far as AVG goes, let's just say I worked for a gov't dept ... The only ones to come through with a clean bill of health (i.e. for the large majority of the tests they had a 100% record) were Symantec and Sophos. Are they free for personal use, or offer a Bat plugin? No program is 100%. You cite Symantec, but: http://www.gfi.com/mailsecurity/wpmultiplevirusengines.htm While Norton [Symantec] AntiVirus achieves a good rate at detecting both ITW and zoo viruses, it fails to detect viruses compressed with packages such as UPX, Shrink, and ASPack. In the tests, it achieves an average detection rate of 75% of backdoors and Trojan files. http://www.computercops.biz/ Concerns Mount over Symantec In Part I of this investigative report series, NewsFactor goes beyond the headlines to find out what industry insiders really think of Symantec, and why so many are concerned about its future. ... Specifically, analysts question whether Symantec can sustain growth in a consumer antivirus market that has already matured. Here's a cheap anti-trojan with a big database - NetArmor. http://www.spytechsecurity.com/net-hack-protection.html Kerio firewall is free for personal use and can block trojans from using the Internet behind your back. http://www.kerio.com Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Free anti-trojan/spyware/adware/virus
Clive, http://spybot.eon.net.au/ What is your basis for saying that this piece of software is very good? The over 4,000 database entries and almost daily updates. The free price, lovely interface, online updates, and extra features (file shredding, track erasing). Plus, recommendations from SpywareInfo.com. Lavasoft ad-aware has questionable integrity and has not been updated. There was an article recommending heavily against Lavasoft and in favor of Spybot SD at SpywareInfo.com. http://www.spywareinfo.com/newsletter/archives/december-2002/12252002.php Hidden ad programs are far more prevalent than viruses -- because there's actual money at stake -- so people are smart to use both types of anti-infection programs. They cover different territory. Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Free anti-trojan/spyware/adware/virus
A very good *free* anti-trojan/spyware/adware/virus tool is http://spybot.eon.net.au/ Has many languages, frequent database updates, online update system, rollback support to un-do system changes, many industry awards. (Be careful with the registry features.) A similar free program, less capable, but still very good http://www.wilderssecurity.com/spywareblaster.html This one is different. It's a small utility that connects to an online database of known spyware. So you can check files before downloading and installing. It does not scan your system, just provides access to a list of known spyware/adware. http://www.spychecker.com General interest site http://www.spywareinfo.com/ If you decide to use these programs I recommend a small donation to those who ask. Most AV software will not pick up most Trojans. Nor will they often be picked up by firewalls when they are communicating outwardly from your computer. That's why there are Trojan scanners as separate software. I recommend Tauscan from Agnitum (www.agnitum.com). And no, I don't work for them or have any contact other than as a satisfied user of their firewall and soon to be of Tauscan (I'm using the trial) ;-) Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: AVG's 'Move to Virus Vault' Parenting
Oliver, This failure to detect the trojan horse should be reported to Grisoft. I am cc'ing them this message. You should probably file a tech support incident. There was a 9 Jan update for AVG, don't know if that would have caught it. Regards. Mark -- On 1/9/2003 at 5:19 AM Oliver Antosch wrote: Hello Maurice, This is maybe a bit offtopic but AVG's problem is it doesn't find Trojan Horses. I have been infected by the backdoor.sdbot.gen. Probably a hacker gained access to my webhost account because of this. If you have commportreg32.exe in your list of running processes you are infected by this trojan. Since yesterday I use Kaspersky, The Bat! has a built-in plugin for this virus scanner. The only strange thing is that it doesn't tell me if I received an infected email message, it silently deletes it. For people who use NOD32, this virus scanner also failed finding this trojan. Hope in the new version this gets better. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: XML Address Book Format
Means: TB! and PhoneDeck _have to_ use the very same DTD or Schema In the computer industry this phenomena is recognized and given a name, standards, which are generally recognized as Good Things. Some industry groups even set up consortia to promote them. Yes, the world needs an Address Book XML schema. ;-) Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: XML Address Book Format
Spike, That strikes me as pretty preposterous. XML files are ASCII files and it would be awfully hard for a virus to hide in one. Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: XML Address Book Format
Well, suppose I have two XML files, one using name-first and the other using first-name. An XSL script can convert between them. Or I can convert the data manually using any text editor. Fifteen years from now, when the original programs are long dead, I will still have my address data in a format I can read and use. More to the point, I should slap the developers for not coordinating on a standard. That is what committees like W3C are for. The vcard XML format sounds like a winner to me. We have email standards, and all email clients support them: POP, SMTP, etc. Why not some W3C-approved XML address format? XML is more than a buzzword, it's an important new standard. The reading of XML files via SAX or DOM is facilitated by open-source parsers and is not complex at all. XML is a machine-ready format. I can't see how proprietary formats are any less work. Mark (All the same, as the author of PhoneDeck, I feel called on the carpet here. It's off-topic for this list, though, so I'll just say that while XML is certainly the buzzword of the day, it doesn't make things as easy as the hype would have us believe. What good would be XML-enabled PhoneDeck *and* TheBat, if PhoneDeck had a name-first tag and TheBat! had first-name? No good at all. Second, reading XML, whether through DOM or SAX, is a very complex process. PhoneDeck's addressbook format, while technically proprietary, is perfectly readable to human eye, and is very easy to parse, much easier than XML will ever be. So is CSV export. Can't say that about TheBat's addressbook, though ;) Best regards, .marek jedlinski Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: PGP signature removal?
Allie Martin, We wonder why other clients never incorporate some of the no brainer features of TB!. I wonder the same about this feature of PMMail. Exactly right. Good P G P support is one reason I bought Bat. Among other things, I use digital signatures to verify consulting contracts with clients worldwide. My only wish for Bat would be better integration with Gnu P G. Such as a) customizable locations for the Gnu EXE that don't depend upon PATH environment var b) key manager c) integrated Gnu P G distribution/setup with Bat (not an internal implementation of Gnu P G though) -- for setup convenience of inexperienced dummy users who are totally confused by the Gnu P G web sites and public key systems generally -- so that they never have to even look at a Gnu P G website to use it Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
XML Address Book Format
A common problem with address books is that people want to enter data in one program only, and then use it in many other programs, on other computers, and on their Palm pilots. Bat is pretty good about address import/export, even supporting VCARD. I just downloaded PhoneDeck and was thinking about using it as my standard phone entry program. It's a great program, but right now does not support VCARD and uses a proprietary ASCII data format. Neither Bat nor PhoneDeck support what I really want, which is an XML address book. I am sure such formats have already been defined. What I'd like to suggest here is that Bat find the relevant schemas and use them in its code. There are plenty of free open-source XML parsers to choose from. In the C++ world I think Xerces is popular. XML is really beautiful in that it ensures longevity and migration capability for arbitrary data. It eliminates the need for custom file formats that are readable by only one program. This type of flexibility is ideal for address books that should be usable by multiple programs. Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Why, thanks! (And it's been 1.5.9 since yesterday ;) For those of us who already have 1.5.8 installed, do we have to uninstall and reinstall to get 1.5.9, or can we just install over top of 1.5.8? Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
The main point everyone should take away is the idea of model/view supporting various behaviors in the editor. WIthout model/view distinctions, there can only be one (fixed) behavior. It may also be worth pointing out to Bat developers that this e-list should be regarded as a highly biased sample population. For each voice in favor of current features, there may be at least one other person (not on the e-list -- not in the sample population) who evaluated Bat! but decided against it because of that very feature. I was almost one of them and in fact still don't use Bat's klunky editor. It reminds me too much of a TTY terminal Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Moderator, it is good to promote civility, but you are disciplining the wrong person. This quote does in fact exemplify camp #2: You don't like the editor *and* are not comfortable with the reasons others give why they like it *and* don't want the advice of how you can achieve what you want, go use another mailer. That's why we need different [sic!] e-mail clients (this applies to every artefact). So we must retain every artefact [sic], accept the reasons and advice without questionor use another mailer! This bullying seems like camp #2 in spades. Some unix wizards love emacs because they have memorized all the magic keystrokes required to edit without touching a mouse. Most of us are not like that. We want our editors to do low-level thinking for us. There are good reasons why most editors behave differently from Bat. I had to use Utilities Format Block Left at least ten times while editing this short note. I find that to be a nuisance. Others share this viewpoint and it is perfectly reasonable. We do not intend to give up on Bat, but to offer our experiences in an effort to make Bat even better. I've used Bat for many years and still find this editor very annoying. So my habit is to use UltraEdit alongside Bat. I would rather use just one program. The suggestion of model/view should not be shouted down. Model/view would give all of us what we want. People who like hard linefeeds and Alt-L could keep on using them. Meanwhile the rest of us would have a more intelligent and pleasant editor taking care of those irritating details for us. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
I had made queries in the past about the editor and was told that it would be very difficult to make the editor work in a more standard fashion and yet maintain its current behaviour as an option. Model/view would have made it easier to support the current behavior in the first place. Model/view is such standard practice, and good design, that it is taught to computer science students everywhere. Any user interface software that lacks a model/view distinction is difficult to change once it is written. The current features being a really free caret, being able to reflow quoted material, being able to work so easily with indented text. It's similar to the frequently expressed desire to be able to use variable width fonts with the editor. I see none of that incompatible with model/view in any way, and indeed model/view would support all of them superbly. Text editing is too fundamental an area for an e-mail client to be giving newbies a culture shock. IMO, it should ideally be the aim that what the prospective user is accustomed to is initially presented Agreed. I don't know if this is the case with the editor even though I so like its current feature set. I only disagree with those who wish for changes/enhancement only with regards to their claim that the editor is broken or backward. Brokenness is in the eye of the beholder. My personal feeling is that it is broken. Having to press Alt-L every ten seconds tells me there is something the computer should be doing for me automatically. And I detest that floating cursor which eveyone else views as a feature. I get the impression of a bug every time I accidentally invoke it. I end up with re-drawn I-beams all over the screen, or scrolled off into no-man's land when I try to select text. So one man's feature is another's bug. It's simply different in approach Washboards and Maytag washing machines are simply different approaches too, but one is a lot easier. I, and others have said this much to the developers who have agreed and are receptive to suggestions. Great, thank you. Personally I would just drop in something like this: http://textcontrol.com/tx/features/overview_activex/ http://www.arssoft.com/products/index.htm?awp or Bat could incorporate some open-source code like http://www.scintilla.org/ http://synedit.sourceforge.net/ http://syn.sourceforge.net/ http://www.anyedit.org/ http://personalpages.tds.net/~edream/front.html http://sourceforge.net/projects/keynote/ http://led-editor.sourceforge.net/ There are over a thousand projects in the text editor category at SourceForge.net. Many of these also support things far beyond Bat's present capability -- like HTML editing, Linux, and collapsible tree views. (I hope for a Linux version of Bat someday, though it is unlikely.) Some of the projects have GPL licensing but others have commercial-friendly licensing. Bat could use this third-party code, modify it, wrap it with ActiveX, whatever they need to do. Just a suggestion, not a demand here. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Model/view design for text editor
The text editor needs help. Its major problem is its use of hard carriage returns (CRLF) during composition. Those should be avoided until necessary, at send time. Many text editors have a clean model/view design, instead of Bat's confused view is the model design. With real text editors, there are no hard CRLF's in the text -- unless and until you put them there. The view is a word-wrapped display of the unwrapped model data. The word wrapping is just a convenient view on the model. I find myself constantly going back and forth between Bat and text editors. The Bat has no distinction between model and view. So word wraps on screen MUST BE hard line breaks in the model data. This confusion makes editing tricky and tedious in Bat. Bat tries to compensate. It offers commands that create, on the fly, temporary independent model data which Bat then reformats for the current view. These commands are the beginnings of a good model/view distinction. One such command is Utilities Format Block Left. This command is somewhat helpful. However it's still much easier to work with real, independent model data that has NO hard CRLF's. When I edit in Bat, I am constantly tweaking line breaks and using this command, Utilities Format Block Left. I would rather not have to fiddle so much. A proper distinction between model and view would give me that freedom. This is how I work in my text editor. Line breaks are just not a big issue. For one example of how this works, try UltraEdit, http://www.UltraEdit.com Look at the Format menu, Convert CR/LF's to wrap and its inverse, Convert wrap to CR/LF. These specific commands translate between model and view only when I want it. UltraEdit doesn't force me to use model data that is identical to the current view. Many other text editors have similar features. UltraEdit is just one example. The main point is, they distinguish between model and view. P.S. There are many e-mail aware text editor widgets on the market that Bat might use without a great deal of work. Writing a good text editor is non-trivial. Any issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal lists several dozen in the back. They can be put into commercial programs like Bat royalty-free. Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
UltraEdit gives me all the capabilities that have been touted as unique to Bat in response to my post. If I want hard CRLFs, I can put them anywhere. If I want to put the cursor anywhere, I can do that. If I want the view to reflect the current model data perfectly, I just turn off word wrap! If I am ready to send a message that I've typed into UltraEdit, I just Convert wrap to CRLF at the current window boundary and bingo, paste into Bat and send. UltraEdit even lets me work in column mode where I can manipulate columns of text as a block, such as inserting on each line. Model/view is a very well-known and well-established software design principle. It adds a great deal of flexibility to any editor. But for those who actually like Bat editing, UltraEdit can imitate that too. Such is the power of model/view design! Best regards, Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
New binary data encoding scheme please add to Bat
http://www.yenc32.com/ The yEnc format itself is a nice alternative to UUencode and Base64. yEncoded messages are up to 40% smaller than UUencoded/Base64 equivalents, and include built-in error checking and multipart file support. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: New binary data encoding scheme please add to Bat
Mike, Lighten up. I just want a mail client that supports all prevalent encodings. And there are such things as mail-to-news gateways. It doesn't matter to me what are the technical merits. What matters is that people use this format, so I want my mail client to support it. M. -- On 12/23/2002 at 6:00 PM Mike Alexander wrote: Hello, And you forgot: 1. Makes hardly any difference to file size as files get larger compared with any other format, 2. Ignores the far more useful error-checking system available through Pars which can replace whole missing files, 3. Is the choice of trolls on newsgroups to engender as much argument as possible and is ignored by anyone who's been posting for any length of time, 4. And, if I may be so bold, is an extremely fishy subject for TBUDL which is about an email client that doesn't handle news. (Yes, Mods, I *have* been paying attention g). Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Format block as quoted
Feature suggestion, Utilities Format Block Quoted Utilities Format Block Unquoted Utilities Format Block All unquoted The last one removes all quotation devices no matter how deeply nested. The first two simply prepend or whatever to each line. You'll also notice a bug with Bat! if you are reading this message in it. The three lines above are shown in bold because Bat! thinks I want them to indicated quoted text. Bat! should not assume that when the mark is not at the front of the line. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Replies kept in same folder as received
Another problem: When I decipher a Gnu PG message that I have already sent to someone, and which is stored in some subfolder, Bat puts the deciphered clear text in the Inbox. The clear text output from Gnu PG belongs in the same folder as the original message. I should not need a filter for that! Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Filters for both in and out boxes
Maybe others have mentioned this idea: let the same filter apply to both Inbox and Outbox so that I don't have to keep defining the same filter twice, once for recipient and once for sender. Ideally, filters should not be associated with Inbox, Outbox, Sent Mail, or any other default folder. Instead Bat should just have an extra tab pane on each filter definition that lets me tell the program which folder it applies to. The filter drop-down field selector should also offer more types to support multiple-folder filters. Such as, sender or recipient, any address field, and so on. I realize that one can technically apply any filter to any folder manually. That is just more manual labor. And it doesn't even work say when I use Inbox filters on the Sent Mail because Inbox filters are defined by the Sender field, while Sent Mail always has me as the sender. M. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Replies kept in same folder as received
TBUDL, 1. This question may be obvious, but I've used Bat! for a long time, and can't remember (or find out) how to do it. After incoming mail is filtered it is moved. Let's say from Inbox to MyTopicFolder. Now I reply to a message in MyTopicFolder. The reply should be stored in MyTopicFolder, not in Sent Mail. How do I do that (for the entire account, not just one folder)? I hope to avoid writing a sorting filter for each folder in the whole account just to move from the Sent Mail back to MyTopicFolder. There should be some global account setting for this need. 2. A related but different question. If I compose and send a new message (not a reply to anything), can I instruct Bat to deposit the sent mail into the currently selected folder? Regards. M. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
