Re: Fwd: Access violation message
Hello Achdut18, My first idea would be to scan the disk for bad sectors. On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:24:55 -0500 GMT (13-Jul-19, 05:54 +0700 GMT), Achdut18 wrote: > Upon rebooting, the problem did not disappear. However, the access > violation number is different. The sent mail folder shows that > there are messages there, but the screen is blank when I click on that folder. > Any ideas on how to fix this? > This is a forwarded message > From: Achdut18 > To: tbudl@thebat.dutaint.com > Date: Friday, July 12, 2019, 5:00:54 PM > Subject: Access violation message > ===8<==Original message text=== > Last night I attempted to access the "send" folder of one of my > primary e-mail account.It only holds 3,145 messages. The in-box > for this account has 22,481 messages, and another folder within > this account has 5,700 messages. However, I received an error messages as > follows: > Access violation at address 007D551A in module > 'thebat64.exe'. Read of address 08001E09EE38 > [...] > ===8<==Original message text=== -- Cheers, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! 8.8.9 under Windows 10.0 Build 18362 Current version is 8.0.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Fwd: Access violation message
Upon rebooting, the problem did not disappear. However, the access violation number is different. The sent mail folder shows that there are messages there, but the screen is blank when I click on that folder. Any ideas on how to fix this? This is a forwarded message From: Achdut18 To: tbudl@thebat.dutaint.com Date: Friday, July 12, 2019, 5:00:54 PM Subject: Access violation message ===8<==Original message text=== Last night I attempted to access the "send" folder of one of my primary e-mail account.It only holds 3,145 messages. The in-box for this account has 22,481 messages, and another folder within this account has 5,700 messages. However, I received an error messages as follows: Access violation at address 007D551A in module 'thebat64.exe'. Read of address 08001E09EE38 [...] ===8<==Original message text=== -- Avi Avram Sacks, using The Bat! Pro ver. 7.1.18 on Win 7 Pro Current version is 8.0.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access violation message
Last night I attempted to access the "send" folder of one of my primary e-mail account.It only holds 3,145 messages. The in-box for this account has 22,481 messages, and another folder within this account has 5,700 messages. However, I received an error messages as follows: Access violation at address 007D551A in module 'thebat64.exe'. Read of address 08001E09EE38 This problem only manifested with this folder and no other. The in-box of this account was fine, as were the sent-mail folders of the other accounts that I checked. I have over a dozen different e-mail accounts. I did not check all of them. I tried to access sent mail several times to no avail. I then opened up the maintenance center and ran the maintenance tool for all accounts About 11 GB of space was freed up and I was able to access the sent mail folder for this account. Today, I attempted to again access the sent mail folder for this same account, and received nearly the exact same error message. This time, the "Read address" is slightly different. So, I ran the maintenance tool, again. The same error message appears.I will close all files and reboot to see if this fixes anything. But, does anyone know why this is happening and how it can be fixed? -- Avi Avram Sacks, using The Bat! Pro ver. 7.1.18 on Win 7 Pro Current version is 8.0.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation with v8.3
I generally leave TheBat! running on my desktop 24x7. Sometime over the past weekend (while I was away and no one was using my computer) it displayed a message box showing that it caught an access violation. If interested, you can see the message at https://www.svalli.com/files/batbug3.png FWIW, my system is a Dell Precision 490 running Win 7 Pro x64 with all updates available and I am using the 64 bit version of TheBat! This was NOT a fatal bug since TheBat! continued running. However, I assume that the message means something to someone, so I am sharing it in the hope that it may prove useful. It certainly doesn't help me, as a user of TheBat! -- Steven Vallière | tb 8.3 | mailto:the...@e-visions.com -- "If you didn't write it down, then it didn't happen." -Larry Zana Current version is 8.0.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation error message
I only get them on the odd occasion. That's my experience -- I get a message such as that every once in a while, but I don't worry too much about it. With Windows, It's Not All Ones and Zeros anyway... :-) -- Fred Using TheBat V.4.2.44.2 for POP3 mail with Windows 7 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation error message
On Tue, 2015-04-07, Fred wrote: I only get them on the odd occasion. That's my experience -- I get a message such as that every once in a while, but I don't worry too much about it. With Windows, It's Not All Ones and Zeros anyway... :-) I also get this, very occasionally, and the once or twice that I investigated the stack traceback that was produced, it seemed that The Bat! had called a Windows kernel procedure that was the actual source of the offending instruction. I figured this absolved The Bat! and looked no further. I was pleased, however, upon restarting The Bat! that no data seemed to have been lost. -- Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com Using The Bat! 5.0.20.1 on Windows 7 6.1 build 7601-Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation error message
Hi On Monday 6 April 2015 at 5:01:37 PM, in mid:1775847081.20150406120...@grunwalds.com, Rick wrote: I get a similar AV about 70% of the time I only get them on the odd occasion. -- Best regards MFPA mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net ETHERNET(n): device used to catch the Ether bunny Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation error message
Hi, everyone, Shutting down The Bat, I received an error message that read as follows: Access violation at address 01105125 in module 'TheBat.exe'. Read of address 0008. The Bat did shut down. Why did I get this error message? I get a similar AV about 70% of the time -- Rick Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest. - Alexandre Dumas Version 6.8.0.2 (BETA) (32-bit) on Windows 6.2 Build 9200 Current version is 6.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation error message
Hi, everyone, Shutting down The Bat, I received an error message that read as follows: Access violation at address 01105125 in module 'TheBat.exe'. Read of address 0008. The Bat did shut down. Why did I get this error message? -- Avi Avram Sacks Skokie, IL Using The Bat ver. 6.0.0.28 on Win 7 Pro Current version is 6.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 00000004.
Hello! I have a repeating error popping up in TB 4.0.24: Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 0004. Where to should I direct my inquiry? -- ...listen2reason... - Musaic.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 00000004.
Hallo St, On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:19:29 +0200GMT (12-7-2008, 12:19 +0200, where I live), you wrote: SMN Where to should I direct my inquiry? Help - Feedback - bugreport -- Groetjes, Roelof Function call to load Windows: here_piggy_piggy_piggy_piggy http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 4.0.26 Windows Vista 6.0 Build 6001 Service Pack 1 3 pop3 accounts OTFE enabled Quad Core 2.4GHz 4 GB RAM pgpdvxpzu6roK.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 00000004.
Hello Roelof, On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:32:46 +0200 GMT (12/07/2008, 17:32 +0700 GMT), Roelof Otten wrote: SMN Where to should I direct my inquiry? RO Help - Feedback - bugreport Did you this? It opens a website which requires login. -- Cheers, Thomas. On a Korean kitchen knife... Warning: Keep out of children. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.0.26 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [TBUDL] Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 00000004.
Help - Feedback - bugreport Thanks - I have created two reports. One is the AV-error, the other is the problem with lack of Time Out for outgoing messages in CC. -- ...listen2reason... - Musaic.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 00000004.
am Samstag, 12. Juli 2008 um 12:19 schrieb ...listen2reason... - Musaic.Net: I have a repeating error popping up in TB 4.0.24: Access Violation at address 007E979F in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address 0004. Where to should I direct my inquiry? To the Beta List, because you use Beta Versions? At Ritlabs there are also Beta Versions which are published as Stable. In my Signature you can see the actual Beta Version availiable, you do not need to open a ticket, if the Error is gone in the actual Beta. Or you roll back to a previous Version -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jens Franik mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Picture of me? X-Rogue http://www.de2all.de/Kr_bat.jpg The Bat! 4.0.26 AntiSpamSniper 2.8.1.1 Windows 2000 5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
access violation in dll ntdll.dll
Hello Bat-Folk! Any idea why I might be seeing this on my new PC. It does not happen much, but only when TB (v2.12) is running, and once this error happens TB! is the only program that exhibits any issues. The windows that shows the list of messages is empty. The folder list is OK and the preview windows is OK too. All other prgms seem unaffected. I tried starting TB! in several compatibility modes. Didn't help. Maybe it's a DEP error? Thx all, RG -- Beautiful Butterfly Displays http://FramedButterflyArt.com Random tagline: Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window. -- Steve Wozniak Current version is 3.99.24 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation when message is draggeddropped from list pane into editor window
Hello Miguel! Well, it dragged and dropped into a new message. And it was only new messages I was working with on Jan 3 and 4. Won't drag into a Reply editor window. One more piece of info, then. So far, no AV. Let's see if this will go without an AV. Of course, if it does, TBUDL will strip the attachment, which is all to the good. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat 3.95.6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation...'thebat.exe'.
Hello TBUDL, When trying to do a (Special) (Remind Later) and selecting (Search a message in other folders in case it is moved) and choosing what folders to search, upon clicking (Select All) (OK) I'm receiving an (Access violation at address OOBBAFC8 in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address E888AOOF. Can someone please shed some light on what might me happening here and possible solutions to fix this. -- Best regards, Tim The Bat! v3.85.03 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation...'thebat.exe'.
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : TH Hello TBUDL, TH When trying to do a (Special) (Remind Later) and selecting (Search a TH message in other folders in case it is moved) and choosing what TH folders to search, upon clicking (Select All) (OK) I'm receiving an TH (Access violation at address OOBBAFC8 in module 'thebat.exe'. Read TH of address E888AOOF. TH Can someone please shed some light on what might me happening here TH and possible solutions to fix this. It's a coding bug. The developers should take care of it. -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing an Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation
Hi I seem to keep getting this Access Violation when starting TB! Access Violation at address 00404C92 in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address It doesn't seem to impair the operation of TB, clicking 'OK' allows the program to continue to run. It's just annoying. Any ideas? -- Best regards Barry barryh'at'kentra'dot'co'dot'uk Using TheBat! version 3.80.06 and AntspamSniper 1.6.1 Current version is 3.80.06 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Barry everyone else, on 20-Jul-2006 at 12:37 you (Barry) wrote: Any ideas? You could try to disable all plugins and see if it still happens. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) NP: Star Above Parvati (Bijli Mahadev mix) by Doof (from the 1996 album Let's Turn On) Current version is 3.80.06 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation in Customizer (was: Re: New Customizer behavior)
Hello Simon, Select the container (highlight). Highlight the item you require in the container, then hold SHFT and click the right arrow button in the interface. I tried that (see the item test and its child entry delete in the screenshot) and got an access violation when pressing the ok button: http://www.aspekt1.net/ms/temp/tbAVCustomizer.gif Subsequently the TB toolbar was messed up until I restarted TB. Can anyone confirm this? -- Martin TB! 3.80.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Anthony, On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:27:02 +0200 GMT (23/10/2004, 13:27 +0700 GMT), Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: You do empty the Recycle Bin occasionally, right? Pal, with statements that ridiculous AGA I used to do technical support, and that's a standard question, along AGA the lines of have you plugged the machine in. I agree with you, and your question was not out of line, IMHO. -- Cheers, Thomas. Gluehlampen brennen heller, wenn man sie vor dem Einschrauben aus der Verpackung nimmt. Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.1.33 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski On 24.October.2004, 1:50 AM (Now: 24.October.2004, 8:54 PM), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It didn't work for the shuttle. AGA It did work for the shuttle; but someone decided to skip a few steps. lol -- The Final Cut [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thebat: 3.0.2.1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Alexander S. Kunz writes: Pal, with statements that ridiculous I don't dare continuing this OT conversation, sorry. I mean... no, I don't mean... you haven't been there, so I'll just stop here... :-) I used to do technical support, and that's a standard question, along the lines of have you plugged the machine in. It's surprising how often the answer to questions like these turns out to be no. That's why pilots have checklists. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else 23-Okt-2004 08:27, you wrote: That's why pilots have checklists The average techsupp person has checklists to annoy callers who know whats going on... :) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) using v3.0.2.1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 without smilies :-P Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 23 Oct 2004, @ @ at 19:35:34 +0200, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote to Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else, therefore including Me as well: Hello Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else 23-Okt-2004 08:27, you wrote: That's why pilots have checklists The average techsupp person has checklists to annoy callers who know whats going on... :) Pilots also have idiot boxes all over the globe. They are called airports. - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast :flagmica: [Earth LOG: 52 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium and for TB sometimes Libranet (Linux) 2.8.1, via Cross Over Office -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBep8B9q62QPd3XuIRAr2jAJ48uF0GV/A9OYEtsh0P9UqnSAMcOwCfRk6L ue2uQAn9XhhNW9BGDAUz+xc= =W01Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Alexander S. Kunz writes: The average techsupp person has checklists to annoy callers who know whats going on... :) The vast majority of callers to tech support don't know what they are doing, and there's no way to tell which callers _do_ know what they are doing. Not going through the checklist is an excellent way to waste huge amounts of time chasing after details when the solution to the problem is staring one right in the face. It works for NASA; it will work for everyone else. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 23 Oct 2004, @ @ at 23:03:43 +0200, when Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: It works for NASA; it will work for everyone else. It didn't work for the shuttle. - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast :flagmica: [Earth LOG: 53 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium and for TB sometimes Libranet (Linux) 2.8.1, via Cross Over Office -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBetvX9q62QPd3XuIRAtd3AKCHruhKhAWuqQnH/E2t3bwtYOxElACfZd71 U92zI3FLYLApVZ+gf9V0bLA= =eCRd -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
On Saturday, October 23, 2004 at 4:03:43 PM [GMT -0500], Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: The vast majority of callers to tech support don't know what they are doing, and there's no way to tell which callers _do_ know what they are doing. Well, in a way I'd disagree with that. It's not easy for a novice to give detailed and technical information with explanations that imply knowledge that exceeds that of the novice. :) In such a situation, one can easily raise the tech support level. -- -= Allie =- . I'm an influential person, gravitationally speaking. __ IMAP [ Client: The Bat! v3.0.1.33 | Server: MDaemon Pro ] OS: Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2) Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Mica Mijatovic writes: It didn't work for the shuttle. It did work for the shuttle; but someone decided to skip a few steps. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Allie Martin writes: Well, in a way I'd disagree with that. It's not easy for a novice to give detailed and technical information with explanations that imply knowledge that exceeds that of the novice. :) In such a situation, one can easily raise the tech support level. Typically no one gives such explanations. Unsophisticated users cannot give them; sophisticated users are too lazy to give them (because they prefer to guess what's wrong), and become indignant when anyone suggests that their educated guesses may not be correct. That's exactly how the unsophisticated users sound, so it's hard to tell them apart. They all claim to be experts on the phone. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
-Original Message- From: Alexander S. Kunz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 21, 2004 8:39 AM To: Michael L. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules Hello Michael L. Wilson everyone else 21-Okt-2004 00:03, you wrote: I know this and say this because I worked for 16 years in Redmond Washington, for Microsoft Since we remember (from the days of *that* signature of yours *g*) that you are a teacher, critic and ecclesiastic (sp?) philosopher, may I ask what position you did occupy there? [no stab at discrediting you or something ntended, I'd just find it interesting to know what kinda people are working for Microsoft, you know...] I was software QA. My job was to setup new systems and see what happened to the registry and temp files area after installing third party items. I was in several meetings where memos from Hard Drive comapnies were used by programmers to purposly not delete temp and old items. In this way, MWindows would fill up a hard drive quickly and cause the user to buy a new one. Windows XP is the best and most stable, as hard drive size increases have virtually stopped. If 95 or 98 or me is used, the DOS kernal is the most unstable. DOs is not multi-tasking, multi-user or multi-threading, and windoes tries to add all those features while DOs is fighting it. NT is for servers. 200 is bloatware. XP is the first, sort-of departure from old paterns. It too, however, self-corrupts -- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Michael Wilson writes: I was software QA. My job was to setup new systems and see what happened to the registry and temp files area after installing third party items. I was in several meetings where memos from Hard Drive comapnies were used by programmers to purposly not delete temp and old items. In this way, MWindows would fill up a hard drive quickly and cause the user to buy a new one. There were no such meetings. Windows XP is the best and most stable, as hard drive size increases have virtually stopped. If the meetings you mention above had actually taken place, it wouldn't matter how stable XP is. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Michael Wilson everyone else 21-Okt-2004 18:38, you wrote: Windows XP is the best and most stable, as hard drive size increases have virtually stopped. Uhm. I beg to differ, my experience is vastly different. HDD usage has *never* increased more during daily usage than with Win XP. My system partition (without additional programs - I have the program files on a different partition) for XP is 4GB; after installation XP took 2GB, and now its at 3.2GB - within about half a year ever since I switched to XP. Hello, where's dem gigs goin' to? I haven't yet peeked into the partition to find out where all that space is lost... BUT: my W2k partition was 2GB and the occupied size (1.5GB) never changed very much. If 95 or 98 or me is used, the DOS kernal is the most unstable. Yes, because it is *MS* DOS... veg DOs is not multi-tasking, multi-user or multi-threading, and windoes tries to add all those features while DOs is fighting it. Plus MS never learned how to implement multitasking and multithreading propperly. Can you say AmigaOS? :-) NT is for servers. 200 is bloatware. XP is the first, sort-of departure from old paterns. It too, however, self-corrupts Given the ratio of performance and stability, the NT series had its peak with W2k - and XP is already a step backwards, there's no denying it. My W2k installation at home (with moderate installation/deinstallation of programs and drivers and stuff over time) never let me down in about three years, the XP installation at work (with an almost *fixed* set of programs and the occasional security updates) is already close to shipwrecked in about one and half years. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) using v3.0.2.1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 without smilies :-P Everything is theoretically possible, until it's done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen. -- Robert A. Heinlein Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Alexander S. Kunz writes: Uhm. I beg to differ, my experience is vastly different. HDD usage has *never* increased more during daily usage than with Win XP. My system partition (without additional programs - I have the program files on a different partition) for XP is 4GB; after installation XP took 2GB, and now its at 3.2GB - within about half a year ever since I switched to XP. Hello, where's dem gigs goin' to? I haven't yet peeked into the partition to find out where all that space is lost... It's not the OS. I've been running XP for years and there has been no increase in disk usage. You do empty the Recycle Bin occasionally, right? Plus MS never learned how to implement multitasking and multithreading propperly. Can you say AmigaOS? :-) It is done correctly in the NT-based versions of Windows. Other versions of Windows left much to be desired, but they were no worse than other desktop operating systems of their generation. Given the ratio of performance and stability, the NT series had its peak with W2k - and XP is already a step backwards, there's no denying it. MS adds bells and whistles to please it's largely unsophisticated customer base. It destabilizes the OS but it pleases the average-Joe consumer. ... the XP installation at work (with an almost *fixed* set of programs and the occasional security updates) is already close to shipwrecked in about one and half years. I've had no trouble with XP in years (it has been several years since I first installed it, I'm not sure how many). -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else 22-Okt-2004 19:43, you wrote: You do empty the Recycle Bin occasionally, right? Pal, with statements that ridiculous I don't dare continuing this OT conversation, sorry. I mean... no, I don't mean... you haven't been there, so I'll just stop here... :-) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) using v3.0.2.1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 without smilies :-P I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning. -- William Thomas Kelvin Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Michael L. Wilson everyone else 21-Okt-2004 00:03, you wrote: I know this and say this because I worked for 16 years in Redmond Washington, for Microsoft Since we remember (from the days of *that* signature of yours *g*) that you are a teacher, critic and ecclesiastic (sp?) philosopher, may I ask what position you did occupy there? [no stab at discrediting you or something intended, I'd just find it interesting to know what kinda people are working for Microsoft, you know...] -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) using v3.0.2.1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 without smilies :-P Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 7:03:18 PM, you wrote: AGA When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I AGA slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, AGA like the message attached. Access violations then occur each time I try AGA to edit the filters, until I stop and restart TB. Nothing is corrupted AGA and everything works fine after I restart the client. MLW Microsoft Windows, all version, are, by nature, self corrupting. Michael, I sure respect the fact that you worked on Microsoft and have a large experience and so, but come on. If everybody answered like that, we even wouldn't have to discuss it on the list. Yeah, Windows can be the reason sometimes - as sometimes the program is the reason. MLW So, before you jump on the instability of The Bat!, backup, reformat MLW and reinstall. You will be amazed at the speed of your new machine MLW and how stable it is. Every six months...I am not kidding. I'm sorry, but I'll say what I used to tell people who worked with me: this is like healing a headache with an axe. You'll heal it, no doubt. But what was the reason? And if the bugs keep on coming? No need for those 6 hours every 6 months. I run my Win2000 installation for 3 and a half years right now. But I can understand what you mean: no users act always carefully or use the same software. There's software which is completely bug-free, some others not very much... reformatting can be a good thing, sure, but isn't always necessary, unless you know you are totally careless about browsing habits, not using anti-virus and so. We're never safe, but we know how much we put ourselves in risk. And allow me to say: every advanced Windows user will cry in desperation when you say every Windows engineer do that. Maybe they just do that because they're always needing to test or develop something that requires that. ;-) Anyway, it was a good suggestion: as a last and desperate try. -- Best regards, Charlesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Thu, 21 Oct 2004, @ @ at 17:39:19 +0200, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote: Hello Michael L. Wilson everyone else 21-Okt-2004 00:03, you wrote: I know this and say this because I worked for 16 years in Redmond Washington, for Microsoft Since we remember (from the days of *that* signature of yours *g*) that you are a teacher, critic and ecclesiastic (sp?) philosopher, may I ask what position you did occupy there? [no stab at discrediting you or something intended, I'd just find it interesting to know what kinda people are working for Microsoft, you know...] Pphhoo...! (: I couldn't hold my breath anymore. :grin: Well...? skipping - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast o [Earth LOG: 50 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBd+039q62QPd3XuIRAh+hAKCFRGMWJ5hvg33nhKcNxeznpvGMiACfeIGL 99S5itXf04yjb1M35OBhAEY= =AeJu -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access violation when moving folders for rules
When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, like the message attached. Access violations then occur each time I try to edit the filters, until I stop and restart TB. Nothing is corrupted and everything works fine after I restart the client. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 pgpIIzTanxAZs.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski On 20.October.2004, 3:14 PM (Now: 20.October.2004, 3:50 PM), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGA When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I AGA slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, AGA like the message attached. Access violations then occur each time I try AGA to edit the filters, until I stop and restart TB. Nothing is corrupted AGA and everything works fine after I restart the client. I had this bug with the same version that you have right now I suggest you to upgrade to a more recent version of TB! -- The Final Cut [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thebat: 3.0.2.1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had this bug with the same version that you have right now I suggest you to upgrade to a more recent version of TB! Uh, I only upgraded to this version six days ago. Do I have to upgrade this product once a day, or what? I've also noticed that this problem may be hanging to client in some way; I noticed it hanging on POP3 access, but after I killed the process it worked again. Not sure what's happening there. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 pgpVZ4vI2mCbr.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED] everyone else 20-Okt-2004 21:51, you wrote: AGA When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I AGA slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, AGA like the message attached. Access violations then occur each time I try AGA to edit the filters, until I stop and restart TB. Nothing is corrupted AGA and everything works fine after I restart the client. I had this bug with the same version that you have right now I suggest you to upgrade to a more recent version of TB! Ahem... Anthony is using 3.0.1.33 which *is* the latest stable release version, the only more recent version is 3.0.2.1 (which is a beta), and the stability of that release is, according to the posts here, even more questionable... (btw. I just saw that I, after thinking wow, lucky I don't have any problems forgot to actually install 3.0.2.1 ... so its wait and see for me now) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) using v3.0.2.1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 without smilies :-P Deliplayer2 is playing: Catharsis by Deviant Electronics from the 1997 album 'Brainwashing Is Child's Play' Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Alexander S. Kunz On 20.October.2004, 4:19 PM (Now: 20.October.2004, 4:21 PM), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ASK Ahem... Anthony is using 3.0.1.33 which *is* the latest stable release ASK version, the only more recent version is 3.0.2.1 (which is a beta), and the ASK stability of that release is, according to the posts here, even more ASK questionable... ASK (btw. I just saw that I, after thinking wow, lucky I don't have any ASK problems forgot to actually install 3.0.2.1 ... so its wait and see for ASK me now) Well I am just saying that because I had the same problem so whatever the name or the number of the version, it doesnt matter at all And when I upgraded to 3.0.2.1, the bug disappeared chears -- The Final Cut [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thebat: 3.0.2.1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hello Anthony, old message... AGA When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I AGA slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, AGA like the message attached. Access violations then occur each time I try AGA to edit the filters, until I stop and restart TB. Nothing is corrupted AGA and everything works fine after I restart the client. My reply... I would like to speak a little about operating system stability and the Bat!. The Bat is written in a very high level language that does not touch deep operating system problems. Since the Bat! only works on Windows machines, people really need to look to their OS before complaining. Microsoft Windows, all version, are, by nature, self corrupting. They store data incorrectly, never clean themselves up and work off a registry that is not self correcting. I know this and say this because I worked for 16 years in Redmond Washington, for Microsoft. Engineers who work on windows all follow this simple rule: Every six months, backup your important data, not the programs, and reformat the hard drive, and reinstall windows. Then reinstall the programs and copy back the data. I have done this ever since windows 95, and have never had any problems with programs giving Access Violations. The Bat! has always worked well for me. It has been tough to learn, and I wish they would document, but the program, now at version 3.02.1 works flawlessly. So, before you jump on the instability of The Bat!, backup, reformat and reinstall. You will be amazed at the speed of your new machine and how stable it is. Every six months...I am not kidding. Personal note: for me, it takes about 6 hours every six months. I keep my music and pictures on multiple removable drives so that they are always backed up. I format it, and reinstall, which takes about an hour, then I reinstall the programs I need, not everything I have. Every six months, and I have two very stable windows machines. -- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Michael Wilson [MLW], wrote: AGA When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I AGA slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, AGA like the message attached. Access violations then occur each time I try AGA to edit the filters, until I stop and restart TB. Nothing is corrupted AGA and everything works fine after I restart the client. MLW My reply... ...snip (I couldn't bear to repeat it) What! ??? You're having us on right? ,- [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_violation ] | An access violation occurs when a process attempts to access a portion | of memory assigned to another application, or an unused memory area, | without having permission to do so. It is typically the result of a | computer bug, for example a wrong pointer. In the popular C | programming language, the most frequent cause for access violations is | the use of a pointer that has been set to the NULL value, that is, | zero. This addressing is always reserved by the operating system, and | it is handled as a sure symptom of a serious programming error. `- -- .\\artin | ICQ 15893823 People are always blaming circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get ahead in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them , make them. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW ___ IMAP Client: The Bat! Version 3.0.1.33 | Horde IMP WebMail IMAPS Server: Dovecot | OS: Windows XP Professional (Service Pack 2) Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Hallo Anthony, On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:14:48 +0200GMT (20-10-2004, 21:14 +0200, where I live), you wrote: AGA When I create a new rule and try to move it with Alt and the mouse, if I AGA slip it downwards instead of upwards, I usually get an access violation, AGA like the message attached. What happens when you try to move the filter with the up and down arrows in the toolbar? -- Groetjes, Roelof Unbelief in one thing springs = blind belief in another. The Bat! 3.0.2.1 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgp07meVGtZIj.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
On Wed 20-Oct-04 2:51pm -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had this bug with the same version that you have right now I suggest you to upgrade to a more recent version of TB! He has the latest version of TB! I certainly wouldn't recommend that buggy beta to anyone not on the beta list - I've tested it, written a bug report and, like many others, backed off to the release version. -- Best regards, Bill The Bat! 3.0.1.33 Pro - BayesIt! 0.7.3 - XP Pro SP2 - POP3 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Roelof Otten writes: What happens when you try to move the filter with the up and down arrows in the toolbar? I haven't tried it. Next time I'll try that and see what happens. I don't create new rules very often. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 pgpkq9UqbKiHU.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation when moving folders for rules
Michael L. Wilson writes: I would like to speak a little about operating system stability and the Bat!. The Bat is written in a very high level language that does not touch deep operating system problems. Since the Bat! only works on Windows machines, people really need to look to their OS before complaining. It's not the operating system. The Bat! has always worked well for me. It has been tough to learn, and I wish they would document, but the program, now at version 3.02.1 works flawlessly. The program works well enough for me, also, which is why I use it. It does have bugs, though--too many to make it successful as a mass-market or enterprise product. The lack of documentation and support also effectively excludes it from enterprise implementations (few corporations would be willing to roll a program like this out to 40,000 desktops--it would be a support nightmare). So, before you jump on the instability of The Bat!, backup, reformat and reinstall. You will be amazed at the speed of your new machine and how stable it is. Every six months...I am not kidding. You may not be kidding, but the suggestion is nevertheless unreasonable and unwarranted. The OS is not the source of the access violations. I have _never_ done backups, reformats, and reinstallations to fix problems--even for OS problems, it's almost never necessary, especially with today's operating systems. Every six months, and I have two very stable windows machines. I've had stable Windows machines for a decade, and they've never been reinstalled or reformatted. I back them up regularly, of course, as I would any system, but I've never experienced any problem that required restoring from backup, either. -- Anthony __ Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 pgpVdfY5sSCRG.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access violation ntdll.dll
Correction: The Bat v3 crashin g out on primary monitor as well (in dualk monitor system) with the following: Access violation ntdll.dll Anyone any ideas why that might be? and what ntdll.dll is? -- Marten Gallagher Annery Kiln Web Design www.annerykiln.co.uk Using The Bat! 3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
From Access Violation to program crash
Hello tbudl, This has happened several times now, using what reports to be v.3.0: When working in Sorting Office, I use ALT + Left Click to drag a (usually newly created?) folder in the left pane to a new position. The sorting office entries then speed by uncontrollably until an access violation at address 00402601 notice pops up. I try to recover from this but I can't recall what action I must take. Whatever it is, I get a message saying Invalid pointer operation. I press OK and get another AV at a different address than the one mentioned above. More OK's and the two access violations cycle in a loop. Finally, I must forcibly shut down The Bat! using CTL + ALT + DEL. (Before shutting down the program, I notice that all the left pane entries in the Sorting Office have disappeared. These are restored once TB! is closed and reloaded.) This has been reproducible until I began this message; now I can't reproduce it. But it will probably happen again so maybe I can fill in the blanks. Notice I said in my first line that my copy of The Bat! *reports* to be 3.0. This is because I've repeatedly copied 3.0.0.11 over my version 3.0. At first, TB! reports v.3.0.0.11 in About but it reverts to 3.0 when I close and restart The Bat!. -- Best regards, Quin Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: From Access Violation to program crash
Hello Quin, Notice I said in my first line that my copy of The Bat! *reports* to be 3.0. This is because I've repeatedly copied 3.0.0.11 over my version 3.0. At first, TB! reports v.3.0.0.11 in About but it reverts to 3.0 when I close and restart The Bat!. Are you aware that v.3.0.0.11 is actually a beta version? If so, I think you should report this problem in TBBeta. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.0.0.11 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation when I try to PGP sign or encrypt + nothing happens when I try to decrypt/verify
Hi Trying to PGP sign or encrypt has started giving me Access Violation at address 00404044 in module 'thebat.exe'. Read of address F28B12E7. This was happening very occasionally but is now all the time. After starting TB I can decrypt/verify messages. If I try to sign or encrypt one it goes through all the motions of selecting signing key, asking for passphrase (if not cached), selecting keys to encrypt to etc. Then nothing happens. The edit message window stays open and the message is not sent. From that point onwards, pressing the button to decrypt a message or verify a signature does nothing either. Trying to send the message again (or another) gives the access violation.This is only if using the built-in support with pgp (8.0.3). I can still use PGP's current window functionality and I can still send non-pgp messages. Trying to access the openpgp preferences dialog gives a different access violation message:Access Violation at address 02904ED2 in module 'PGPSDK.dll'. Read of address 02A8800C. Any ideas what has happened and how to resolve? -- Best regards, MFPA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation when I try to PGP sign or encrypt + nothing happens when I try to decrypt/verify
Hi Tuesday, August 31, 2004, 10:34:40 PM, Mike email (The Bat!) wrote: MeTB Hi MeTB Trying to PGP sign or encrypt has started giving me MeTB Access Violation at address 00404044 in module 'thebat.exe'. MeTB Read of address F28B12E7. MeTB This was happening very occasionally but is now all the MeTB time. MeTB After starting TB I can decrypt/verify messages. If I try to MeTB sign or encrypt one it goes through all the motions of selecting MeTB signing key, asking for passphrase (if not cached), selecting MeTB keys to encrypt to etc. Then nothing happens. The edit message MeTB window stays open and the message is not sent. MeTB From that point onwards, pressing the button to decrypt a MeTB message or verify a signature does nothing either. MeTB Trying to send the message again (or another) gives the access MeTB violation.This is only if using the built-in support with pgp MeTB (8.0.3). I can still use PGP's current window functionality and MeTB I can still send non-pgp messages. MeTB Trying to access the openpgp preferences dialog gives a MeTB different access violation message:Access Violation at address MeTB 02904ED2 in module 'PGPSDK.dll'. Read of address 02A8800C. MeTB Any ideas what has happened and how to resolve? Forgot to add that once I have the access violation message, when I close down TB, part way through the shutdown I get the dialog box about encountering a problem and needing to shut down, often with an invitation to send details to Microsoft. -- Best regards, MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation Error at Startup
Sometimes, when starting up TB, I an error message displays indicating that an access violation occurred. A couple of times, instead of the access violation error, I get a Privileged Instruction message. I seem to be able to close these error messages and continue using TB! However, I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this and what the solution is? I am running WinXP Home SP1a. -- Thanks, Rick The next greatest place to heaven on earth? A ball game at Yankee Stadium. :flag-usa: Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access violation at address 10023CD6 in module 'bayesit.tbp'. Write of address 00000008
Since a crash of TB this morning after a long time waiting of a mail (probably the responsible of my problems), I have this error message when I want to mark a Mail as Junk : Access violation at address 10023CD6 in module 'bayesit.tbp'. Write of address 0008 I have tried to uninstall bayesit, and reinstall, same thing for TB, but I have now always the same message ! What can I do to re enable bayesit ? Thanks -- WilWilWil [EMAIL PROTECTED] TB 2.11.02 Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation
Hello TB User Discussion List, I sent myself a URL to print at a remote location. Clicking on the URL with Outlook worked fine. Clicking with TB! produced this message: Access violation at address 39636A78. Read of address 39636A78. After that message, the hour glass was permanently on in TB! until I closed TB!. Here's one of the offending URLs: http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=rev2ct=NAmo=maun=mgo=11initsrch=01sbx=32initsrch=01a=101%20Bowie%20St1c=San%20Antonio1pl=210%2d223%2d10001pn=San%20Antonio%20Marriott%20Rivercntr1g=Tn1zyxa7mzg%3d2a=3600%20Presidential%20Blvd2tabval=search1l=SqJ4m4F4Fok%3d2c=Austincl=EN2g=NNSn1EzZZJY%3d1s=TX2pl=512%2d530%2d22422l=CKdSu7ZCltg%3dct=NA1v=ADDRESS2sbx=01ct=NA2pn=Austin%2dBergstrom%20Intl%20Airport%20%28AUS%291y=US1tabval=search1z=782052s=TX2v=ADDRESSdid=10870941312y=US2z=78719 -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Bill, BM Hello TB User Discussion List, BM I sent myself a URL to print at a remote location. Clicking on the BM URL with Outlook worked fine. Clicking with TB! produced this BM message: BM Access violation at address 39636A78. Read of address 39636A78. BM After that message, the hour glass was permanently on in TB! until I BM closed TB!. BM Here's one of the offending URLs: BM BM http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=rev2ct=NAmo=maun=mgo=11initsrch=01sbx=32initsrch=01a=101%20Bowie%20St1c=San%20Antonio1pl=210%2d223%2d10001pn=San%20Antonio%20Marriott%20Rivercntr1g=Tn1zyxa7mzg%3d2a=3600%20Presidential%20Blvd2tabval=search1l=SqJ4m4F4Fok%3d2c=Austincl=EN2g=NNSn1EzZZJY%3d1s=TX2pl=512%2d530%2d22422l=CKdSu7ZCltg%3dct=NA1v=ADDRESS2sbx=01ct=NA2pn=Austin%2dBergstrom%20Intl%20Airport%20%28AUS%291y=US1tabval=search1z=782052s=TX2v=ADDRESSdid=10870941312y=US2z=78719 The MapQuest url opens fine here... Could it be that the browser the remote location chokes on the URL? -- Best regards, Tony I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Bill, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:42:25 -0500 GMT (13/06/2004, 13:42 +0700 GMT), Bill McCarthy wrote: BM Access violation at address 39636A78. Read of address 39636A78. I didn't get an AV, only an error dialog saying that ieexplore.exe couldn't be found. BM After that message, the hour glass was permanently on in TB! until I BM closed TB!. Not here. I acknoledged the error dialog, and TB resumed as usual. BM Here's one of the offending URLs: BM BM http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=rev2ct=NAmo=maun=mgo=11initsrch=01sbx=32initsrch=01a=101%20Bowie%20St1c=San%20Antonio1pl=210%2d223%2d10001pn=San%20Antonio%20Marriott%20Rivercntr1g=Tn1zyxa7mzg%3d2a=3600%20Presidential%20Blvd2tabval=search1l=SqJ4m4F4Fok%3d2c=Austincl=EN2g=NNSn1EzZZJY%3d1s=TX2pl=512%2d530%2d22422l=CKdSu7ZCltg%3dct=NA1v=ADDRESS2sbx=01ct=NA2pn=Austin%2dBergstrom%20Intl%20Airport%20%28AUS%291y=US1tabval=search1z=782052s=TX2v=ADDRESSdid=10870941312y=US2z=78719 I use mapquest a lot, so I just manually went from Bowie St in San Antonio to Presidential Blvd in Austin on the website. I cp'ed the resulting URL into a message in TB, which I sent to myself. I confirm the same error occurs. I believe there is something about mapquest that they don't want people to just cp result URLs. What do you think? Anyway, it shouldn't make TB crash on your side. I am using Windows 98. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Q: How many programmers dose it take to change a lightbulb? A: None...that's a hardware issue. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.11 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13-Jun-04 1:56am -0500, Tony wrote: The MapQuest url opens fine here... Could it be that the browser the remote location chokes on the URL? Thanks for checking, Tony. Both locations are using I.E. 6. The odd thing is that the failure is occurring on my laptop machine - the one from which I copied the URL from the Address line of an open I.E. page. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13-Jun-04 2:00am -0500, Thomas Fernandez wrote: I use mapquest a lot, so I just manually went from Bowie St in San Antonio to Presidential Blvd in Austin on the website. I cp'ed the resulting URL into a message in TB, which I sent to myself. I confirm the same error occurs. I believe there is something about mapquest that they don't want people to just cp result URLs. What do you think? Anyway, it shouldn't make TB crash on your side. I am using Windows 98. Actually, upon trying again, I was able to get rid of the hour glass by clicking on another folder. It didn't cause TB! to crash. I sent 3 such addresses in an email to my office. At the office, I opened the email and click on all 3 without a problem in Outlook. Clicking on any of those 3 with TB! causes an AV. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Bill, BM On Sun 13-Jun-04 1:56am -0500, Tony wrote: The MapQuest url opens fine here... Could it be that the browser the remote location chokes on the URL? BM Thanks for checking, Tony. Both locations are using I.E. 6. The odd BM thing is that the failure is occurring on my laptop machine - the one BM from which I copied the URL from the Address line of an open I.E. BM page. So you browsed the site on your laptop. Saved the url. And then get a crash when you open the same url on the same laptop? I hope I got that right :P Maybe a cookie problem. But I think not. Does it matter how you configure TB! for viewing e-mail? I mean the HTML/text only settings. I assume TB! uses MSIE' engine to render the pages; so maybe that conficts..? -- Best regards, Tony Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hi Tony, On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 12:54:48 AM PST, you wrote: I assume TB! uses MSIE' engine to render the pages; so maybe that conficts..? Eek! Please don't assume such a horrible thing! :-) One of TB!'s many strengths is that it uses its own HTML rendering engine. This is why it's not vulnerable to web bugs and other little nasties that might be embedded in HTML. -- Melissa PGP public keys: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Body=Please%20send%20keys TB! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 pgp3nfKa9rbY3.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Melissa, MR Hi Tony, MR On Sunday, June 13, 2004, at 12:54:48 AM PST, you wrote: I assume TB! uses MSIE' engine to render the pages; so maybe that conficts..? MR Eek! Please don't assume such a horrible thing! :-) One of TB!'s many MR strengths is that it uses its own HTML rendering engine. This is why MR it's not vulnerable to web bugs and other little nasties that might MR be embedded in HTML. Damn! Exposed as a newbie again... :) It makes me wonder why TB! doesn't fully render HTML then. I mean the HTML with little red crosses where pictures should be. I remember something written about this somewhere. (not sure where) It was partly security related. But if TB! renders it's pages with it's own engine I see no danger fetching the pics online. Many non-spam newsletters come in HTML format nowadays -- Best regards, Tony If flying is so safe, why do they call the airport the terminal? Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hallo Bill, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:42:25 -0500GMT (13-6-2004, 8:42 +0200, where I live), you wrote: BM I sent myself a URL to print at a remote location. Clicking on the BM URL with Outlook worked fine. Clicking with TB! produced this BM message: BM Access violation at address 39636A78. Read of address 39636A78. No problem whatsoever on this side. Using TB 2.11 under Win XP with the latest fixes. -- Groetjes, Roelof Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hallo Tony, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:02:28 +0200GMT (13-6-2004, 11:02 +0200, where I live), you wrote: T Damn! Exposed as a newbie again... :) Don't worry, that'll pass over the years. T It makes me wonder why TB! doesn't fully render HTML then. T I mean the HTML with little red crosses where pictures should be. Generally that's because the pictures aren't sent with the message. TB only shows attached pictures. T I remember something written about this somewhere. (not sure where) T It was partly security related. But if TB! renders it's pages with T it's own engine I see no danger fetching the pics online. It's rather unpleasant when you're using a dial-up connection to have your mail client dialing out while the only thing you want to do is reading locally stored messages. It's a security risk. When you're using a browser you set your permissions and restrictions accordingly to what you want. But when you're using a mail client, you set restrictions a bit differently because of the difference between used protocols. Now when your mail client starts behaving like a browser On-line pictures can be used to check whether you're reading your mail (display the linked picture on screen) or not. That's a privacy issue. Apart from that, even though TB doesn't use IE for HTML rendering, it doesn't mean that its HTML rendering engine is bug free. It's those bugs that are additional safety risks. Restricting TB to embedded HTML without opening any links to the evil bad world outside of your computer is the best safety precaution. The final point, TB enables you to open the message in IE (or whatever browser you're using), so you can see on-line pictures. But because you didn't see them in TB, you're aware of them being on-line and thus you know that there might be some safety issues. T Many non-spam newsletters come in HTML format nowadays Though they come in HTML that doesn't mean they have to point to on-line pictures. On-line pictures are a terrible waste of bandwidth. Suppose that every message is read (viewed) twice. That's not unreasonable for an average. Embedded pictures have to be downloaded once and on-line pictures have to be downloaded twice (causing traffic for both the sender and the recipient). Therefore it's rather shortsighted for a sender to use on-line pictures. Considering that most of those senders have qualified IT employees, you might expect them to use embedded pictures, unless they're having other intentions and then TB's behaviour is no more than prudent. -- Groetjes, Roelof Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Roelof, . T It makes me wonder why TB! doesn't fully render HTML then. T I mean the HTML with little red crosses where pictures should be. RO Generally that's because the pictures aren't sent with the message. TB RO only shows attached pictures. T I remember something written about this somewhere. (not sure where) T It was partly security related. But if TB! renders it's pages with T it's own engine I see no danger fetching the pics online. RO It's rather unpleasant when you're using a dial-up connection to have RO your mail client dialing out while the only thing you want to do is RO reading locally stored messages. Many people are on always-on connections nowadays so I think it should at least be an option. TB! could even cache the pictures even before the user opens the message RO . Now when your mail RO client starts behaving like a browser RO On-line pictures can be used to check whether you're reading your mail RO (display the linked picture on screen) or not. That's a privacy issue. Now you are mainly talking about spam I think? I tackle spam by other means. And I have my reason to believe that they don't bother checking who clicks. RO Apart from that, even though TB doesn't use IE for HTML rendering, it RO doesn't mean that its HTML rendering engine is bug free. It's those RO bugs that are additional safety risks. If you mean java kinda stuff yes I agree. But I think it's far less the case for the more 'classic' HTML And I'm looking for the basic HTML rendering. RO Restricting TB to embedded HTML RO without opening any links to the evil bad world outside of your RO computer is the best safety precaution. Safety/userfriendlyness is always a tradeoff. Optional is the keyword I guess. Blocking java(script) goes a long way in security RO The final point, TB enables you to open the message in IE (or whatever RO browser you're using), so you can see on-line pictures. But because RO you didn't see them in TB, you're aware of them being on-line and thus RO you know that there might be some safety issues. Understood. Unfortunately none of them open in my browser. The browser opens but the URL field stays empty; so nothing loads. Saving the HTML to file 1st does work. But is not very elegant. T Many non-spam newsletters come in HTML format nowadays RO Though they come in HTML that doesn't mean they have to point to RO on-line pictures. On-line pictures are a terrible waste of bandwidth. RO Suppose that every message is read (viewed) twice. That's not RO unreasonable for an average. Embedded pictures have to be downloaded RO once and on-line pictures have to be downloaded twice (causing traffic RO for both the sender and the recipient). But very often the pictures stay in the browser cache between views. RO Therefore it's rather shortsighted for a sender to use on-line RO pictures. Considering that most of those senders have qualified IT RO employees, you might expect them to use embedded pictures, unless RO they're having other intentions and then TB's behaviour is no more RO than prudent. Qualified IT employees Breek me de bek niet open :) Nowadays that very often means press an install button. Check if it works in MS Outlook/MSIE. Yes? Great. Afterall the only browser is MSIE and noone uses anything else then Outlook. It all boils down to standards/netiquette. Unfortunately they get broken very often. Then teh user has to decide; stick to standards and missout on large part of internet or follow the flow -- Best regards, Tony Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Tony, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:10:24 +0200 GMT (13/06/2004, 17:10 +0700 GMT), Tony wrote: T Many people are on always-on connections nowadays What makes you say that? I know *nobody* who is always on at home over here, and only *some companies* who can afford to. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. BALDERDASH: Rapidly receding hairline Message reply created with The Bat! 2.11 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Thomas, TF Hello Tony, TF On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:10:24 +0200 GMT (13/06/2004, 17:10 +0700 GMT), TF Tony wrote: T Many people are on always-on connections nowadays TF What makes you say that? I know *nobody* who is always on at home over TF here, and only *some companies* who can afford to. Maybe we are talking about different things? Almost all people I know are on ADSL/SDSL/Cable. Much cheaper then dail-up. ADSL is a booming market here. -- Best regards, Tony Too bad all the people who know how to run this country are busy running taxicabs or cutting hair. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Tony, [T] wrote: Maybe we are talking about different things? Almost all people I know are on ADSL/SDSL/Cable. Much cheaper then dail-up. ADSL is a booming market here. :) All the people I know around me speak English. I was in Japan a couple years ago and met people from many countries. None spoke English as a first language and many were fascinated to meet me because I spoke English as a first language. Primary English speakers are actually a minority on this planet. Cable/ADSL/SDSL is like that. Depends on where you are. You'll have a different impression of who has and who has none. You're in for a surprise, especially in and around the region where TB! originated. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.11.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgpFsY0yUOZky.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Tony, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:01:33 +0200 GMT (13/06/2004, 18:01 +0700 GMT), Tony wrote: T Many people are on always-on connections nowadays TF What makes you say that? I know *nobody* who is always on at home over TF here, and only *some companies* who can afford to. T Maybe we are talking about different things? We are talking about different countries. T Almost all people I know are on ADSL/SDSL/Cable. I knew you were talking about broadband. So was I. T Much cheaper then dail-up. ISDN is close to unaffordably expensive. That's why only some companies have it, and certainly no home user. ADSL is in planning, I saw an ad that one company now offers this in certain streets in Bangkok now, and cable is future music - you ask your local ISP's customer service about cable, they wouldn't know what you're talking about and refer you to a TV provider. T ADSL is a booming market here. I saw a newspaper article that the government wants to make broadband affordable. I am not holding my breath. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Wenn morgens frueh der Wecker rasselt, ist der schoenste Tag vermasselt. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.11 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Tony, [T] wrote: Now you are mainly talking about spam I think? I tackle spam by other means. The let them come approach? How about approaching it from a broader POV. If the spammers have less addresses to spam, then they'll likely use less Internet bandwidth sending spam. The bandwidth being used by spammers is staggering. Handing them your address and then filtering as it comes may work for your system, but is not such a good idea for the the wider Internet. It's the same sortof reasoning as the one you gave for viruses. We have a responsibility not only to our systems, but to not send the viruses to other systems. And I have my reason to believe that they don't bother checking who clicks. They do. It's one of their means of finding addresses to add to their golden lists. At times, all that is fetched is a pixel of data. You don't even see it in the message. If you mean java kinda stuff yes I agree. But I think it's far less the case for the more 'classic' HTML And I'm looking for the basic HTML rendering. No. We're speaking of image fetching. Optional is the keyword I guess. Agreed. I'm sure it would be optional if it were worth RIT's while. If TB! were using IE for rendering then it would be a relatively simple thing to block the downloading of images or other remote data. It's a different matter if TB! does it's own rendering and is currently incapable of fetching remote data. More coding would have to be done. More than that needed for blocking. Not to mention the security issues that would have to be embraced and supported. It'd be better to use IE and let MS deal with the renderer security issues. But who wishes to use IE for rendering? That makes IE a requirement for reading HTML mail. Then one may say, make *that* optional so one can choose rendering method (internal vs IE). It's all a mess of debate and not simple. At the moment, each HTML message has an HTML icon in the attachment area. Open that attachment and the message opens in your browser. Understood. Unfortunately none of them open in my browser. The browser opens but the URL field stays empty; so nothing loads. Saving the HTML to file 1st does work. But is not very elegant. Hmmm. This shouldn't be the case. It should open and I confirm your problem. Seems like a bug. Can anyone else confirm this. I'll bring it up on TBBETA. It all boils down to standards/netiquette. Unfortunately they get broken very often. Then teh user has to decide; stick to standards and missout on large part of internet or follow the flow We're not really speaking of following or not following a standard anyway. We're speaking of supporting or not supporting the retrieval of remote data in HTML messages. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.11.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp1amijpG7UK.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Allie, AM Tony, [T] wrote: Maybe we are talking about different things? Almost all people I know are on ADSL/SDSL/Cable. Much cheaper then dail-up. ADSL is a booming market here. AM :) All the people I know around me speak English. AM I was in Japan a couple years ago and met people from many countries. AM None spoke English as a first language and many were fascinated to AM meet me because I spoke English as a first language. Primary English AM speakers are actually a minority on this planet. AM Cable/ADSL/SDSL is like that. Depends on where you are. You'll have a AM different impression of who has and who has none. You're in for a AM surprise, especially in and around the region where TB! originated. :-) Surely things can differ greatly but I get the, maybe wrong impression, that broadband is taking of in a great number of countries. Speeds doubles and prices drop within a year. 5 years ago I was also messing with my 33k3 modem. But now ads for 8mbit connections are everywhere. So that's why I suggested it. As an option of course. But that's the fun part of TB! It's a big toolkit with useful stuff. You take from it what you need. Nothing is forced upon you. -- Best regards, Tony Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is ignorant. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Thomas Fernandez, [TF] wrote: T Much cheaper then dail-up. ISDN is close to unaffordably expensive. Ha! I forgot to mention that part. I pay USD$130/month for my ADSL connection (768/256 Kbps). That is by no means cheap either. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.11.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgpWN0HXCPOOf.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Allie, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:58:52 -0500 GMT (13/06/2004, 18:58 +0700 GMT), Allie Martin wrote: ISDN is close to unaffordably expensive. AM Ha! I forgot to mention that part. I pay USD$130/month for my ADSL AM connection (768/256 Kbps). That is by no means cheap either. No, not cheap indeedy. It's close to a monthly salary. I think a security guard's salary is in that range. And even I wouldn't be willing to pay that much for internet, even though Bangkok offers ample opportunities to spend that much on a two-person dinner... -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Lothar Matthaeus (ehemaliger Nationalspieler) zum Koks-Skandal um Christoph Daum: Wichtig ist, dass er nun eine klare Linie in sein Leben bringt! Message reply created with The Bat! 2.11 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Thomas, . TF We are talking about different countries. I'm from the Netherlands. Quite average if I speak to my Scandinavian friends with their 10 and even 100 mbit home connections. T Almost all people I know are on ADSL/SDSL/Cable. TF I knew you were talking about broadband. So was I. TF ISDN is close to unaffordably expensive. We had and still have ISDN. ISDN is still dialup. So you pay online charges. And that's what drove most people to broadband I guess. Normal ISDN is phased out here. It's being replaced by ADSL. 8096 kbit downstream/1024kbit upstream start at $48 here. That's always on and a data limit of over 200 GB/month TF That's why only some TF companies have it, and certainly no home user. ADSL is in planning, I TF saw an ad that one company now offers this in certain streets in TF Bangkok now, and cable is future music - you ask your local ISP's TF customer service about cable, they wouldn't know what you're talking TF about and refer you to a TV provider. :) TF I saw a newspaper article that the government wants to make broadband TF affordable. I am not holding my breath. If demand picks up things can go fast. But it also depends greatly on the infrastructure you already have. Optic fiber. Copper wires of good quality etc -- Best regards, Tony Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sunday, June 13, 2004, 12:54:28 PM, Allie Martin wrote: Hmmm. This shouldn't be the case. It should open and I confirm your problem. Seems like a bug. Can anyone else confirm this. I'll bring it up on TBBETA I cannot confirm this. Double-clicking on the HTML file results in the opening warning. If I choose YES (to save the file) I can then open it in my browser (Mozilla) and it will open the message and the remote images, showing the local file location as the URL (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/*.*/My%20Documents/Message.html). Answering NO will open the message in Mozilla and get the remote images, but shows TB's temp directory as the URL (file:///C:/DOCUME~1/*~1.***/LOCALS~1/Temp/bat/4C6370E5.html). Perhaps it is an IE problem? Julian -- Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Allie, AM Tony, [T] wrote: Now you are mainly talking about spam I think? I tackle spam by other means. AM The let them come approach? Not really. When I expressed my wish for HTML rendering it surely wasn't for opening spam. K9 scans my e-mail for spam even before it enters my e-mail client. So that effectively stops the valid e-mail checking. AM How about approaching it from a broader AM POV. If the spammers have less addresses to spam, then they'll likely AM use less Internet bandwidth sending spam. The bandwidth being used by AM spammers is staggering. I heard firgures of 25% AM It's the same sortof reasoning as the one you gave for viruses. We AM have a responsibility not only to our systems, but to not send the AM viruses to other systems. You got me there! :) But see above. And I have my reasons to believe that they don't bother checking who clicks. AM They do. It's one of their means of finding addresses to add to their AM golden lists. At times, all that is fetched is a pixel of data. You AM don't even see it in the message. I've even got some spam for buying a CD with 1 miljon verified addresses. That backups your claim. OTOH however spammers very often seem so mindless. Why sending spam for cheap US dentist insurance to European adresses? And of course this funny example found on a anti-spam plugin page Spammers do not prune their mailing lists based on bounce messages. We know of people that reactivated email addresses and even entire domains that have been inactive (and therefore bounced every message sent to them) for years, and yet literally within minutes of being reactivated, new spam arrived. Indeed, many spammers are known to send spam to randomly-generated e-mail addresses in hopes of guessing valid addresses; practically every one of these messages results in a bounce, yet spammers continue the practice. But as said above my aim is to delete the spam before it reaches my inbox with 99.8% success. So the e-mail checking is effectively stopped. . Understood. Unfortunately none of them open in my browser. The browser opens but the URL field stays empty; so nothing loads. Saving the HTML to file 1st does work. But is not very elegant. AM Hmmm. This shouldn't be the case. It should open and I confirm your AM problem. Seems like a bug. Can anyone else confirm this. I'll bring it AM up on TBBETA. I have a good guess what the reason is. I use GreenBrowser as a shell for IE because of it's lightweight tabbed approach. GreenBrowser doesn't fully support sending info between applications sometimes. (I'm told) TB! doesn't open a GreenBrowser window but a IE window. But maybe it has to do with this behaviour because Greenbrowser is set as my default browser. Can I explicitly tell TB! to use a certain browser to render a page? -- Best regards, Tony A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Tony, [T] wrote: Can I explicitly tell TB! to use a certain browser to render a page? No. TB! will use the default browser for the system. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.11.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp6mqDgVOqad.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Julian Beach (Lists), [JB] wrote: Hmmm. This shouldn't be the case. It should open and I confirm your problem. Seems like a bug. Can anyone else confirm this. I'll bring it up on TBBETA I cannot confirm this. Double-clicking on the HTML file results in the opening warning. If I choose YES (to save the file) I can then open it in my browser (Mozilla) and it will open the message and the remote images, Ok. Your not confirming hastened my efforts to check further. I changed my default browser from Netcaptor to Opera and it works now. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.11.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgpuDhOaKTcK5.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sunday, June 13, 2004, 1:59:34 PM, Allie Martin wrote: Ok. Your not confirming hastened my efforts to check further. I changed my default browser from Netcaptor to Opera and it works now. Is the problem with Message.html attachments that you open directly from TB (without saving first) or do you get the same problem with messages that you have previously saved? If the latter, then it would suggest that it is a system default browser problem rather than TB! as TB! would not be involved. Julian -- Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Access Violation
Hello Julian, JBL On Sunday, June 13, 2004, 1:59:34 PM, Allie Martin wrote: Ok. Your not confirming hastened my efforts to check further. I changed my default browser from Netcaptor to Opera and it works now. JBL Is the problem with Message.html attachments that you open directly JBL from TB (without saving first) or do you get the same problem with JBL messages that you have previously saved? For me the only problem is launching directly from TB! Saving 1st works without any problems. -- Best regards, Tony A life without cause is a life without effect. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Bill- Saturday, June 12, 2004, 11:42:25 PM, you wrote: BM Here's one of the offending URLs: Works fine here with Mozilla, but I have to say that is quite possibly the longest url I have ever seen. Could you have run into an IE buffer overrun? -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13-Jun-04 2:54am -0500, Tony wrote: So you browsed the site on your laptop. Saved the url. And then get a crash when you open the same url on the same laptop? Yes, the URL was saved to an email and sent out. The AV occurs when I click on that URL while viewing the email from the Sent Mail folder. I see this discussion has gone off topic completely. I'll write a bug report after I have some time to further investigate. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Bill, Sunday, June 13, 2004, 1:42:25 AM, Bill McCarthy wrote: BM I sent myself a URL to print at a remote location. Clicking on the BM URL with Outlook worked fine. Clicking with TB! produced this BM message: BM Access violation at address 39636A78. Read of address 39636A78. BM After that message, the hour glass was permanently on in TB! until I BM closed TB!. BM Here's one of the offending URLs: BM http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=rev2ct=NAmo=maun=mgo=11initsrch=01sbx=32initsrch=01a=101%20Bowie%20St1c=San%20Antonio1pl=210%2d223%2d10001pn=San%20Antonio%20Marriott%20Rivercntr1g=Tn1zyxa7mzg%3d2a=3600%20Presidential%20Blvd2tabval=search1l=SqJ4m4F4Fok%3d2c=Austincl=EN2g=NNSn1EzZZJY%3d1s=TX2pl=512%2d530%2d22422l=CKdSu7ZCltg%3dct=NA1v=ADDRESS2sbx=01ct=NA2pn=Austin%2dBergstrom%20Intl%20Airport%20%28AUS%291y=US1tabval=search1z=782052s=TX2v=ADDRESSdid=10870941312y=US2z=78719 not confirmed. -- Best Regards, Greg Strong Using The Bat! v2.11.04 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 There are two theories about arguing with women Neither one works. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Bill, Sunday, June 13, 2004, 10:59:00 AM, Bill McCarthy wrote: BM Yes, the URL was saved to an email and sent out. The AV occurs when I BM click on that URL while viewing the email from the Sent Mail folder. I copied your URL to a new message and sent to myself. I then clicked on the URL from the sent mail folder. Not confirmed. -- Best Regards, Greg Strong Using The Bat! v2.11.04 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 I'm sick! I ought to be home in bed with a nurse. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13-Jun-04 5:30am -0500, Mark Wieder wrote: Saturday, June 12, 2004, 11:42:25 PM, you wrote: BM Here's one of the offending URLs: Works fine here with Mozilla, but I have to say that is quite possibly the longest url I have ever seen. Could you have run into an IE buffer overrun? I don't thinks so since there is no problem clicking on that url from Outlook. Thanks for checking. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13-Jun-04 11:06am -0500, Greg Strong wrote: Sunday, June 13, 2004, 10:59:00 AM, Bill McCarthy wrote: BM Yes, the URL was saved to an email and sent out. The AV occurs when I BM click on that URL while viewing the email from the Sent Mail folder. I copied your URL to a new message and sent to myself. I then clicked on the URL from the sent mail folder. Not confirmed. Thanks for checking. I'm on a 2 week old laptop with all patches to XP installed as well as a fresh copy of TB!. I give up :-( Using The Bat! v2.11.04 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Same here but with v2.11.02. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
Hello Bill, On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:59:00 -0500 GMT (13/06/2004, 22:59 +0700 GMT), Bill McCarthy wrote: So you browsed the site on your laptop. Saved the url. And then get a crash when you open the same url on the same laptop? BM Yes, the URL was saved to an email and sent out. The AV occurs when I BM click on that URL while viewing the email from the Sent Mail folder. Same here. And the browser (CrazyBrowser based on IE6) was still open when I clicked on the URL in TB. BM I see this discussion has gone off topic completely. I'll write a bug BM report after I have some time to further investigate. I think it's something in the mapquest URL, as I don't have the ever encountered the problem with other URLs. 2.11 on Win98. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. My parents put us to sleep by tossing us up in the air. Of course, you have to have low ceilings for this method to work. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.11 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13-Jun-04 11:20am -0500, Thomas Fernandez wrote: I think it's something in the mapquest URL, as I don't have the ever encountered the problem with other URLs. Thomas, I'm sorry to hear you have the same problem but glad I'm not the only one g. When I write the bug report, I'll include a problem MapQuest URL. 2.11 on Win98. 2.11.02 on WinXP Pro. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation
On Sun 13 June 2004, 21:58:52 +1000, Allie Martin wrote: ISDN is close to unaffordably expensive. Ha! I forgot to mention that part. I pay USD$130/month for my ADSL connection (768/256 Kbps). That is by no means cheap either. Hmm, here in metropolitan Australia we are more fortunate than I realised. I pay A$60 per month (about US$42) for a cable connection with up to 12Gb download per month. ADSL roughly equivalent to Allie's (I think it would have been 1024/256 Kbps) would have cost me A$50 (~US$35) per month had I been on standard copper phone connections, however my phone provide uses cable as well. -- Robin Anson Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Client / server access violation
Hello TBUDL, I have just installed The Bat in a client server config using ver 2.10.03. The server is W2k, all the client PCs (W2K, XP pro and XP Home) keep coming up with the following message 'Access violation at address 006261AE in module 'TheBat.exe'. Read of address 0380' all PCs have exactly the same message, and it pops up about every minute. I tried installing an earlier version 2.10.01 which changed the hex address to 005F91DE, but it still pops up every minute. No errors on the server. Any thoughts greatly appreciated as it's driving me mad. -- Best regards, Tim, Current version is 2.10.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation using SecureBat Lite
Nick Andriash wrote: NA When I try to change the colour of the Even Quotation under NA Options/Preferences/ViewerEditor/Plain Text/MicroEd I receive an NA AV Error each and every time. Hmmm. Not confirmed here. -- -=allie_M=- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com ___..__ SecureBat! Lite v2.02.8 CE · WinXP Pro SP1 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.02.3 CE | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Access Violation using SecureBat Lite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Everyone, I'm using SecureBat Lite v2.02.8 CE and am getting an Access Violation when trying to change the colour of 2nd level quoted text. When I try to change the colour of the Even Quotation under Options/Preferences/ViewerEditor/Plain Text/MicroEd I receive an AV Error each and every time. Anyone else? - -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using SecureBat! v2.02.8 CE on Windows 98 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 Comment: Using SecureBat for Increased Security iQA/AwUBP+W1WNrrL7k7yn3SEQKwEQCfcbGEbbirl0STOGEI30OYsRHdDxUAniLd TyD3Gm1uxDCpRAejnRqrUnAS =mBSm -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.02.3 CE | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation using SecureBat Lite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sunday, December 21, 2003, 7:59:44 AM, I wrote: I'm using SecureBat Lite v2.02.8 CE Hmmm? Sorry for the multiple postings... SecureBat's Connection Centre seems to have stuck resulting in the multiple postings. I don't know what happened but the CC would not close... just stayed open... had to Ctrl-Alt-Del to get rid of it and then re-started my Computer. The CC seems to be working alright now. My apologies to the List. - -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using SecureBat! v2.02.8 CE on Windows 98 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 Comment: Using SecureBat for Increased Security iQA/AwUBP+W8odrrL7k7yn3SEQI1iQCfa3I1QajIsx6QrvBCxairGZeHyDcAoO65 kf77awAbxeOw0kBd1m7/YSBU =wbX8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.02.3 CE | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
S/Mime causes access violation
Hello tbudl, I received an S/MIME message digitally signed with an X.509 certificate. The icon shows that the signature is valid. However, when I try to open the message I get an access violation. Is this a known bug in TB 2.0.3? Is there a workaround? __ | Edward J. Krall | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | 10838 North 110 Place | (480) 614-0423 | | Scottsdale, AZ 85259 | | |___|__| Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: Access violation in Account - Properties
Hello Lourdes, LJ I would backup, uninstall, delete the registry keys and then reinstall LJ (do not restore yet), test to see if things are working (no AV LJ entering properties), then restore and test again. I did it in that sequence, and the first time in run after the installtion I got already the AV (before the restore). -- Rgds, Wilfried http://www.mestdagh.biz Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 6 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Access violation in Account - Properties
Hello Wilfried, Thursday, September 11, 2003, 1:14:36 PM, Wilfried Mestdagh wrote: WM Could it be the amount of mail I have ? My The bat folder is 200 WM MB. Maybe not ever tested with great amount of mail ? I have over 200,000 pieces of mail taking up 1.22 GB of space. The amount of mail you have is not the problem. -- Best regards, Lourdes The Bat! 2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Access violation in Account - Properties
Hello Wilfried, Friday, September 12, 2003, 7:07:16 AM, Wilfried Mestdagh wrote: WM Hello, WM Some question just came up. After the fresh install TB it was not WM an unregistered version. does this means that the registry was NOT WM cleaned with the uninstall ?? (so another bug ?) Not a bug. Possibly not what you would like but it's working as designed. Not all of the registry keys are deleted so that you do not loose your registration information. WM If this is true then I should again try again ? I would backup, uninstall, delete the registry keys and then reinstall (do not restore yet), test to see if things are working (no AV entering properties), then restore and test again. regedit /e TheBat!.reg HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT\The Bat! to save settings regedit TheBat!.reg to restore them -- Best regards, Lourdes The Bat! 2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
