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
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: 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
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
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
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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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
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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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
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
Re: Access violation in Account - Properties
11-Sep-2003 20:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could it be the amount of mail I have ? My The bat folder is 200 MB. Maybe not ever tested with great amount of mail ? Since purge+compress has proven now and then to be a cure for many problems, have you tried that? (purge+compress all folders, I mean). -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) I am skeptical about skepticism: one could write an interesting article debunking debunking. As with belief, so much depends on the way the mind faces. -- Martyn Skinner Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation in Account - Properties
Hello, We not get result :( Is there files I can safely delete ? i could start with that ! If that does not help, I could install a second the bat on this machine, see if it works normal, then start copying the mail folders one by one (without conficuration files).. then start copying configuration files. seems a good method to me.. not ? -- 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: Access violation in Account - Properties
11-Sep-2003 20:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: seems a good method to me.. not ? If I were you, I'd rather make a backup with the internal backup utility, completely remove TB, and then do a fresh re-install, restoring the backup. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) One of life's mysteries is how a two pound box of candy can make a woman gain five pounds. Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation in Account - Properties
Wilfried- Thursday, September 11, 2003, 11:44:57 AM, you wrote: WM Just tryed it, but in most folders it say 'nothing to do' as I have setup all WM my folders to cleanup on exit. Result is still same... While we're on the subject, how about Folder | Maintenance | Check Integrity/Repair? That's cleared up some stuff for me before. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation in Account - Properties
Alexander- Thursday, September 11, 2003, 12:21:03 PM, you wrote: A If I were you, I'd rather make a backup with the internal backup utility, A completely remove TB, and then do a fresh re-install, restoring the backup. Ditto. The internal backup will *probably* save all the registry setting, too, but I'd back them up just to be safe, then delete them when prompted by the uninstall process. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation in Account - Properties
Wilfried- Hmmm. An access violation in Ntdll.dll sounds pretty serious. I don't remember NT 4.0 very well, but maybe it's worth trying to restore this file from the CAB files? The /Users Depot/ area in the registry should correspond with the account information you see in the accounts pane. I believe it should be safe to delete unused items, taking care to remove both the Dir and User keys. Also, the Count key should be adjusted if you do this. Also, regarding the beta version you installed... was that a version 2 or 1.6x? I have had some problems in the past where installing over a broken copy didn't work - I had to uninstall the existing copy, then install the new one to clear up some problems. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access violation in Account - Properties
11-Sep-2003 00:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. An access violation in Ntdll.dll sounds pretty serious. I don't remember NT 4.0 very well, but maybe it's worth trying to restore this file from the CAB files? ...and don't forget to install ServicePack6a again. :) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello Thomas, On Friday, February 7, 2003 at 6:10:12 AM you [TF] wrote (at least in part): I don't remember, but a dialog box of the bat indicating : access violation to the adress , the next time I have it,i note ! TF Yes please. The dialogue gives you the address as well as the module TF that caused the AV. Without this information, we can only wildly guess TF what may have caused it. Thomas, be honest: even _with_ this information we can only wildly guess. The only being _probably_ able to hunt it down (if the module is thebat.exe) are the guys at RITLabs. But w/o these information even they will not be able to do anything about it. -- Regards Peter Palmreuther (The Bat! v1.63 Beta/6 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1) Love and pain become one and the same in the eyes of a wounded child. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Friday, February 7, 2003, 2:09:48 AM, Peter scribbled: PP Thomas, be honest: even _with_ this information we can only wildly PP guess. The only being _probably_ able to hunt it down (if the module PP is thebat.exe) are the guys at RITLabs. PP But w/o these information even they will not be able to do anything PP about it. Well, they did something about it. I sent in the info on this problem Monday, and there is a new version of The Bat! on the web site today. I received a message telling me it should fix the problem. Mike msg55086/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello telepro, On or about Thursday, February 06, 2003 at 06:22:02GMT +0100 (which was 12:22 AM in the tropics where I live) telepro postulated, ruminated and made these points on the subject of Access Violation in x ?: t Hello, t I've sometimes (perhaps one time in a day) Access Violation in x ; t it does not disturb the good running of the programm, a simple OK and t the program continues... This usually happens when a mail folder (messages.tbb) gets larger than 2GB. This exceeds the FAT32 file size limit. You'll find that some mail folder can no longer accept new messages too! Just happened (again) to me on Monday ;-( t Have you got these little errors, if yes, in which frequencies ? Yes, when you allow a messages.tbb to get too large for the O/S to handle! t Config : Millenium, The Bat 1.62i -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello Spike, On or about Thursday, February 06, 2003 at 06:22:02GMT +0100 (which was 12:22 AM in the tropics where I live) telepro postulated, ruminated and made these points on the subject of Access Violation in x ?: When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- NO! to bloat mail ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.61 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, 12:22:02 AM, telepro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: t I've sometimes (perhaps one time in a day) Access Violation in x ; t it does not disturb the good running of the programm, a simple OK and t the program continues... t Have you got these little errors, if yes, in which frequencies ? I get access violations frequently when starting up TB and have for quite a while. As you said, it doesn't affect the operation of the program (other errors pop up from time to time and prevent me from properly terminating TB other than the task manager.) And I do NOT have a large message database as others have suggested as the problem... jon -- jwayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello Mike Alexander, On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:25:21 + GMT your local time, which was Friday, February 7, 2003, 7:25:21 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, Mike Alexander wrote: Hi Spike, Thursday, February 6, 2003, 12:18:27 PM, you wrote: S This usually happens when a mail folder (messages.tbb) gets S larger than 2GB. This exceeds the FAT32 file size limit. You'll S find that some mail folder can no longer accept new messages too! S Just happened (again) to me on Monday ;-( You mean...there are people out there still using FAT? shock, horror ;-) I do and I always ask customers if they want Fat or NTFS. Reason is that if they mess up windows Xp as an example its much easier to get data off and reinstall then having to fight NTFS and its 'security'. One can do it, just much more of a headache. My data drive has NTFS on my video system for obvious reasons.. -- Best regards, tracer Using theBAT 1.63 Beta/5 mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] C.C.S. Associates handphone : 01-891-9560 FAX (USA): (208) 460-3753 pgp 6.5.3 : 0x909D9B10 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello Miguel A. Urech, On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:53:34 +0100 GMT your local time, which was Thursday, February 6, 2003, 7:53:34 PM (GMT+0700) my local time, Miguel A. Urech wrote: Hello Spike, NO! to bloat mail ;-) He probably can can save half the space in that file by removing the quotation at the end of the messages -- Best regards, tracer Using theBAT 1.63 Beta/5 mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] C.C.S. Associates handphone : 01-891-9560 FAX (USA): (208) 460-3753 pgp 6.5.3 : 0x909D9B10 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello telepro, On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 04:37:44 +0100 GMT (07/02/03, 10:37 +0700 GMT), telepro wrote: This usually happens when a mail folder (messages.tbb) gets larger than 2GB. This exceeds the FAT32 file size limit. You'll find that some mail folder can no longer accept new messages too! Just happened (again) to me on Monday ;-( It isn't the case, I just begin with TB Are you sure teh AV was caused by TB? What is the exact wording, which you have left out? -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. I am loyal to my employer at all costs Please feel free to respond to my resume on my office voice mail. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation in xxxxx ?
Hello telepro, On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 05:57:32 +0100 GMT (07/02/03, 11:57 +0700 GMT), telepro wrote: I don't remember, but a dialog box of the bat indicating : access violation to the adress , the next time I have it,i note ! Yes please. The dialogue gives you the address as well as the module that caused the AV. Without this information, we can only wildly guess what may have caused it. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Auf Tiramisu von Tesco`s (auf die Unterseite aufgedruckt): Nicht umdrehen. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Access Violation Error
Hello Sudip, On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:10:16 +0545 GMT (18/07/02, 01:25 +0700 GMT), Sudip Pokhrel wrote: SPJust upgraded to XP and I've been getting an Access Violation Error SPdialog box upon launching TB! It doesn't appear every time I launch SPTB! but after 2 or 3 launches. Any ideas? No, because you don't post the text of the AV warning. And I understand that XP is not an upgrade. g -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I am not hungry enough to eat six. (Yogi Berra) Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta1 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current Ver: 1.61 FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Access Violation Error
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sudip Pokhrel [SP] wrote: SP Just upgraded to XP and I've been getting an Access Violation SP Error dialog box upon launching TB! It doesn't appear every time I SP launch TB! but after 2 or 3 launches. Any ideas? TB! runs perfectly on XP here. However, I did so after a fresh installation and then restoration from a backup of my previous Win2k installation. Upgrades are usually involved with taking chances. I guess you must have gotten bitten though I'm surprised it would occur with TB!. My suggestion would be a backup, then complete uninstall and reinstall. - -- -=Allie C Martin=- List Moderator | TB! v1.61 | Windows XP Pro PGP/GPG Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=2B0717E2 _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEARECAAYFAj015bkACgkQV8nrYCsHF+KFXwCggRFgKxjTXqAVysbSN/5XAHg4 0XoAn3ehDObO5Jq6iKEzuLfQTzIx+q+x =D6YW -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.61 FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Access violation error when selecting Privacy | Encrypt when Complete
On Thursday, May 2, 2002, 6:00:30 PM, Mark Knipfer wrote: MK In TheBat! 1.60h compose window when I select Privacy | Encrypt when MK Complete, TheBat! displays this error initially: MK The Bat! MK (X) Access violation at address 00431F43 in module 'thebat.exe'. MK Read of address 0008. MK OK MK When I click 'Send the letter' button, the same error appears. Updating to TheBat! 1.60i corrected the above error. -- Using The Bat! v1.60i OS: Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current Ver: 1.60h FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Access Violation in thebat.exe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: MD5 Hi Kitty, On 2:04:59 AM, Kitty Wrote In regards To Access Violation in thebat.exe: K Hi K Strange problem. Have been using ver 1.54/10 for awhile. This is on K a computer with Windows 2000. I left on the computer overnight with K TB open, set K to get mail every half hour. This is actually a reply to quite an Old message sent 4th Novemeber 2001, I am strangely having the same problems as this user, and have no idea what is going on, I am also currently running TB! 1.54/10 on Windows 2000 and get an Access Violation EVERY 2 minutes Really annoying. the exact message is Access violation at address 006A35F0. Read of address 31303631 Kevin - -- .:Kevc978:. - Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:09 PM http://www.DarkServ.Net PGP Key - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=PGPKeysNow The Bat! v1.54/10 Windows NT 5.0.2195 I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6 Comment: Kevin Conlin -Authorised- -Signed- iQCVAwUAO+ltkJUH7T05QHTxAQGp1gQAswf/ZS+lkptRZxT2FXL5Sqb5mGlolwwt YD66R5esmC9eJ+griE/wmpk8eNHDj93+wCXMesC4vjP2dhH9UqnhrFtaCt8h8ND1 4UUosB4ZkgdbysgJhf2sYVcgZ7ug8usNgub6Ivo4SodLbrBSpFOmvYRLwueBCgpo +Yi0BxDq4v8= =phfz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: Access Violation in thebat.exe
Hi A On Saturday, November 03, 2001 at 21:54:20GMT -0500 (which was 8:54 PM where I live) Allie C Martin wrote and made these points on the subject of Access Violation in thebat.exe: This may very well be a beta issue. Would you kindly confine problems with beta versions to the beta list. Not only is the beta list read a lot more by the developers who look out for the problem reports; it also prevents confusion of current and beta functionality. Well, there were two reasons I posted it to this list. First, I did post it to the beta list and got no response so I thought it might not be a beta problem. Also, I did go back to an earlier beta and still had the problem (and I do read the beta list and hadn't noticed this problem being mentioned). So, I decided it probably wasn't a beta issue. FWIW, I did solve the problem although I'm not sure why this worked. My husband also uses TB so I went on to his computer and set up an account with my e-mail address. I then downloaded all of my mail (without incident) and placed it into a folder called transfer. Then I copied the transfer folder to my PC and created a folder called on transfer in TB on my PC. I had no notion this would solve the problem. I just wanted to be able to read my mail and respond to it (since the problem was not preventing me from reading or responding to mail). Anyway, after doing this, the next time TB automatically went out to get mail, it did so without problem and has been working fine since then. Now, why doing this fixed the problem, I have no idea at all. -- Best regards, Kitty ^,,^mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] History is philosophy teaching from examples. - Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. 30 7 B.C.) Greek historian, critic and rhetorician: Ars Rhetorica. Using The Bat! 1.54 Beta/9 under Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: Access Violation in thebat.exe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 20:04:59 -0600, Kitty [K] graced us with these comments: ... K Strange problem. Have been using ver 1.54/10 for awhile. This is on K a computer with Windows 2000. I left on the computer overnight with K TB open, set to get mail every half hour. K This morning when I got up I was greeted with a message box stating: K Exception EAccessViolation in module thebat.exe at 00242C3F. Access K violation at address 00653E83. Read of address 0018. moderator note This may very well be a beta issue. Would you kindly confine problems with beta versions to the beta list. Not only is the beta list read a lot more by the developers who look out for the problem reports; it also prevents confusion of current and beta functionality. You can subscribe to the beta list at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /moderator note - -- ©Allie C Martin -- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKey - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=PGPPubKey1 [MUA: TB! v1.54/10 (*) OS: Win2K SP 2] __ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: Sealed for Security iEYEARECAAYFAjvkrd0ACgkQV8nrYCsHF+IuewCfYKT5o8XzudLBPH9MCSad3RPW CekAoJK3kWmEQSlW7oz/+igvvAL0ffFw =DxFf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: Access Violation (was: Help !!)
Ciao Thomas, Thursday, February 22, 2001, 9:52:33 AM, you wrote: T When does this message pop up: when he starts TB, or when he does T certain actions (like checking mail)? When checking mail. SZ Exception EAccessViolation in module TheBat.exe at FFC0100A. Access SZ Violation at address 224E. Read of address 224E SZ This problem appened after a crash of my ISP mail server. SZ I have tryed reinstalling The Bat! but there is nothing to do, help SZ !!! T I don't understand. Did you or did you not reinstall? Yes HE have reinstalled TB. Thanks ! -- eMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] eMail su cellulare: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEB : http://www.zamprogno.com - http://www.zamprogno.it ICQ : 3813299 Per vedere un orologiaio al lavoro vai a: To see a watchmaker at work go to: http://www.edisons.it/time/cam/webcam.htm -- __ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Access Violation when checking mail
Hi Stefano, On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:31:58 +0100GMT (22/02/2001, 17:31 +0800GMT), Stefano Zamprogno wrote: T When does this message pop up: when he starts TB, or when he does T certain actions (like checking mail)? SZ When checking mail. Do you think he can look at the log (shft-crtl-A) and maybe post here where the error occurs. Are you sure the ISP's crash has nothing to do with this? I have a feeling they might be the reason... SZ Yes HE have reinstalled TB. that's why I think this is not TB's fault. But let's discuss this when we see the logs. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Anmeldung unter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message reply created with The Bat! 1.49f under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- __ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Access Violation when encrypting with S/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05 November, 2000, 6:34 AM, I saw Gerd's comments made on Sun, 5 Nov 2000 11:19:11 +0100, and thought I'd add my $0.02 worth: GE whenever I encrypt a message I get the following error: GE "Access violation at address 00507BD2. Read of address ." I see that you're using a beta version of TB!. You really should post this problem on the TBBETA list. - -- A. Curtis Martin.. Moderator TBUDL/TBBETA | PGP Key ID: 0xEE079937 PGP Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendAlliePGPKey - --- ** "Reality is always more conservative than ideology. " _ TB! v1.47 Halloween Edition (S/N CCA4F9B8) «» Win2k Pro SP1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Digitally signed for sender verification. iQA/AwUBOgVGEPAXeSHuB5k3EQJzswCeITAg7668WC41OFK4KnM0XMu4eCcAoNaz Eze8hl554j2s2fHCbLapJO7b =iBDn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Access Violation when encrypting with S/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello A. Curtis Martin ! On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 06:35:44 -0500 GMT your local time, which was 05.11.2000, 12:35 (GMT+0100) where I live, you wrote: GE whenever I encrypt a message I get the following error: GE "Access violation at address 00507BD2. Read of address ." I see that you're using a beta version of TB!. You really should post this problem on the TBBETA list. I agree with you if it was a problem of the beta-version. I forgot to write that this error occured with Version 1.47 Halloween and 1.46. I only installed the beta because it has an improved S/MIME support. But this made no difference. Still a TBBETA-topic? Oh, I already deactivated everything what is started via autostart (anti-virus, firewall...): no difference! - -- Best regards, Gerd == Using The Bat! Version 1.48 Beta/2 PGP-Keys on request mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=send_key - On Tesco's Tiramisu dessert (printed on bottom of box): 'Do not turn upside down'. (Oops, too late!) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Digitally signed for authentication purposes ! Gerd Ewald iQA/AwUBOgVUDky/sHrVbGGHEQLjmgCgzPevVj0UPYXVpVGRKkCGG0u4QQwAn2pf fAclvlAcnmfgFDRuuMLnMbXT =aG+x -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Access Violation when encrypting with S/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:35:13 +0100, Gerd Ewald wrote these comments about 'Access Violation when encrypting with S/MIME': GE I agree with you if it was a problem of the beta-version. I forgot GE to write that this error occured with Version 1.47 Halloween and GE 1.46. I only installed the beta because it has an improved S/MIME GE support. But this made no difference. GE Still a TBBETA-topic? Now that you've clarified, no it's not. :-) But to prevent confusion you must include that vital piece of information you left out which is that the problem exists in the latest official release version or whatever other versions you wish to include. - -- A. Curtis Martin.. Moderator TBUDL/TBBETA | PGP Key ID: 0xEE079937 PGP Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendAlliePGPKey - --- ** "Predicting the future of technology is fraud with peril! " _ TB! v1.47 Halloween Edition (S/N CCA4F9B8) «» Win2k Pro SP1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Digitally signed for sender verification. iQA/AwUBOgVrHfAXeSHuB5k3EQL1oQCeMtyBtJyA1ymRdl3rZXn6r/jtshwAn3sg mdeDcL65KUDsO5Tg9HVc8Sc3 =V0Ap -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
