Re: when a server is not a server...
Hello Marcus, Friday, March 14, 2003, 8:17:41 AM, you wrote: MO or that the files are stored _and_ processed remotely which would MO mean only the relevant information is sent to the client, not the MO entire message base. What do you mean by relevant information? MO What I was hoping for was a setup where the client is merely a display MO of what's going on at the server side, like with Microsoft's Terminal MO Server. Then, if the client caches the message bases locally and updates MO both at the server and the client sides or if it is just a simple MO display does not matter to me, what does matter is that the entire MO message base does not have to be transferred over the WAN every time I, MO for example, purge and compress. You could try Offline files, supported under Windows 2000/XP, as Jernej mentioned before. -- Best regards, Adam Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Saturday, March 15, 2003, 22:44, Adam wrote: You could try Offline files, supported under Windows 2000/XP, as Jernej mentioned before. I use Second Copy, recommended by Miguel which does pretty much the same (but better, IMHO). I was hoping for a better solution, though. Anyway, thanks for the tip. -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 17:58, Tomasz Nidecki wrote: I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't it just be easier to install Hamster? It's a freeware mail and news server, and I believe (but I might be wrong - I only use it for news) it should have the necessary capabilities... Check it out. As long as TB! haven't implemented IMAP no mail server would be sufficient. Even with Hamster installed, how should one TB! now of a message being moved from folder a to folder b on the other TB!? -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, 03:29, Allie Martin wrote: It is possible. Take a look in the help section 'Mailing Within the Internet'//'Network and Administration'//'The Bat! Networking Course A detailed description of how to do what you seem to want to do is outlined there. It does? I know there's information about the client/server mode, but I didn't see any about the mixed setup I want. I'll go back and have a look again. -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Wieder [MW] wrote: MW Well, that's an interesting question. It's not a simple yes/no MW thing. I use a server mode TB running on a Win2k server machine. The MW other computers had TB installed in workstation (no TCP) mode to MW generate the registry entries, but I then uninstalled TB from them MW and just launch a desktop shortcut to the installed copy on the MW server. That way when I update there's only one copy to change. All MW the workstation computers are pointing to the data files on the MW server. Ok. I understand. This is an interesting way of setting things up. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+catCV8nrYCsHF+IRAi1WAKC6+a8LHuWcGv9MNDK8nMqDJPsBYQCeK/mr mPDVbteXdiw5zGydk74OUfk= =bKQ/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote: MO It does? I know there's information about the client/server mode, MO but I didn't see any about the mixed setup I want. I'll go back and MO have a look again. Mixed? I reviewed your message and see what you meant. Sorry about that. Each account has a home directory. Again, you can change this to the home directory of an account on the server. So you can do the following: On installation B, create an account with the same name as that on the server. Exit installation B. Fire up the registry and go to: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\rit\The Bat!\Users Depot There, you'll see a list of all accounts for the installation. Directory 1 is the home directory for user/account 1 Directory 2 is the home directory for user/account 2 etc. If there's no directory value, this means that you're using the default home directory. So for the account you wish to you the servers account settings and mail, double click the corresponding directory entry and put in the path to the servers account. When finished, exit the registry and then restart installation B. The new account will load the account on the server. The other accounts will be local ones. :) - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+ca2gV8nrYCsHF+IRApsWAJ0Ua8RzMYHSrT0vEiua1s6RQWYxHwCfaMqH gcDeJygB/zrzsDFA+TOWB+s= =N/Sn -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Friday, March 14, 2003, 11:23, Allie Martin wrote: Mixed? I reviewed your message and see what you meant. Sorry about that. No problem. Each account has a home directory. Again, you can change this to the home directory of an account on the server. Ah, I see. Is that how TB!'s client/server works? I'd rather have all *.tb(b|i) files localy since the server and client computers are on different sides of a pretty slow wan. I was hoping the client/server setup would incorporate some smart syncronization, or that the files are stored _and_ processed remotely which would mean only the relevant information is sent to the client, not the entire message base. -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote: Each account has a home directory. Again, you can change this to the home directory of an account on the server. MO Ah, I see. Is that how TB!'s client/server works? Yes. MO I'd rather have all *.tb(b|i) files localy since the server and MO client computers are on different sides of a pretty slow wan. I was MO hoping the client/server setup would incorporate some smart MO syncronization, I see, but TB!, AFAIK, doesn't support running two separate installations with separate home directories that are constant, auto-updated mirrors of each other. You have to use the same home directories to create this effect. MO or that the files are stored _and_ processed remotely which would MO mean only the relevant information is sent to the client, not the MO entire message base. What do you mean by relevant information? When you change the installation B's account home directory to that of one on the server, no message bases are copied over. Installation B will work with the bases and tbi files on the server. But then again, you said you wish to have the tbb and tbi files locally, which is everything and not just relevant information. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+cbQDV8nrYCsHF+IRAiNjAJ9A455TIwqhUX1I+scBuDxIuLVk4wCeKcnC fiLXn3ZdpJBFdNgtpPmlY8g= =Ykre -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Friday, March 14, 2003, 11:50, Allie Martin wrote: MO or that the files are stored _and_ processed remotely which would MO mean only the relevant information is sent to the client, not the MO entire message base. What do you mean by relevant information? What I was hoping for was a setup where the client is merely a display of what's going on at the server side, like with Microsoft's Terminal Server. Then, if the client caches the message bases locally and updates both at the server and the client sides or if it is just a simple display does not matter to me, what does matter is that the entire message base does not have to be transferred over the WAN every time I, for example, purge and compress. When you change the installation B's account home directory to that of one on the server, no message bases are copied over. Installation B will work with the bases and tbi files on the server. I understood, but that's exactly what I don't want. I wont the installation B to tell installation A what to do. Again, like Terminal Server. But then again, you said you wish to have the tbb and tbi files locally, which is everything and not just relevant information. My fault, I was doing other things while writing this mail, apparently I didn't get it all together at the end :-) -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote: MO What I was hoping for was a setup where the client is merely a MO display of what's going on at the server side, like with Microsoft's MO Terminal Server. Then, if the client caches the message bases MO locally and updates both at the server and the client sides or if it MO is just a simple display does not matter to me, what does matter is MO that the entire message base does not have to be transferred over MO the WAN every time I, for example, purge and compress. With the setup I initially described, i.e., changing the home directory via the registry, no mail bases are transferred. All account data is stored on the server. You're just seeing a display of it through your installation B. For sometime I was doing this with TB!, i.e., all my mail was on the server. Nothing on my working machine on which TB! is installed. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+ccQtV8nrYCsHF+IRAv9RAJ9BILI8BlpZTcvZPfU2eEmKCJ7w4QCfaO5T YHuP7HkNKsEuPxR1cbu+8tk= =6Tob -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Friday, March 14, 2003, 12:59, Allie Martin wrote: With the setup I initially described, i.e., changing the home directory via the registry, no mail bases are transferred. All account data is stored on the server. You're just seeing a display of it through your installation B. But the work is still being done by installation B. If you purge a folder, TB! has to transfer it over the network, purge it and transfer it back. That's what I want to avoid, I want installation B to tell installation A: 'Purge folder 1'. I don't want installation B to be doing the actual job. I've understood now it can't be done with TB! as it's currently implemented and I do understand that it's quite some job to implement such a feature. With proper IMAP support there is no need of it either, I can achieve exactly what I want with an IMAP server and proper IMAP capabilities of TB!. For sometime I was doing this with TB!, i.e., all my mail was on the server. Nothing on my working machine on which TB! is installed. No, but again, all tasks was performed on your working machine which means heavy network use. Not suitable for me. -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
Hello DG, On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:27:18 -0500 GMT (15/03/03, 00:27 +0700 GMT), DG Raftery Sr. wrote: TF Want to talk with me about semaphores and how file TF locking works? Or what physically happens when a file on a network TF drive is accessed for writing by two users at the same time and why TF this *will* (not *could*) cause data corruption? It shouldn't. Once the file is locked it should, under proper programming, be locked to a write function. It should remain open to a read call but past that I cannot fathom a data corruption in this instance. Yeah, well. TB does not lock the file at all. If the programmer of the application properly coded the program and the first user opened the file to write function, and created the lock call, this would force the handle closed to write therefore causing user two no access. That's what I am saying. TB just doesn't lock the file. Two users can access the file for writing at the same time. In some instances this could happen if the write calls were exactly simultaneous but that has a probability of about a million to one. Sure. But it happened. Therefore, I am all for locking the file, at least during write access. As I said, I even lock files during read access, even though that may be an overkill. I see no reason not to lock the files. Automatically updating every user who only reads the file costs time, this is where I agree with Pit. Anyway ... I agree with this, too g. Let's lock the file anyway, once because it doesn't cost much CPU time, and once because it avoids any possible problems - and it is good programming practice, too. IMHO. You know Murphy. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement. 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: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Wieder [MW] wrote: MW I've gotten into the habit of archiving the registry settings on the MW first workstation I set up in a system and then importing the MW settings onto the next one and so forth. It makes the configuration MW job a simple double-click - all the accounts are pointing to the MW proper place on the server, etc. Yes. This makes for a great idea. :) - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+ck6oV8nrYCsHF+IRAtiFAJ9pmrs98/lDnA0geawRYFlNOFzufQCgqoJI DB8v1LlKymnOHBZTCK99tWw= =vLi/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
* Marcus Ohlström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I myself are interested in having TB! installed as a server on machine A, and on machine B run TB! with two accounts, one which should connect to the server as a non tcp/ip workstation, the other which should work as a generic email client. As far as I know this is not possible. But there is a workaround: you can use two parallel instances of The Bat! at the same time. One working as a Workstation with TCP/IP (normal TB! installation) and the other as a Workstation without TCP/IP (client mode). Create a new W2K user dummy on your machine and install The Bat! under user dummys W2K-account as a TB!-Client. Now you can start Client-TB! from your personal account via a shortcut like , | C:\WINNT\system32\runas.exe /profile /user:computername\dummy C:\Programme\The Bat!\thebat.beta.exe /nologo /U:thoenges ` HTH. -- Gruß, Carsten Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
Hello Mike, On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:20:59 + GMT (15/03/03, 04:20 +0700 GMT), Mike Alexander wrote: Is there no way of locking the files so one instance locks out any other access? Yes, there is, but only on programming level. All you can do as a user is send a wishlist item to Ritlabs. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. In an office: AFTER TEA BREAK STAFF SHOULD EMPTY THE TEAPOT AND STAND UPSIDE DOWN ON THE DRAINING BOARD 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: when a server is not a server...
Hello Mark, On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:04:42 -0800 GMT (15/03/03, 05:04 +0700 GMT), Mark Wieder wrote: TF network. I prefer to lock them completely rather than for write access TF only. Mind you, if someone opens a file, it will be open for less than TF a second (to be vague), because once the data is in his RAM, the file TF will be closed again while he still sees it on his screen as long as TF he wants. Hmmm. I never lock files on reads. Maybe I should revisit this some time. It's a good point, just to be safe. It depends on the user base. If you have 1000 users who have to access a large database very often, you might not want to lock the entire file when anybody reads, but you might want to only lock records. If you have 4 users, accessing different smaller databases infrequently on a LAN at home, complete locking should pose no delays. I've got a multiuser MSAccess database for a nonprofit I work with that supports simultaneous writes by multiple users into a single backend database. Mind you, MSAccess has its own quaint way of defining record-locking (sheesh - don't get me started on Access and semaphores or we'll find trout flying), but I do take issue with the above. ;-) TF I wasn't just babbling about, I studied this stuff My condolences on having had to put up with an entire CS master's program grin. LOL! Just reading a 65-page document on how my proposal for the MSc project to look like - and I haven't even thought about a title or subject yet. File locking maybe? g (f'up2tbot) I can usually rely on your expertise in your postings, Thanks, same to you. which is why your blanket generalization above got under my skin. No, you weren't babbling, but it's simply not true (and misleading in terms of the original question) that simultaneous file accesses *will* cause loss of data integrity, corruption, or loss of data. I generalised and oversimplified. Point taken. I think this has been clarified in the meantime. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Mit einem Kostuemball kann man keine Tore schiessen. 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: when a server is not a server...
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 9:11 PM, you wrote: PC Last time I tried the synchro it took 15 floppies, because of the PC size of the HOME account. AM Wow! Still trying to use floppies for this sort of thing? :) It will AM really be frustrating then. A rewriteable CD would be better.. or a AM zip disk. I guess you don't have either, so you have to struggle AM with that inconvenience. :/ I have a CD-RW, but I've never done a re-writable CD sheepish grin maybe it is TIME!! let's see, I buy 100 CD's for $22, I don't think using just a CD each time would kill me either, AND it is a BACKUP, at the same time... I mean I COULD just do a backup, right? and restore it to the laptop. PC Maybe I just to preview the HOME account mail while on the road, PC maybe I'm going about it the wrong way, any ideas??? AM Other than expanding your capabilities to transfer data more AM efficiently from one machine to the next than with floppies? No. :/ AM Networking your machines can be a tremendous investment. I do have them both on my home network at the same time, but I don't ever turn file sharing on, on ANY of my computers. Maybe behind my router it wouldn't hurt, but I've always had problems getting that started, with my firewalls running, it IS a pain!! AM -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) yes, and a fine moderator you are too sir!!! You and Marck have been doing a great job, I don't mind saying so, and I mention it to everyone any time I get the chance!! I vote to just DUMP Rick, do we get a vote??? -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Wieder [MW] wrote: MW I, OTOH, try to go by the rule that if you don't know what you're MW talking about, don't post answers. MW I've been using the networked multiuser solution on my own system MW and on several client systems for a couple of years now with no MW problems. I guess I'll have to stop someday now that you've MW convinced me it will never work. Are you running a TB! server/clients network? Or are you running multiple TB!'s in 'Worstation' mode, but which are all configured to use the same working mail directory? - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+cSJ6V8nrYCsHF+IRAr1LAKCTRAuthUW69O/UmyIJiKtw+5DWvwCfZBse 3/lxvd/NIwsl0WOXE3/hevQ= =BoL+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Cartwright [PC] wrote: PC I have a CD-RW, but I've never done a re-writable CD sheepish grin PC maybe it is TIME!! let's see, I buy 100 CD's for $22, I don't think PC using just a CD each time would kill me either, AND it is a BACKUP, PC at the same time... I mean I COULD just do a backup, right? and PC restore it to the laptop. Yes, you could. Do you have direct CD? This could make it that much easier. PC I do have them both on my home network at the same time, but I don't PC ever turn file sharing on, on ANY of my computers. Maybe behind my PC router it wouldn't hurt, but I've always had problems getting that PC started, with my firewalls running, it IS a pain!! Take a look at eSVNC http://perso.wanadoo.fr/samfd/esvnc. It allows file copy/moving across the network in a secure manner. You don't need to have file and print sharing enabled. In this way, you can easily transfer your backups. If you wish to discuss this further, there's TBOT. You'll get a lot of suggestions there on how to make this all easier for you. PC yes, and a fine moderator you are too sir!!! You and Marck have been PC doing a great job, I don't mind saying so, and I mention it to PC everyone any time I get the chance!! I thank you for those words of encouragement. :) PC I vote to just DUMP Rick, do we get a vote??? Hmmm. I don't think it's appropriate to be taking a vote on this on the list. Could we keep this off-list. It's bound to be disruptive and I'd rather if we just stick to TB! specific discussions. The discussions of late have had an abnormally high off-topic to on-topic ratio. I'm hoping it will naturally pass and we can settle down again. Thanks. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+cSb7V8nrYCsHF+IRAs4eAKCKfdMO9xFVzrLzHS++rCAzmtmWxwCg9L6e QBewLWvo79N0Nt5ebV9k6bI= =4B/w -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
Hello Mark, On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:06:22 -0800 GMT (14/03/03, 03:06 +0700 GMT), Mark Wieder wrote: Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time? TF Loss of data integrity, corruption or loss of data. I, OTOH, try to go by the rule that if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post answers. Ditto. In short, accessing the database files is a READ operation and TB handles it well. You don't (generally speaking - this *is* microsoft we're talking about here) cause data corruption problems by reading a file. Correct. But guess what: People using TB do write to the files as well! Multiuser deletions *could* possibly cause a problem if file-locking isn't implemented properly, If two users are writing to a file at the same time, it *will* cause problems. I don't understand what you mean by locking properly: a file is locked or not. Depending on the programming language, you might be able to distinguish between lock only if accessing for write, or you have to lock the file completely, disallowing all access by other users while one user is accessing it. but I've never seen a race condition where this has happened. There was a case a couple of days ago on one of the German TB lists where an AB got corrupted, I think it was a complete loss of data, because two users on a network opened it for write access at the same time. Statistically, this isn't very likely, but it does happen, and good software engineering practice is therefore to lock files on a network. I prefer to lock them completely rather than for write access only. Mind you, if someone opens a file, it will be open for less than a second (to be vague), because once the data is in his RAM, the file will be closed again while he still sees it on his screen as long as he wants. At any rate, I regularly have multiple users reading the same documents and replying to them (hey... take a look at so-and-so's message). Quite normal. See above: when multiple users have the same document on their screen, it does not mean that the file is open at all. It only means that they opened (and maybe locked) it, accessed it, read the file into RAM, closed (and released) it. Maybe you're thinking of Eudora, where multiuser situations can and do corrupt the message database (but importing the corrupted file into TB fixes it g). No, I am thinking of software engineering stuff, in this case file access and BIOS. Want to talk with me about semaphores and how file locking works? Or what physically happens when a file on a network drive is accessed for writing by two users at the same time and why this *will* (not *could*) cause data corruption? I wasn't just babbling about, I studied this stuff (got a postgraduate diploma in Computing - reminds me, I have to register for my master's thesis within this month). I have also been programming since 1978, and that includes writing applications running on LANs. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash advance. 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: when a server is not a server...
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, 7:48 PM, you wrote: PC at the same time... I mean I COULD just do a backup, right? and PC restore it to the laptop. AM Yes, you could. Do you have direct CD? This could make it that much AM easier. that would be EASYCDCreator, and NO I don't have it. I use Nero these days. It has InCD, but I've never figured out how to use it, I probably should. I've always just burned entire CDs. AM Take a look at eSVNC http://perso.wanadoo.fr/samfd/esvnc. It allows AM file copy/moving across the network in a secure manner. You don't AM need to have file and print sharing enabled. In this way, you can AM easily transfer your backups. If you wish to discuss this further, AM there's TBOT. You'll get a lot of suggestions there on how to make AM this all easier for you. ah, EsVNC. I am familiar with VNC and PCAnywhere, I'll look into it and query TBOT if I have any further questions, thanks AGAIN Allie!!! PC yes, and a fine moderator you are too sir!!! You and Marck have been PC doing a great job, I don't mind saying so, and I mention it to PC everyone any time I get the chance!! AM I thank you for those words of encouragement. :) you and Marck deserve them and MORE!!! AM I don't think it's appropriate to be taking a vote on this on the AM list. I'm hoping it will naturally pass and we can settle AM down again. naturally or otherwise, I'm sure it will settle down REAL SOON NOW ;) -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 03:39, SS wrote: In any case, what I am interested to do is have a server mode Bat running on a given PC and then 2 more workstation connecting to it, but all being able to see one and the same set of accounts. I'm afraid I cannot help you, but I would like to add another question to your list. I myself are interested in having TB! installed as a server on machine A, and on machine B run TB! with two accounts, one which should connect to the server as a non tcp/ip workstation, the other which should work as a generic email client. As I have understood it this is not possible, but hopefully I'm wrong. Or am I? -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ss [S] wrote: S Reason is dead simple - I have one main PC (the server) where most S of the mailing stuff gets done (will be done), but I have another PC S in the bedroom, on which I would lazy over on Sundays and send mail S from it rather than bother to go in the study. And finally I have a S laptop, which ideally I would like to synchronize with latest mail S messages before going out - just to refer to them. (I doubt I would S be able to post while away and then further sync the laptop msg base S with the server msg base - with new messages which it has received S while laptop was away) Please Backup before trying any of this! It's possible to have two pc's with a TB! installation using the same message bases and accounts. If you go to Options//Preferences and go to the System section. The first option is the location for the Mail Directory. On your pc in the bedroom, you can make the TB! installation use the same Mail directory on the server. You have to have the necessary OS permissions setup so that the PC in the bedroom does have access to the necessary share drive which the Server mail directory resides. You can then close down TB! on the client PC. Open regedit.exe and navigate to HKCU/Software/Rit/The Bat! Look for the entry: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\rit\The Bat!\\Working Directory The Working directory is the same as the Mail Directory. Change it to the path to the mail directory on the server. Exit Regedit.exe and restart TB!. It should now use the mail directory on the server. If you simply change the Mail directory via the TB! interface, TB! will attempt to move it's current mail directory to the new location you specify which isn't what you want. S Ok, for the laptop bit I am probably asking too much, but how about S the server and workstation being able to see all sets of mail S accounts and mail from all of them (so all user will be S administrators). The only way to do this is to synchronise the installation or use an external application to synchronise the Mail directories for the server and the laptop. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+bxblV8nrYCsHF+IRAjs/AKChp28H5kqZ4F7P9ZJNI0DZ3PXuYgCg/muu G8RjF+d0JbFHtYmJmGr7y08= =F0Dt -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 6:15 AM, you wrote: AMThe only way to do this is to synchronise the installation or use an AMexternal application to synchronise the Mail directories for the AMserver and the laptop. this synchro process isn't exactly meeting my needs, or I'm not able to do it right. For simplicity sake, say I have 2 accounts HOME WORK. I get most of my mail from the HOME account, but need access to both, and use the WORK account most when traveling, but still want to read HOME account on the road ( 2 weeks away at a time). Last time I tried the synchro it took 15 floppies, because of the size of the HOME account. Now I realize that the HOME account is just the TBB and TBI files, right? so to synchro it has to copy the whole account. Maybe I just to preview the HOME account mail while on the road, maybe I'm going about it the wrong way, any ideas??? -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
Hello Allie, Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 11:15:48 AM, you wrote: (large ship) (to save bytes, you know :-) AMHKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\rit\The Bat!\\Working Directory Thank you very much for the hot tip... AMIf you simply change the Mail directory via the TB! interface, TB! AMwill attempt to move it's current mail directory to the new location AMyou specify which isn't what you want. ...and for this clarification! At the end of the day, whoever wants full server functionality, buys a server... It is fortunate enough that TB has such features, allowing sharing of mail base between two clients. What I just need a word for is, is your hint applicable to a PC confgured with TB in server mode. In other words, is the TB in server and workstation mode keeping the messages (or msg bases) in one and the same way, please? Thanks in advance -- Best regards, SS mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] a server is not a server... Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
ON Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 12:15:48 PM, you wrote: AM It's possible to have two pc's with a TB! installation using the same AMmessage bases and accounts. Hi Allie, Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time? -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= What was that sharp, cracking sound I heard ? asked the Oldest Member. That was the vicar smashing his putter. ==P.G Wodehouse - CHESTER FORGETS HIMSELF == Using The Bat! v1.62h on 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: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Cartwright [PC] wrote: PC this synchro process isn't exactly meeting my needs, or I'm not able PC to do it right. For simplicity sake, say I have 2 accounts HOME PC WORK. I get most of my mail from the HOME account, but need access PC to both, and use the WORK account most when traveling, but still PC want to read HOME account on the road ( 2 weeks away at a time). PC Last time I tried the synchro it took 15 floppies, because of the PC size of the HOME account. Wow! Still trying to use floppies for this sort of thing? :) It will really be frustrating then. A rewriteable CD would be better.. or a zip disk. I guess you don't have either, so you have to struggle with that inconvenience. :/ Is there no way you can network the systems when they're together. That's really the way to go. I started doing that way too late. PC Now I realize that the HOME account is just the TBB and TBI files, PC right? No. Those are only the message base and message base index file. There's one of those files in every folder for the account. The account also contains specific configuration data files etc. PC so to synchro it has to copy the whole account. That would be best if you wish to use the templates etc. associated with the account. PC Maybe I just to preview the HOME account mail while on the road, PC maybe I'm going about it the wrong way, any ideas??? Other than expanding your capabilities to transfer data more efficiently from one machine to the next than with floppies? No. :/ Networking your machines can be a tremendous investment. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+b+jkV8nrYCsHF+IRAuHHAJ4xRI8YVQAhBYytXTTRytHRrUTcRACePZkX QyxUnhuvWnkZoMYatKDiMlc= =nWVK -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ss [S] wrote: S (large ship) (to save bytes, you know :-) AMHKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\rit\The Bat!\\Working Directory S Thank you very much for the hot tip... You're welcome. :) AMIf you simply change the Mail directory via the TB! interface, TB! AMwill attempt to move it's current mail directory to the new location AMyou specify which isn't what you want. S ...and for this clarification! S At the end of the day, whoever wants full server functionality, buys S a server... It is fortunate enough that TB has such features, S allowing sharing of mail base between two clients. Yes. If you point both installations to the same mail directory, they'll merrily use it as if it were their own. S What I just need a word for is, is your hint applicable to a PC S confgured with TB in server mode. In other words, is the TB in server S and workstation mode keeping the messages (or msg bases) in one and S the same way, please? I'd certainly assume so. The fact that the installation is in server mode shouldn't affect how it works when being directly manipulated. I got this from the help: , |The Bat! in server mode can replace a mail server for such a network. |This means that it enables you not to need a mail server inside your |local network and, moreover, it gives users the possibility of |processing E-Mail exchange over the Internet without having their own |Internet connection. A computer with The Bat! in server mode is |basically the same as in stand-alone mode with the addition of the use |of its own Internet connection to provide E-Mail exchange with computers |with The Bat! in the client mode over the network and/or the Internet. '|| There's more there under the help section 'Mailing Within the Internet'//'Network and Administration'//'The Bat! Networking Course' - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+b+v8V8nrYCsHF+IRAvJuAJ9oXAQpeRMeDMvxlWYTaMObt7pqmACg5BOO 44OzL1J3jsVdLFhL6/4ceFk= =iBqX -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gerard [G] wrote: G Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same G time? Since I haven't tried it, I'm not sure. I hope someone with such a setup can step in here and share their experience. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+b+xBV8nrYCsHF+IRAvN4AKDuXa1qZzwnU3yh/sL4FttXkosYkwCfcCmN PVuVZKrPWwR5e7TSX3VN7qU= =vfl0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote: MO I myself are interested in having TB! installed as a server on MO machine A, and on machine B run TB! with two accounts, one which MO should connect to the server as a non tcp/ip workstation, the other MO which should work as a generic email client. MO As I have understood it this is not possible, but hopefully I'm MO wrong. Or am I? It is possible. Take a look in the help section 'Mailing Within the Internet'//'Network and Administration'//'The Bat! Networking Course A detailed description of how to do what you seem to want to do is outlined there. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iD8DBQE+b+0dV8nrYCsHF+IRAkSnAJ4sSuKRfE2tt3jBkztW4Tl7NGrMxACghK2M +y7EY1P6QtPG/h+Qr/rxQr4= =lnye -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: when a server is not a server...
Hello Gerard, On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:30:21 +0100 GMT (12/03/03, 22:30 +0700 GMT), Gerard wrote: AM It's possible to have two pc's with a TB! installation using the AM same message bases and accounts. Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time? Loss of data integrity, corruption or loss of data. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. POLICE STATION TOILET STOLEN Cops have nothing to go on. 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: when a server is not a server...
Hi I've been happily sharing the folder where I have my The Bat e-mails using MS-Networking. Then I install TB in another PC on the local net, I create a new account and I browse over to other computer and use those files, too. It works great and no special setup is needed :) Roberto Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 9:39:22 PM, you wrote: I am struggling over a question on the server functionality of TB. I understand (I think) that in standalone mode TB collects and shows you your email (like for most of us), in non-TCP mode acts as an internal workgroup mail client (whatever) and lastly in server mode delivers mail to other TB clients acting as a server (transport) to the real mail server at the ISP end. At the same time the server box can and does act as a mail client itself... Correct? In any case, what I am interested to do is have a server mode Bat running on a given PC and then 2 more workstation connecting to it, but all being able to see one and the same set of accounts. Reason is dead simple - I have one main PC (the server) where most of the mailing stuff gets done (will be done), but I have another PC in the bedroom, on which I would lazy over on Sundays and send mail from it rather than bother to go in the study. And finally I have a laptop, which ideally I would like to synchronize with latest mail messages before going out - just to refer to them. (I doubt I would be able to post while away and then further sync the laptop msg base with the server msg base - with new messages which it has received while laptop was away) Ok, for the laptop bit I am probably asking too much, but how about the server and workstation being able to see all sets of mail accounts and mail from all of them (so all user will be administrators)? Or is this actually achievable if I have the standalone client installed on different PCs, but the msg base residing on a shared folder - then all I need to do is making sure that I close one client before starting the other? How about that? Thanks in advance for any help/opinion/sharing of experience. -- Roberto Machorro [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://machorro.net/roberto/ Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
