Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[John Phillips]

Hi Ted,
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, at 17:45:30 [GMT+1100] (which was 17:45:30 Australian
Eastern Time) you wrote:

> Anyone out there that is using TB with Nod32 as AV?
> I just noticed that while most of my emails are obviously scanned by
> NOD and do show their proper tag at the bottom, some other emails seem
> to be either ignored or do not have the tag (confirming the scan).


All works ok here, even with .jpg attachments.

-- 
John Phillips, Sydney, Australia

Using The Bat! v3.65.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build  2600
Service Pack 2 

I'm not nearly as think as you confused I am.




Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[4]: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Graham Smith]

Hello Ted,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 12:48:04 PM, you wrote:

> On 1/20/06, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> That is strange, because the contents of that message contains a
>> signature:
>>
>> "Tom
>> using TB 3.6503 Home on XP with NOD32"

> Sorry, did not want to confuse you. I am using TB but not when writing
> to this list. I have not yet properly configured the Gmail account
> with TB and write this from within Gmail.

The key point is that of the email messages in this thread, yours are
the only ones that NOD32 isn't tagging.

I cannot help with the other question, being very new to The Bat

-- 
Graham



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Re[2]: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Ted Dane]

On 1/20/06, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That is strange, because the contents of that message contains a
> signature:
>
> "Tom
> using TB 3.6503 Home on XP with NOD32"

Sorry, did not want to confuse you. I am using TB but not when writing
to this list. I have not yet properly configured the Gmail account
with TB and write this from within Gmail.
BTW, why is there a function in the list to have the email address
hidden, when this is obviously not happening. I checked a few times by
reply via email to ... and was able to see the underlying address.  Is
this normal?

--
Tom


Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Ted Dane]

On 1/20/06, Alexander S. Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Could it be that these messages are multiparted (with attachments, signed,
> html format)? If so, the scanner may not be able to add its tagline to the
> readable part of the message.

Not sure how to answer this. Most of my emails (A) only contain text
and sometimes attachments (xls or doc or jpg). These attachments would
be shown in the pane as an icon and have only text in the main pane.
Some emails (B)  would have text and the attachment as an html
picture. In these case I may have two tabs in the main pane, one for
text and one for the html picture. If I click on this Ican see the
picture in TB without opening any other viewer.
In both cases (A&B) I have the NOD tag shown.

The email in question (C) contained text and about a dozen jpg files
as attachments. All of them also have tabs in the main pane and can be
viewed directly. In this case no NOD tag is shown.  Looking at the
text though I think there may be a problem as it looks weird :

Our BP specification is:
  Key Specifications/Special Features:

  O Automatic and fast accurate measurement

  OHave time setting function

  OHave auto average function

and so on. I guess the O does not belong there and indicates some
incorrect coding.

--
Tom


Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Graham Smith]

Hello Roelof,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 12:39:18 PM, you wrote:

> Hallo Graham,

> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:32:53 +GMT (20-1-2006, 12:32 +0100, where I
> live), you wrote:

GS Ok, the the message that started the thread off from Ted isn't tagged.
>>> And that was the only non TB message.
GS>> That is strange, because the contents of that message contains a
GS>> signature:

GS>> "Tom
GS>> using TB 3.6503 Home on XP with NOD32"

> Nonetheless. His message id is definitely not generated by TB.


Yes, I don't disbelieve you, just pointing it out :-)

-- 
Graham



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Graham,

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:32:53 +GMT (20-1-2006, 12:32 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

GS>>> Ok, the the message that started the thread off from Ted isn't tagged.
>> And that was the only non TB message.
GS> That is strange, because the contents of that message contains a
GS> signature:

GS> "Tom
GS> using TB 3.6503 Home on XP with NOD32"

Nonetheless. His message id is definitely not generated by TB.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

WinErr: 019 User error - Not our fault. Is Not! Is Not!

The Bat! 3.65.04
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgpseilx82dx7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Graham Smith]

Hello Roelof,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 11:09:24 AM, you wrote:

> Hallo Graham,

> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:58:54 +GMT (20-1-2006, 11:58 +0100, where I
> live), you wrote:

GS>> Ok, the the message that started the thread off from Ted isn't tagged.

> And that was the only non TB message. And it was carrying these
> headers:
> ,- [  ]
> | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> | Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> | Content-Disposition: inline
> `-

> So Nod32 might have problems with one of those headers.


That is strange, because the contents of that message contains a
signature:

"Tom
using TB 3.6503 Home on XP with NOD32"

-- 
Graham



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Graham,

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:58:54 +GMT (20-1-2006, 11:58 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

GS> Ok, the the message that started the thread off from Ted isn't tagged.

And that was the only non TB message. And it was carrying these
headers:
,- [  ]
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
| Content-Disposition: inline
`-

So Nod32 might have problems with one of those headers.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

'95 - The number of calls to tech support before you can get it to run

The Bat! 3.65.04
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgpcRqHBQriJi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Graham Smith]

Hello Roelof,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 10:25:20 AM, you wrote:

> Hallo Graham,

> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:11:57 +GMT (20-1-2006, 11:11 +0100, where I
> live), you wrote:

GS>> I haven't set NOD32 to do anything specific, but of this thread, two
GS>> messages aren't tagged (including the root message) and the rest are.

> Be more specific please.
> Of this thread only my message contains attachments, is that part of
> the problem? The rest were plain text messages.
> All messages claimed to be using us-ascii as charset and 7 bits as
> content type, except for yours. (And mine only claimed that in the
> description of the attachments.)



Ok, the the message that started the thread off from Ted isn't tagged.

I also thought that your response to Ted wasn't tagged, but in fact it
is, but in a separate tab "Part.txt"

So in this thread, only the original message from Ted isn't tagged.


-- 
Graham



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Graham,

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:11:57 +GMT (20-1-2006, 11:11 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

GS> I haven't set NOD32 to do anything specific, but of this thread, two
GS> messages aren't tagged (including the root message) and the rest are.

Be more specific please.
Of this thread only my message contains attachments, is that part of
the problem? The rest were plain text messages.
All messages claimed to be using us-ascii as charset and 7 bits as
content type, except for yours. (And mine only claimed that in the
description of the attachments.)


-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Error 99: Dead mouse in hard drive.

The Bat! 3.65.04
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgpaEdQTrWqIi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Graham Smith]

Hello Mark,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 10:05:02 AM, you wrote:

> Hello Graham,

> Friday, January 20, 2006, 9:33:12 AM, you wrote:

>>> Anyone out there that is using TB with Nod32 as AV?
>>> I just noticed that while most of my emails are obviously scanned by
>>> NOD and do show their proper tag at the bottom, some other emails seem
>>> to be either ignored or do not have the tag (confirming the scan).

GS>> Same here, and I hadn't noticed it before, but as you say some emails
GS>> are tagged by NOD32 and others aren't.

> I have set Nod32 to only tag those messages that contained/had attachments
> containing viri.

I haven't set NOD32 to do anything specific, but of this thread, two
messages aren't tagged (including the root message) and the rest are.



-- 
Graham



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Mark Partous]

Hello Graham,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 9:33:12 AM, you wrote:

>> Anyone out there that is using TB with Nod32 as AV?
>> I just noticed that while most of my emails are obviously scanned by
>> NOD and do show their proper tag at the bottom, some other emails seem
>> to be either ignored or do not have the tag (confirming the scan).

GS> Same here, and I hadn't noticed it before, but as you say some emails
GS> are tagged by NOD32 and others aren't.

I have set Nod32 to only tag those messages that contained/had attachments
containing viri.


-- 
Best Wishes,
Mark
using The Bat! 3.65.04





Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Ted Dane & everyone else,

on 20-Jan-2006 at 07:45 you (Ted Dane) wrote:

> Anyone out there that is using TB with Nod32 as AV?
> I just noticed that while most of my emails are obviously scanned by
> NOD and do show their proper tag at the bottom, some other emails seem
> to be either ignored or do not have the tag (confirming the scan).

Could it be that these messages are multiparted (with attachments, signed,
html format)? If so, the scanner may not be able to add its tagline to the
readable part of the message.

> --
> Tom

That sig delimiter ain't working, its missing a trailing whitespace. :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

History is more or less bunk. -- Henry Ford



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Ted,

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:45:30 +1100GMT (20-1-2006, 7:45 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

TD> Btw, is there a security issue of reading emails in HTML when using
TD> TB.

No. TB doesn't execute any included scripts nor does it display any
files that aren't sent along with the message as it's unable to let the
viewer connect to non included elements.

TD> I know some users are plaintext purists but I am just wondering
TD> about the security issue in this respect? Any info is greatly
TD> appreciated

Me being such a purist like you mentioned above also means that it
would really bother me to have my virus scanner include signatures to
incoming mail (and to outgoing mails they don't make any sense at all)
that I'm not knowledgeable at all about what could cause a feature
like that to function or not. (Apart from that I don't use Nod32)

But I guess they could be right on the Nod32 forum. I'd check what
those non-tagged messages have in common:
sender/mailer/attachments/html/originating ISP/whatever

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Windows! The magic of turning a 486 into a Gameboy!

The Bat! 3.65.04
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgp1V1K3AvBoO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Graham Smith]

Hello Ted,

Friday, January 20, 2006, 6:45:30 AM, you wrote:

> Anyone out there that is using TB with Nod32 as AV?
> I just noticed that while most of my emails are obviously scanned by
> NOD and do show their proper tag at the bottom, some other emails seem
> to be either ignored or do not have the tag (confirming the scan).

Same here, and I hadn't noticed it before, but as you say some emails
are tagged by NOD32 and others aren't.

-- 
Graham



Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

TB, Nod32 and email tags

[Ted Dane]

Anyone out there that is using TB with Nod32 as AV?
I just noticed that while most of my emails are obviously scanned by
NOD and do show their proper tag at the bottom, some other emails seem
to be either ignored or do not have the tag (confirming the scan).

One email was received yesterday and included about a dozen jpg.files.
I checked the body of the email for the scan info and when I did not
see it, looked at the source code - again without success.

I then send the same email to me at a different address and opened it
with Opera. Here I could see now the scan info, however I assume this
relates to the redirected email not the original.

I checked on the NOD forum and one suggestion I received was that the
email as HTML might contain coding errors thus causing the tag not to
appear?

Anyone here with some experience or explanation?

Btw, is there a security issue of reading emails in HTML when using
TB. I know some users are plaintext purists but I am just wondering
about the security issue in this respect? Any info is greatly
appreciated

--
Tom
using TB 3.6503 Home on XP with NOD32


Current version is 3.65.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Mica Mijatovic]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

   ***^\ ."_)~~
 ~( __ _"o   Was another beautiful day, Wed, 17 Nov 2004,
   @  @  at 10:08:07 +0100, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

> Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's
> always by Villa-Lobos? -- Igor Stravinsky

Ah, Stravinsky... clang-clang... plink-boink... thud...

- --
Mica
PGP key uploaded at:  once just before breakfast
:happypiglet:
[Earth LOG: 77 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing]
OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium
with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1 UMSDOS Linux, and with Bochs 2.1.1
with a small DLX Linux;
and, for TB sometimes Libranet (Linux) 2.8.1, via Cross Over Office
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQFBm0Lc9q62QPd3XuIRAkxLAJ9s2iBlppfw7i8Tl5auGMD4astLIgCfUYsu
VVpW8UL/fCqb1kDwi7zeSqU=
=6kVq
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Super & everyone else

on 16-Nov-2004 at 01:09:53 (GMT +0100), you wrote:

> QUICKLY! Go back to C:\WINDOWS (another Backspace) and paste the file
> there.

Hint: if you boot in Safe mode you don't have to hurry.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
 using TB! v3.0.2.7 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2

Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's
always by Villa-Lobos? -- Igor Stravinsky



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Tags...

[John Morse]

Edxor has more features than MetaPad

Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 10:14:21 AM, you wrote:
S> Was it 15. novembar 2004 when Cristina wrote:
CR>> I don't know EDXOR, but I use NOTESPAD which allows you to open larger
S> I'm using the Metapad which has no filesize limit, bunch of features,
S> multilanguage support and a lot, lot more... and all that in 94kb!
S> Check it out on http://liquidninja.com/metapad/



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Super]

Was it 15. novembar 2004 when Cristina wrote:

CR> I don't know EDXOR, but I use NOTESPAD which allows you to open larger

I'm using the Metapad which has no filesize limit, bunch of features,
multilanguage support and a lot, lot more... and all that in 94kb!
Check it out on http://liquidninja.com/metapad/

Or maybe you could be interested in sligtly bigger but powerful TextEd
Short review: http://www.varnus.com/site/products/texted/index.htm
 
CR> In Windows 98 I had it renamed notepad.exe too. But in XP I can't.

This is what it says in the Metapad's FAQ (and it worked for me):

Q:  How do I replace notepad under Windows XP?
A:  System File Protection is in full effect. This is what worked for
me (but not many others):

Locate the filelist.xml file in the WINDOWS\system32\Restore folder
and back up a copy of it. Open this file in Notepad and look in this
section:

%windir%\system.ini
%windir%\tasks\desktop.ini
%windir%\win.ini
*:\AUTOEXEC.BAT
*:\CONFIG.MSI
*:\CONFIG.SYS

  
Add the line:
%windir%\notepad.exe

to the list of Excluded files. Now you should be able to overwrite notepad.exe.

You can also try the following to get around System File Protection.
Be very quick or XP will replace the file and it won't work. Make sure
you don't have the WinXP CD-ROM in your drive!

Copy metapad renamed as Notepad.exe to the clipboard. 
Go to C:\WINDOWS\System32\dllcache 
Paste the file there. 
Go to C:\WINDOWS\System32 (using Backspace) 
Paste the file there. 
QUICKLY! Go back to C:\WINDOWS (another Backspace) and paste the file there.
 
If you have done this correctly, a message should pop up saying that a
bad version of a Windows System file has been installed. Make sure you
select 'Keep this file' or a similar option. If it doesn't work, keep
trying, because it will. Just do the two pastes very fast.



-- 
   ( Good Vibrations )
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ICQ:271599808

[M] Painting, n.:
The art of protecting flat surfaces from the weather,
and exposing them to the critic.
- Ambrose Bierce



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Chris]

Cristina Ramos @ 2004-Nov-15 4:14:39 PM
"Tags..." <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> In Windows 98 I had it renamed notepad.exe too. But in XP I can't.
> Whenever I delete notepad.exe (in order to rename notespad.exe to
> notepad.exe) it ressurects immediately.

That is the system file protection kicking in. It won't let you modify
any system files. There is some way to turn it off, but I don't
remember right now. Try a search on the Internet...


-- 
Chris
Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma.

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
Accessing a POP3 mailbox.

There are 10 types of people in this world: those you can read binary
and those who can't.


pgpMABgSBdH3U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Cristina Ramos]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Thomas,

On 13 November 2004 at 18:33:31GMT +0700 (which was 11:33 where I
live) Thomas Fernandez wrote and made these points on the subject of
"Tags...":

TF> Sounds good. Vim is really an overkill for what I use it for, so I
TF> will try EDXOR.


I don't know EDXOR, but I use NOTESPAD which allows you to open larger
files and several at the same time (they appear tabbed).

http://www.newbie.com/NotesPad/notespad_32.html

In Windows 98 I had it renamed notepad.exe too. But in XP I can't.
Whenever I delete notepad.exe (in order to rename notespad.exe to
notepad.exe) it ressurects immediately.

- --
Best regards,
 Cristina in Lisbon, Portugal :flag-portugal:
 The BAT! 3.0.2.5

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2
Comment: ""

iQA/AwUBQZkcSVPsaxtteqJVEQLPmwCfbfdti9CEYnwAvTWPzzA4eSxvhrUAoJz7
m8CBR4ikwTo+0hlKYJ5pmULC
=nOt+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Mica,

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:06:16 +0100 GMT (12/11/2004, 23:06 +0700 GMT),
Mica Mijatovic wrote:

MM> You perhaps would like to use EDXOR as replacement for Notepad, since it
MM> will open txt files of any size, and is very fast (surely faster than
MM> Vim). It's only about 30 KB, and I have it renamed in "Notepad" in my
MM> Win Dir. No installation needed.

Sounds good. Vim is really an overkill for what I use it for, so I
will try EDXOR.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

- MAN WANTED TO WORK IN DYNAMITE FACTORY. MUST BE WILLING TO TRAVEL.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.4 Rush
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: Tags...

[Mica Mijatovic]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

   ***^\ ."_)~~
 ~( __ _"o   Was another beautiful day, Fri, 12 Nov 2004,
   @  @  at 19:10:34 +0700, when Thomas Fernandez wrote:

> Gee, the "kids talk" cookies are spread out all over my cookie file,
> which is so big that Notepad can't handle it and I installed (and
> learned to use) ViM. And my cookie file is the result of years of
> websurfing and c&p'ing any such sentence I like, so it's not really
> for sale. ;-)

You perhaps would like to use EDXOR as replacement for Notepad, since it
will open txt files of any size, and is very fast (surely faster than
Vim). It's only about 30 KB, and I have it renamed in "Notepad" in my
Win Dir. No installation needed.

- --
Mica
PGP key uploaded at:  once just before breakfast
:happypiglet:
[Earth LOG: 72 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing]
OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium
with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1 UMSDOS Linux, and with Bochs 2.1.1
with a small DLX Linux;
and, for TB sometimes Libranet (Linux) 2.8.1, via Cross Over Office
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQFBlN939q62QPd3XuIRAoMnAJ0TsJV2IHlH99vRebVSG+dEaGFy1gCdFq2t
IK/jsPxDR7EDv2lHvVjBuY8=
=h0MW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Tags...

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Super,

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:11:25 +0100 GMT (11/11/2004, 22:11 +0700 GMT),
Super wrote:

S>   And I was wondering, is there any chance to send me those? Please?
S>   Thanks...

Gee, the "kids talk" cookies are spread out all over my cookie file,
which is so big that Notepad can't handle it and I installed (and
learned to use) ViM. And my cookie file is the result of years of
websurfing and c&p'ing any such sentence I like, so it's not really
for sale. ;-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

"When you breath, you inspire. When you do not breath, you expire."

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.4 Rush
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[3]: Filtering on HTML tags?

[jwayne]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 8:54:53 PM, Munango-Keewati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

MK> On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 5:47:22 PM, you wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 6:35:48 PM, Munango-Keewati
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

MK>>> Hello TBUDL,

MK>>> Is it possible to filter on HTML tags, such as "" or ">> been trying without success, using the Text setting.  Doesn't the
MK>>> filter run on raw text, without regard for what is or isn't displayed?

MK>>> Any help appreciated.  Thanks.

>> Works for me.

>> jon

MK> Any suggestions on why this doesn't work?

MK> BeginFilter
(snip)

I apologize. I was doing text searches which did work and did not test filters.

jon
-- 
 jwayne  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Filtering on HTML tags?

[Munango-Keewati]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 5:47:22 PM, you wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 6:35:48 PM, Munango-Keewati
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

MK>> Hello TBUDL,

MK>> Is it possible to filter on HTML tags, such as "" or "> been trying without success, using the Text setting.  Doesn't the
MK>> filter run on raw text, without regard for what is or isn't displayed?

MK>> Any help appreciated.  Thanks.

> Works for me.

> jon

Any suggestions on why this doesn't work?

BeginFilter
Name: HTML
Active: 1
Source: \\Treasure Mountain\Inbox
Target: \\Treasure Mountain\Spam
CopyFolder: none
MainSet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AltSet:1: 30
AltSet:2: 20=?iso
AltSet:3: 30
AddAddrItems: afiFrom,
DelAddrItems: afiFrom,
HotKey: 0
IsOfColour: 
SizeBigger: 0
SizeSmaller: 0
AgeOlder: 0
AgeNewer: 0
InAddrPos: 0
OutAddrPos: 0
InAddrGroups: 
NoAddrGroups: 
KillFile: 
KillMethod: 0
SaveTemplate: 
SndFile: 
SysSound: 48
SoundTime: 0:00-0:00
AllowTime: 0:00-0:00
EndFilter

Thanks!
-- 
Best,

M-K
Using The Bat! v2.02.3 CE on Windows 98 4.10 Build   A 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA --
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the state."--Heinrich Himmler



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Filtering on HTML tags?

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Hi Munango-Keewati,

@24-Dec-2003, 17:35 -0600 (24-Dec 23:35 UK time) Munango-Keewati
said to TBUDL:

> Is it possible to filter on HTML tags, such as "" or " I've been trying without success, using the Text setting.  Doesn't
> the filter run on raw text, without regard for what is or isn't
> displayed?

It runs on raw text, yes indeed. Aye, there's the rub. The HTML tags
are normally *within an attachment*. Filters do not currently look
within attachments.

-- 
Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
TB! v2.03 Beta/22 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1
'


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Filtering on HTML tags?

[jwayne]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 6:35:48 PM, Munango-Keewati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

MK> Hello TBUDL,

MK> Is it possible to filter on HTML tags, such as "" or " been trying without success, using the Text setting.  Doesn't the
MK> filter run on raw text, without regard for what is or isn't displayed?

MK> Any help appreciated.  Thanks.

Works for me.

jon

-- 
 jwayne  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Filtering on HTML tags?

[Munango-Keewati]

Hello TBUDL,

Is it possible to filter on HTML tags, such as "" or "http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

[LR]: If topic ID were limted to 10 codes - Message prefix tags for subject - List Rules - proposal

[Jamie Dainton]

Hello Jan Rifkinson,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:56:00 -0400 GMT your local time,
which was Monday, October 23, 2000, 13:56:00 (GMT+0100) (BST) my local time,

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

JR>   Humor  aside, I belong to other lists where this sort of
JR>   system is used. For whatever it's value, I must tell you
JR>   it's  a  PITA  because its just *another* code to try to
JR>   remember.  In  additon  many (most) didn't use the codes
JR>   accurately  so  we  were right back @ the starting gate.
JR>   Personally  I  think  the list members here are literate
JR>   enough   to   come  up  with  "meaningful  subjects"  as
JR>   requested by one of the moderators. Just my $.02

I'm also on other lists where this system is used. Mainly to set an ID
so that certain mail never reaches your mailbox. If we limited it to
just ten codes it would be perfectly feasible. The slower members of
the list could print it off and stick it by their monitor. *Most* TB
users or at least the ones on this list seem pretty bright. I'm sure
that remembering a few codes isn't beyond them.

Even if this system ever was implemented we would still need to have
proper meaningful subjects.

-- 
 Jamie Dainton  
 On Monday, October 23, 2000 at 14:39:12  
 The Bat! 1.47 Beta/5
 Windows 98 4.10 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=sendKey
 
 As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org