Subject: Re: The "FINDER.DAT" bug with Retro 4.3
From: "Irena Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:40:17 -0800
snip
If you move one of these Macintosh files on a Windows computer, it is
unusable unless you also move the other files and folder. When you use a
Retrospect Browser
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect it would occur if either the files in
the "RESOURCE.FRK" folder were deleted or the data file were modified
/P
Subject: Re: The "FINDER.DAT" bug with Retro 4.3
From: "Irena Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:40:17 -0800
snip
Hi,
Retrospect scans the Windows hard disk and looks for files that need to be
backed up.
In this process we look for finder.dat files and the files that correspond
with that finder.dat.
Example:
I copy 10 Macintosh files to the Windows hard disk. They are all located in
a directory called
Did you add the clients originally by specifying the IP address?
If so, you will have to "forget" the client, and then add them again.
Fortunately, you don't have to remake the backup set, the incremental backups
will continue as usual, just add the clients to your backup script.
Hope this
Shortcut: from the Client properties window you can change the access method
from the Access tab. This approach won't delete them from your scripts, so
you'll save that step.
HTH,
Irena Solomon
Dantz Technical Support
From: Philip Chonacky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Recognizing Clients
On 2/27/01 10:12 AM, "Sara M" wrote:
Since I have
reconfigured all ip address, I am unable to see all 3 clients machines. The
client machines are NT boxes running client version 5.1. I would like to
keep the existing back up set if possible. Any advise or knowledge to
accomplish is
Howdy:
I've recently installed Retrospect 5.15 and I am having problems adding network
volumes into the volumes database. I am running the program under NT 4.0 Server
(service pack 6a) while logged in as the domain administrator.
Specifically, some shares will not get added to the Volumes
on 2/27/01 7:11 AM, "Todd Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric,
Thanks for your reply. What I would like to know is what kind of computing
horsepower is necessary to crack SimpleCrypt's encryption protection?
If someone acquired a tape from me that was encrypted, what kind of
resources
Title: Re: Encryption protection
You're kidding, aren't you...? Better to think about moving
away
from the canal and up to some high ground...or to a state that
isn't
sliding into the ocean so soon...
Seriously, physical security should always be your first
priority.
Suppose someone decides
On 2/27/2001 9:19 AM, "Todd Reed" wrote:
The backup failed as it was restoring the system folder on the powerbook
with multiple sharing violations - fonts, control strip modules, extensions
and more fonts. Finally the network failed, I guess because something
important got overwritten or
Todd Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your reply. What I would like to know is what kind of computing
horsepower is necessary to crack SimpleCrypt's encryption protection?
If someone acquired a tape from me that was encrypted, what kind of
resources would it take to get into the
on 2/27/01 10:31 PM, "Eric Ullman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is definitely an issue with encryption. Cracking various encryption
methods is really only a question of time, computing power, and some luck.
Heck, I thought DES was cracked in 1998!
I'm not sure the exact date it was cracked,
12 matches
Mail list logo
