Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello TheOneWhoKnowsWhoHeIsButKeepsForgettingHisName, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:45:08 AM, you wrote: I * God I hope everyone on the list gets my [warped and coffee-induced] brand of humor I or I'm in for a serious beating any day now. Now you start talking to yourself! -- Best Wishes, Mark Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: 3.99.14: Loosing filters?
Hello Maxim, As requested by Stephan, I have sent him the ACCOUNT.SRB file. Thank you, please keep in touch with him about this issue. New comments added in BT. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Problem with Mapi under Vista
Hello Indie_dev, Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 22:33:37, you wrote: Are there any plans to fix this problem with Mapi and Vista? I am using Vista Ultimate and ran into the same problem. I had to resort to the registry hack in the thread below to fix it. http://www.ritlabs.com/en/forum/read.php?FID=4TID=4866MID=18662phrase_id=336181#message18662 Thank you, we have just fixed the problem 'cannot open the file mailto:; error message'. -- Best regards, Maxim Masiutinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Zygmunt, Cannot find a quick template TyEn On Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 22:11:09 [UTC+0200] (Tuesday, August 21, 2007 22:11 my local time) Robert van der Hulst wrote: [...] The Bat! knows nothing about the the receiving in that program. The Bat! uses current date and set it as 'receive' date. When you retrieve (not import) messages from the archive, you retrieve all information, including receive date for each message. That is not completely true. TB could extract the date from the 'Received' headers in the email. For example your message has the following Received headers in my message base: Of course, The Bat! could use last Received date form the message header, but as you know, this is the date when the message arrived to the server. When you connect to the server tomorrow, The Bat! will receive the message and write internally the tomorrow date as 'receiving' date. From this point of view all is logically correct. You would be right if we were talking about receiving mails from a server. But in case of importing mails from other clients, this approach produces an undesired result. But I would argue about the first paragraph quoted here: when importing, The Bat! *could* access information about when the message was received by other client. It's not in emails' headers, but it exists in the other client's binary part of massage base. Of course this would involve in doing reverse-engineering of such foreign message base files, but at least in some cases I believe the documentation exist. Certainly it should be possible to import information about received time from Thunderbird message base (since it's open source). Also from Outlook it should be simple (many tools exist that mangle with Outlook files). And another bug is, that before importing user is not warned that he will in fact *loose* some information. Just changing an email client is not a good reason to loose the information about when I received the email. -- Yes, *I* received an email (using my email client). Not TheBat received an email, not Thunderbird, etc. *I* received the email in a client I was using at that time. How's this point of view to you all? -- Krzysztof Trybowski Gadu-Gadu: 1458144 --- Skype: trybowski AQQ: 141062 --- ICQ: 4350719 --- gpg key-id: 0xC937B0F2 Using The Bat! 3.99.8 [reg] under Windows XP 5.1 build 2600. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hi, In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : I 1) Why is there no 'Delete All' option when you click on the I attachment tab in the viewer page? If there are several attachments I and you want to delete them, you have to repeat the 'Delete' action I numerous times. God help you if some relative decides to send you a I ton of pictures of their new baby voted most likely to be the next I anti-Christ. That means in order to delete 24 pictures of the next I anti-Christ, you have to do a total of (24*3) clicks. That, to me, is I patently unacceptable. You can select all you need to delete and just hit del! :) So there's really no point to have a delete all, I guess. -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias I think I'm gonna, Puke. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Problem with Mapi under Vista
Hello Maxim, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 4:11:16 AM, you wrote: Thank you, we have just fixed the problem 'cannot open the file mailto:; error message'. I am continuing to have problem with mapi under Windows XP Professional. When I use the version which is provided with The Bat, it creates all sorts of problems with my Blackberry RIM software. When I run, fixmapi, the result is problems cannot connect with The Bat to send the file. MSWord 2007 is a good example. Not sure what to do next. I really wish The Bat had a better Mapi solution. Jerry -- Best regards, Ethanmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Delete All vs Select All in attachement pane (was: Interface Inconsistencies)
Indie_Dev wrote on 22/08/2007 at 07:42:45 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : 1) Why is there no 'Delete All' option when you click on the attachment tab in the viewer page? If there are several attachments and you want to delete them, you have to repeat the 'Delete' action numerous times. God help you if some relative decides to send you a ton of pictures of their new baby voted most likely to be the next anti-Christ. That means in order to delete 24 pictures of the next anti-Christ, you have to do a total of (24*3) clicks. That, to me, is patently unacceptable. You only need 3 clicks. One to select the first attachment, a second one (shift+click) on the last attachment and _all_ (no matter the number) will then be selected. Then, right click and select delete. Once again, I am _aware_ of the use of [undocumented] hotkeys. This is not an undocumented hotkey. It's normal Windows feature. Each Windows user is supposed to know this. Was I talking about hotkeys? No. I was talking about the interface GUI in terms of _usability_. I have a hand holding the mouse. Using that hand, I can do some tasks (delete one) but not the other (delete all) when in fact it makes _no_ sense that I shouldn't. Especially when you consider that they are both related. It makes sense that it does not exist, as it is not an usual command in the Windows interface. I think that Select all Ctrl+A is missing, _not_ Delete all. -- Sincerely Hendrik Oesterlin - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] TheBat! 3.99.20 (BETA) and Regula Anti-Spam Plugin 2.2.6.0 on Windows 2000 ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Problem with Mapi under Vista
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 4:11:16 AM, you wrote: Hello Indie_dev, Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 22:33:37, you wrote: Are there any plans to fix this problem with Mapi and Vista? I am using Vista Ultimate and ran into the same problem. I had to resort to the registry hack in the thread below to fix it. http://www.ritlabs.com/en/forum/read.php?FID=4TID=4866MID=18662phrase_id=336181#message18662 Thank you, we have just fixed the problem 'cannot open the file mailto:; error message'. Excellent!! -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:59:23 AM, you wrote: Hello TheOneWhoKnowsWhoHeIsButKeepsForgettingHisName, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:45:08 AM, you wrote: I * God I hope everyone on the list gets my [warped and coffee-induced] brand of humor I or I'm in for a serious beating any day now. Now you start talking to yourself! LOL!!! -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Delete All vs Select All in attachement pane (was: Interface Inconsistencies)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 8:37:24 AM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote on 22/08/2007 at 07:42:45 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : 1) Why is there no 'Delete All' option when you click on the attachment tab in the viewer page? If there are several attachments and you want to delete them, you have to repeat the 'Delete' action numerous times. God help you if some relative decides to send you a ton of pictures of their new baby voted most likely to be the next anti-Christ. That means in order to delete 24 pictures of the next anti-Christ, you have to do a total of (24*3) clicks. That, to me, is patently unacceptable. You only need 3 clicks. One to select the first attachment, a second one (shift+click) on the last attachment and _all_ (no matter the number) will then be selected. Then, right click and select delete. Once again, I am _aware_ of the use of [undocumented] hotkeys. This is not an undocumented hotkey. It's normal Windows feature. Each Windows user is supposed to know this. I wasn't saying that it was undocumented in Windows. Hence the optional case [] statement in that line. Plus, you can't even use that. When that attachment dialog opens, any further key or mouse action, will close it. Which means, there is no way to do multiple selections as per Windows (ctrl+, shift+) conventions. Go ahead, try it. I just did and it does not work. Unless I'm missing something. Here is what I did. - left-click on attachment icon in message viewer. It then opens up to reveal all the attachments - press shift key in order to make further selection, removes the dialog - press mouse click in order to make further selection, removes the dialog So, with the dialog open, how can you make multiple selections without closing it? Was I talking about hotkeys? No. I was talking about the interface GUI in terms of _usability_. I have a hand holding the mouse. Using that hand, I can do some tasks (delete one) but not the other (delete all) when in fact it makes _no_ sense that I shouldn't. Especially when you consider that they are both related. It makes sense that it does not exist, as it is not an usual command in the Windows interface. I think that Select all Ctrl+A is missing, _not_ Delete all. True. I suppose a Select All and then pressing the Delete key would solve that problem. Nevertheless, given my above experiment, that won't work either because as soon as you press the CTRL key, the dialog will be removed, thus preventing any further ops. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 11:37:50 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote on 22/08/2007 at 08:17:44 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 4:45:03 PM, you wrote: On Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 22:11:09 [UTC+0200] (Tuesday, August 21, 2007 22:11 my local time) Robert van der Hulst wrote: [...] The Bat! knows nothing about the the receiving in that program. The Bat! uses current date and set it as 'receive' date. When you retrieve (not import) messages from the archive, you retrieve all information, including receive date for each message. That is not completely true. TB could extract the date from the 'Received' headers in the email. For example your message has the following Received headers in my message base: Of course, The Bat! could use last Received date form the message header, but as you know, this is the date when the message arrived to the server. When you connect to the server tomorrow, The Bat! will receive the message and write internally the tomorrow date as 'receiving' date. From this point of view all is logically correct. uhm, er, wot? Zygmunt Wereszczynski is quite right. The Received column means Received by TheBat! and not Received by the last mailserver. We _know_ that. But its wrong and unconventional. Apart from the fact that its not the RFC standard. The Bat is not technically receiving the email. It is being imported. It should _leave_ the headers as they are without injecting that condition in it, which is what is causing the problem. I could imagine that TheBat! adds some lines to the header of the eMail. Maybe in this form: Received: from 206.190.53.232 (EHLO mta232.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.53.232) by The Bat! (v3.xxx) UNREG(!) with POP3; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:31:20 +1100 Received: from 87.234.203.180 (EHLO thrall.0x539.de) (87.234.203.180) by mta232.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:25:29 -0700 Then, even if eMail is exported, the original date of firs receiving is still there. But for which purpose? It makes no sense and I have no idea why they do it. You can - like every other email program I've used - import email as-is without messing with the received date that is _already_ in the header. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Delete All vs Select All in attachement pane
Hello, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:31:06 PM, you wrote: You only need 3 clicks. One to select the first attachment, a second one (shift+click) on the last attachment and _all_ (no matter the number) will then be selected. Then, right click and select delete. I Plus, you can't even use that. When that attachment dialog opens, any I further key or mouse action, will close it. Which means, there is no I way to do multiple selections as per Windows (ctrl+, shift+) I conventions. Tried Hendrik's solution and it wasn't possible. Then I changed View - Attachments - Hide to Pane (instead of Hide to Button as I normally have selected). Then it works. (That is: it does here). But it should be available to those who prefer Hide to Button for setup. -- Best Wishes, Mark using The Bat! Version 3.99.18 (BETA) MyMacros 1.11a zOmbie's Macros Version 0.7 Windows 2000 Professional/5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 (0 days 8:0:2) on Uno AMD Duron Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 6:27:24 AM, you wrote: Hi, In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : I 1) Why is there no 'Delete All' option when you click on the I attachment tab in the viewer page? If there are several attachments I and you want to delete them, you have to repeat the 'Delete' action I numerous times. God help you if some relative decides to send you a I ton of pictures of their new baby voted most likely to be the next I anti-Christ. That means in order to delete 24 pictures of the next I anti-Christ, you have to do a total of (24*3) clicks. That, to me, is I patently unacceptable. You can select all you need to delete and just hit del! So there's really no point to have a delete all, I guess. Since you can't do a Select All with the attachments dialog open, I get you can't get to the part where you actually get to press the del key. Has anyone actually tried this? No, it doesn't work. Unless I missed something. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 6:01:19 AM, you wrote: Hello Zygmunt, Cannot find a quick template TyEn On Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 22:11:09 [UTC+0200] (Tuesday, August 21, 2007 22:11 my local time) Robert van der Hulst wrote: [...] The Bat! knows nothing about the the receiving in that program. The Bat! uses current date and set it as 'receive' date. When you retrieve (not import) messages from the archive, you retrieve all information, including receive date for each message. That is not completely true. TB could extract the date from the 'Received' headers in the email. For example your message has the following Received headers in my message base: Of course, The Bat! could use last Received date form the message header, but as you know, this is the date when the message arrived to the server. When you connect to the server tomorrow, The Bat! will receive the message and write internally the tomorrow date as 'receiving' date. From this point of view all is logically correct. You would be right if we were talking about receiving mails from a server. But in case of importing mails from other clients, this approach produces an undesired result. Exactly And another bug is, that before importing user is not warned that he will in fact *loose* some information. Just changing an email client is not a good reason to loose the information about when I received the email. -- Yes, *I* received an email (using my email client). Not TheBat received an email, not Thunderbird, etc. *I* received the email in a client I was using at that time. How's this point of view to you all? You are 100% right. I'm a little concerned that this particular handling of imported email is actually in the Bat and remains as-is. As a software developer, I would think that making sure that someone moving to my product means that they have a seamless and worry-free experience. Whats the point of moving to TB if you're going to have a hard time sorting and filtering your email. TBH, if it wasn't for the fact that I can use a view (which uses a filter to set the creation date to a specific period) to properly see my emails, I'd just merge my new emails (after all its only been less than a week since I switched) back into TB, then go to using PocoMail until this is sorted in the Bat. Assuming they ever do it. At this point, I'm not going to jump to something else because I don't see any resistance coming from the developers. So hopefully our comments and suggestions are being considered. btw, when I was evaluating Pocomail and TB last week before making the jump, Pocomail imported my mails _exactly_ as they should be without any modifications. In fact, since I was using Vista, I wanted to see if Windows Mail had gotten any better. I was able to export/import my mail just fine. Naturally, using WM is just using Outlook Express. Its rubbish. I tried Windows Live Mail Desktop (Beta) as well. Same thing. My emails were just fine. I have no idea why they have chosen to do it this way and it boggles the mind. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Interface Inconsistencies
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Zygmunt Wereszczynski is quite right. The Received column means Received by TheBat! and not Received by the last mailserver. I We _know_ that. But its wrong and unconventional. Apart from the I fact that its not the RFC standard. I The Bat is not technically receiving the email. It is being I imported. It should _leave_ the headers as they are without I injecting that condition in it, which is what is causing the I problem. Then, in addition to the receive date it should have an import date. -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias If at first you don't succeed, quit, quit at once. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Small Enhancement request
I have a small enhancement request:
on several spots in TB there is a select folders dialog (e.g. 'Select
folders' for Virtual folders and 'Use By' for View Mode).
It would be very handy if these dialogs were extended:
- with selection properties like in the Message finder ('Select all
in account, select including sub-folders etc)
- if the dialogs were resizable (so you can see more of the tree view)
I could not find a request like this in BugTrack.
Is this an existing request already?
Do you agree that this is useful?
--
Robert van der Hulst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! 3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows Vista.6.0.6000
Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Delete All vs Select All in attachement pane
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 9:59:17 AM, you wrote: Hello, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:31:06 PM, you wrote: You only need 3 clicks. One to select the first attachment, a second one (shift+click) on the last attachment and _all_ (no matter the number) will then be selected. Then, right click and select delete. I Plus, you can't even use that. When that attachment dialog opens, any I further key or mouse action, will close it. Which means, there is no I way to do multiple selections as per Windows (ctrl+, shift+) I conventions. Tried Hendrik's solution and it wasn't possible. Then I changed View - Attachments - Hide to Pane (instead of Hide to Button as I normally have selected). Then it works. (That is: it does here). But it should be available to those who prefer Hide to Button for setup. Yep, just tried that and it works. Yes another GUI and interface related inconsistency. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 10:10:38 AM, you wrote: In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Zygmunt Wereszczynski is quite right. The Received column means Received by TheBat! and not Received by the last mailserver. I We _know_ that. But its wrong and unconventional. Apart from the I fact that its not the RFC standard. I The Bat is not technically receiving the email. It is being I imported. It should _leave_ the headers as they are without I injecting that condition in it, which is what is causing the I problem. Then, in addition to the receive date it should have an import date. Why? I don't think it needs any such date. Why would you want to know the import date? -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Small Enhancement request
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 10:12:17 AM, you wrote:
I have a small enhancement request:
on several spots in TB there is a select folders dialog (e.g. 'Select
folders' for Virtual folders and 'Use By' for View Mode).
It would be very handy if these dialogs were extended:
- with selection properties like in the Message finder ('Select all
in account, select including sub-folders etc)
- if the dialogs were resizable (so you can see more of the tree view)
I could not find a request like this in BugTrack.
Is this an existing request already?
Do you agree that this is useful?
You can't post that here. You have to go to the WBUDL list
/me ducks while running
--
cheers,
Indie_Dev
Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Resource Leak
I got the attached message. -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias This space for rent. Send $50 to ROF.attachment: 123.GIF Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Resource Leak
Hello all, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, Goncalo Farias wrote: I got the attached message. I saw this week ago or so too, but once only. -- Bye Marek Mikus Czech support of The Bat! http://www.thebat.cz Using the best The Bat! 3.99.20 (BETA) under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 with MyMacros,XMP,AnotherMacros, NOD32 Antivirus plugin and AntispamSniper v 2.6.0.7 Notebook Toshiba, Core2 Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hallo Indie_Dev, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:31:32 -0400GMT (22-8-2007, 16:31 +0200, where I live), you wrote: ID Why? I don't think it needs any such date. Why would you want to know ID the import date? Maybe that's because that's relevant with regard to your purge settings. You can set the maximum age in the purge settings for every folder. That age doesn't count from the creation date, nor from the date it was received at your ISP's server, but from the date the message got in TB';s message base, whether it got there via pop3, imap or import. -- Groetjes, Roelof Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.99.8 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 2 pop3 accounts OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpeqGB2ehREm.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Resource Leak
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : I got the attached message. MM I saw this week ago or so too, but once only. But I've post the screenshot! :))) -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias Ignorance is where learning begins... Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Indie_Dev I 1) Why is there no 'Delete All' option when I you click on the I attachment tab in the viewer page? If there I are several attachments I and you want to delete them, you have to I repeat the 'Delete' action I numerous times. God help you if some Since you can't do a Select All with the attachments dialog open, I get you can't get to the part where you actually get to press the del key. Has anyone actually tried this? No, it doesn't work. Unless I missed something. Click the first attachment you want to delete and then shiftclick the last one in line and then hit delete. It should delete them all. ctrlA in the attachment pane would be a nice enhancement though -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
miércoles, 22 ago 2007 at 17:34, it seems you wrote: ctrlA in the attachment pane would be a nice enhancement though Do you got my vote ;-) -- /\/ Using The Bat! 3.99.20 (BETA) Professional / \ / \ / Windows XP (5.1.2600 Service Pack 2) /\/ e t \/ i c i o u s Plugins: AntiSpamSniper 2.6.0.7 and miniRelayPlug 0.05.50 Moderator of Spanish TBUDL Spanish Translation Coordinator of The Bat! Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Resource Leak
Hi Goncalo Farias, MM I saw this week ago or so too, but once only. But I've post the screenshot! :))) i also saw that message just once... and I posted a screenshot... see: mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Resource Leak
On Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 16:37:57, Goncalo Farias wrote: I got the attached message. Hint: next time, press Ctrl+C (you'll hear a beep), and simply paste the text of the message. -- Jernej Simončič http://deepthought.ena.si/ [The Bat! v3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition 5.2.3790.Service Pack 2] If an experiment works, something has gone wrong. -- Finagle's First Law Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:13:21 AM, you wrote: Hallo Indie_Dev, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:31:32 -0400GMT (22-8-2007, 16:31 +0200, where I live), you wrote: ID Why? I don't think it needs any such date. Why would you want to know ID the import date? Maybe that's because that's relevant with regard to your purge settings. You can set the maximum age in the purge settings for every folder. That age doesn't count from the creation date, nor from the date it was received at your ISP's server, but from the date the message got in TB';s message base, whether it got there via pop3, imap or import. Thats still not logical. If you're going to purge emails, there are lots of criteria which you can use, without having to resort to an additional - and improperly handled - header information. Yesterday, in this thread, I posted one of the emails from 1996 which has been exported from EudoraPro format to TB by a third party program. Here it is again. As you can see from line 4, the program did in fact insert a value in the header and which had no effect whatsoever on how Thunderbird handled the aging and sorting of my email. So, if I wanted to purge emails (e.g. all emails between 1996-1997) I can still do that in Thunderbird without requiring it messing with the 'received' date of my email during import. X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-Mozilla-Keys: X-Imported: from Eudora by Eudora Rescue 0.7 Received: Eudora Rescue [0.7]; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:07:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:07:34 -0500 To: *censored* From: *censored* Subject: *censored* X-Attachments: *censored* Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:34:35 AM, you wrote: Hello Indie_Dev I 1) Why is there no 'Delete All' option when I you click on the I attachment tab in the viewer page? If there I are several attachments I and you want to delete them, you have to I repeat the 'Delete' action I numerous times. God help you if some Since you can't do a Select All with the attachments dialog open, I get you can't get to the part where you actually get to press the del key. Has anyone actually tried this? No, it doesn't work. Unless I missed something. Click the first attachment you want to delete and then shiftclick the last one in line and then hit delete. It should delete them all. ctrlA in the attachment pane would be a nice enhancement though As someone else pointed out, that does not work if you have View/Attach Files (to Button) as the attachment setting, which is what I had set. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Beta/21
http://www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/beta/tbb39921.rar [-] (AGAIN!) Filters should be loaded more correctly from now on (for MAU) [-] cannot open the file mailto:; error message Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Interface Inconsistencies
8/22/2007 1:05 PM Hi Indie_Dev, On 8/22/2007 Indie_Dev wrote: I As someone else pointed out, that does not work if you have I View/Attach Files (to Button) as the attachment setting, which is what I had set. It seems illogical for it to work that way with that view setting. It seems you want to bend TB! to conform to you instead of learning how to use the program. Thunderbird needs a developer, seems like a golden opportunity for you. TB! is chock full of stuff not found elsewhere. Is it perfect? What is? I am growing very weary of spending three times as much time to read messages in this forum while not gaining valuable information in the process. I didn't have this problem a few days ago. -- Take Care, Paul Voyager v.3.99.4 on Win2k SP4-Rollup1 5.0.2195 No IMAP OTFE Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
MAPI problem
Battyfolk, Having trouble using simple MAPI functions even after installation. Thanks. -- Jan Rifkinson Ridgefield, CT USA TB!3.99.20 (BETA), Windows 2000, Service Pack 4 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Beta/21
Maxim, http://www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/beta/tbb39921.rar [-] (AGAIN!) Filters should be loaded more correctly from now on (for MAU) [-] cannot open the file mailto:; error message Looks good here. As you can see, it identifies itself as version .20 everywhere. -- Gleason Using 3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP, 5.1, Build 2600. IMAP email provider is Fastmail, which uses Cyrus server software. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
It seems illogical for it to work that way with that view setting. It seems you want to bend TB! to conform to you instead of learning how to use the program. opportunity for you. TB! is chock full of stuff not found elsewhere. Is it perfect? What is? Nothing is, but there ARE some inconsistencies with the way some things are implemented. I have had issues (sorting and threading if I remember correctly) where it did not work the way it SAID it should work. Too many were quick to jump in and tell me it was supposed to work that way - even in the face of a contrary description. Just because someone has DONE it that way for a long time does not make the reasoning correct. I am growing very weary of spending three times as much time to read messages in this forum while not gaining valuable information in the process. I didn't have this problem a few days ago. He mentioned perceived problems. I don't use MAPI so we should have banished all those issues to another list because I don't particularly need to hear them? Does every email on this list give valuable information? I don't think so. I know I have tried to get a feeling on this list for non-beta issues as have others. While I would like to see HTML emails readable in the Bat, I would also like to see the ability to compose complex email perhaps via a plug in. I would like to see ritlabs go toward a plugin core framework where I could get only the plugins I need. Can I discuss this here? I should think so but I won't really start it until the 4+ round starts. Then I want my DELETED VIEW TAB!!! :)) Paul, he may not have understood that there will probably be no more major add-ins or fixes in this version before it becomes version 4. I think he does now. -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Beta/21
Hello Gleason, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 20:41:12, you wrote: Looks good here. As you can see, it identifies itself as version .20 everywhere. Thank you, I will re-upload the file that will identify as .21 in (in ten minutes). -- Best regards, Maxim Masiutinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hallo Indie_Dev, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:41:58 -0400GMT (22-8-2007, 18:41 +0200, where I live), you wrote: ID Why? I don't think it needs any such date. Why would you want to know ID the import date? Maybe that's because that's relevant with regard to your purge settings. You can set the maximum age in the purge settings for every folder. That age doesn't count from the creation date, nor from the date it was received at your ISP's server, but from the date the message got in TB';s message base, whether it got there via pop3, imap or import. ID Thats still not logical. If you're going to purge emails, there are ID lots of criteria which you can use, without having to resort to an ID additional - and improperly handled - header information. Come on. Read what I write. Purging isn't based on header information, it's based on date of arrival. For me it's quite logical. When my aunt goes on holiday to Germany and sends me postcard (she did), I don't care when the card has been sent, because I haven't seen it. I don't care when it's been delivered into my mailbox, as I haven't seen it yet. I do care when I collect the card from my mailbox, because that's the moment I see it. Now I decide to archive my cards when they're seven days old, I don't start to count from the day they were sent, nor from the day it arrived in my mailbox, but I count from the day I've got it in my hands, that's logic. And that's the same logic TB uses. ID Yesterday, in this thread, I posted one of the emails from 1996 ID which has been exported from EudoraPro format to TB by a third party ID program. Here it is again. As you can see from line 4, the program did ID in fact insert a value in the header and which had no effect ID whatsoever on how Thunderbird handled the aging and sorting of my ID email. So, if I wanted to purge emails (e.g. all emails between ID 1996-1997) I can still do that in Thunderbird without requiring it ID messing with the 'received' date of my email during import. Two things. TB is using a different approach to automatic purging than you are used too. However, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't even mean it's better or worse than what you were used too, it's merely different. Your problem is that you've got this load of messages that you want to integrate into a different system and now you find that different means that you run into some incompatibilities. Use the things that work and don't fixate on the things that don't work as want. The received date doesn't work like you want? Use the creation time stamp. Second thing. When we talk on this list about TB, we mean The Bat!, when you're mentioning TB, you mean Thunderbird. While TB is a perfectly proper abbreviation for Thunderbird, we're using it differently. When in Rome act like a Roman. -- Groetjes, Roelof I think therefore I am overqualified. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.99.8 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 2 pop3 accounts OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgp4ZLdSCpewy.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Beta/21
Hello Gleason On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 you wrote: Maxim, http://www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/beta/tbb39921.rar [-] (AGAIN!) Filters should be loaded more correctly from now on (for MAU) [-] cannot open the file mailto:; error message Looks good here. As you can see, it identifies itself as version .20 everywhere. FIXED! :)) -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 ---FIXED! Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 1:13:23 PM, you wrote: 8/22/2007 1:05 PM Hi Indie_Dev, On 8/22/2007 Indie_Dev wrote: I As someone else pointed out, that does not work if you have I View/Attach Files (to Button) as the attachment setting, which is what I had set. It seems illogical for it to work that way with that view setting. It seems you want to bend TB! to conform to you instead of learning how to use the program. Thunderbird needs a developer, seems like a golden opportunity for you. TB! is chock full of stuff not found elsewhere. Is it perfect? What is? Thats a pretty odd assumption. If you can select all messages in one dialog and not the other, when in fact BOTH dialogs offer the _same_ functionality, thats 100% wrong and _inconsistent_. There's absolutely no argument there, unless of course you're a fan of straw arguments. So, just because we point out that you can do it in one dialog and not the other means we who find it out want to bend TB to conform to us? Are you serious? Thats like saying that TB shouldn't fix the bug in the Mapi handling because that would be me trying to get it to conform to me, even though its clearly wrong (and requires a registry hack to work around, no less). And that nonsense about Thunderbird needing a programmer is just that, nonsense. Its the usual cop out. Look, I know that most of you are fanboys and there's nothing wrong with that. But my $35 means that I can point out what I bloody well feel like. You don't have to like it and I won't lose any sleep over what you think. Why? Because I really don't care. I am growing very weary of spending three times as much time to read messages in this forum while not gaining valuable information in the process. I didn't have this problem a few days ago. Well, that can be resolved by just not reading topics that don't interest you. Just because there is a tree outside your window doesn't mean you have to look at it, let alone go out and hug it. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: Interface Inconsistencies
8/22/2007 2:14 PM Hi Indie_Dev, On 8/22/2007 Indie_Dev wrote: I Well, that can be resolved by just not reading topics that don't I interest you. There was a great solution for this, the filter I just created sends your messages to the trash. It allows me to focus on the contributors who clean out the non-pertinent stuff in a reply and state problems and suggestions in a manner focused on improvement rather than bashing. -- Take Care, Paul Voyager v.3.99.4 on Win2k SP4-Rollup1 5.0.2195 No IMAP OTFE Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Lets cool it down
Guys, lets all sheath our swords The fighting is really beneath us and is not pertinent to beta testing the bat I'm going to put the next one in the corner for a time-out :)) -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Indie_Dev, If you can select all messages in one dialog and not the other, when in fact BOTH dialogs offer the same functionality, thats 100% wrong and _inconsistent_. There's absolutely no argument there, unless of course you're a fan of straw arguments. PMFJI. This will be my only intervention in this thread. I think that, as a developer, you should know that what your refer to as 'two dialogs' are, in this case, one window pane and a menu. Have you ever seen any Windows menu where you can select more than one option? I haven't. :) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Beta/21
Hello Maxim, http://www.ritlabs.com/download/files3/the_bat/beta/tbb39921.rar [-] (AGAIN!) Filters should be loaded more correctly from now on (for MAU) I will repeat all test as soon as I can and report on results. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Beta/21
Hello Mau, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 21:51:45, you wrote: I will repeat all test as soon as I can and report on results. OK, feel free to test as many days as you need, and then report to the bugtracker entry by putting this issue to Resolved state. Of course your textual comments are very welcome at the bugtracker in the meanwhile. -- Best regards, Maxim Masiutinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
8/22/2007 2:57 PM Hi Rick, On 8/22/2007 Rick Grunwald wrote: RG but there ARE some inconsistencies with the way some RG things are implemented. I have had issues (sorting and threading if I RG remember correctly) where it did not work the way it SAID it should RG work. Too many were quick to jump in and tell me it was supposed to RG work that way - even in the face of a contrary description. Just RG because someone has DONE it that way for a long time does not make the RG reasoning correct. Agreed, I have also been irritated by seemingly irrational behavior. That is not the point however, rather it is the method of dealing with it. This guy just joined the club and wants TB! to act like his old habits and bashes when it doesn't and spews volumes to describe something that could be expressed in a well thought sentence. RG He mentioned perceived problems. I don't use MAPI so we should have RG banished all those issues to another list because I don't particularly RG need to hear them? Does every email on this list give valuable RG information? I don't think so. See above. RG Then I want my DELETED VIEW TAB!!! :)) I supported this too. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. -- Take Care, Paul Voyager v.3.99.4 on Win2k SP4-Rollup1 5.0.2195 No IMAP OTFE Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Paul On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 you wrote: 8/22/2007 2:57 PM Hi Rick, RG He mentioned perceived problems. RG Then I want my DELETED VIEW TAB!!! :)) I supported this too. A WISE MAN!! :)) Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. True and I think he may now realize it. Perhaps he came on strong so why not start over and welcome him to the group?:* Hey Indie_Dev Welcome aboard! (although you and Paul both get time-outs - in separate corners of course :)) -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Interface Inconsistencies
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : I Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:13:21 AM, you wrote: Hallo Indie_Dev, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:31:32 -0400GMT (22-8-2007, 16:31 +0200, where I live), you wrote: ID Why? I don't think it needs any such date. Why would you want to know ID the import date? Maybe that's because that's relevant with regard to your purge settings. You can set the maximum age in the purge settings for every folder. That age doesn't count from the creation date, nor from the date it was received at your ISP's server, but from the date the message got in TB';s message base, whether it got there via pop3, imap or import. I Thats still not logical. If you're going to purge emails, there are I lots of criteria which you can use, without having to resort to an I additional - and improperly handled - header information. I Yesterday, in this thread, I posted one of the emails from 1996 I which has been exported from EudoraPro format to TB by a third party I program. Here it is again. As you can see from line 4, the program did I in fact insert a value in the header and which had no effect I whatsoever on how Thunderbird handled the aging and sorting of my I email. So, if I wanted to purge emails (e.g. all emails between I 1996-1997) I can still do that in Thunderbird without requiring it I messing with the 'received' date of my email during import. X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-Mozilla-Keys: X-Imported: from Eudora by Eudora Rescue 0.7 Received: Eudora Rescue [0.7]; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:07:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:07:34 -0500 To: *censored* From: *censored* Subject: *censored* X-Attachments: *censored* Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Errr... isn't that (the Received:) the import date I mentioned as required? -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias Newton had a bad trip, and now there's calculus. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[5]: Interface Inconsistencies
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : It seems illogical for it to work that way with that view setting. It seems you want to bend TB! to conform to you instead of learning how to use the program. Thunderbird needs a developer, seems like a golden opportunity for you. TB! is chock full of stuff not found elsewhere. Is it perfect? What is? I Thats a pretty odd assumption. I If you can select all messages in one dialog and not the other, when I in fact BOTH dialogs offer the _same_ functionality, thats 100% I wrong and _inconsistent_. There's absolutely no argument there, unless I of course you're a fan of straw arguments. It's not exactly the same functionality so it's not that inconsistent. Who said that they should behave exactly the same way? I don't if you're going accept this comparison as reasonable but here goes: Thumbnail view is one of the available views in Explorer were it's possible to see the content of picture files before opening and that's not possible in any of the available views. To mimic the functionality of the attachment pane to the attachments button it would have to be possible to choose any random set of files for deletion because its one of the possible thing you can do with the pane view. -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias Windows IS NOT a virus...viruses do something. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : M I think that, as a developer, you should know that what your refer to as M 'two dialogs' are, in this case, one window pane and a menu. Have you M ever seen any Windows menu where you can select more than one option? I M haven't. :) I think I've seen menus with checkboxes... does that comply with your definition? :) -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias Make like a Tom and Cruise. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Resource Leak
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : MM I saw this week ago or so too, but once only. But I've post the screenshot! :))) TS i also saw that message just once... and I posted a screenshot... TS see: mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Damn! Err... Mine is prettier... :) -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias You tell 'em playing cards, You know the joker. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Resource Leak
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : JS On Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 16:37:57, Goncalo Farias wrote: I got the attached message. JS Hint: next time, press Ctrl+C (you'll hear a beep), and simply paste JS the text of the message. I meant attached screenshot (and not really a email msg). -- Best regards, Goncalo Farias I'm not paranoid. That's a rumor spread by my enemies. Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Resource Leak
On Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 21:59:27, Goncalo Farias wrote: I meant attached screenshot (and not really a email msg). I know, and I wanted to point out there's no need to send screenshots of standard dialog boxes, as they can be copied as text (this is a Windows function). -- Jernej Simončič http://deepthought.ena.si/ [The Bat! v3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition 5.2.3790.Service Pack 2] Always remember to pillage before you burn. -- Attila's Instruction Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Beta Changelog
Anyone have any idea where I can find it? I'd like to track the progress from my current [release] version to the current Beta before I make the plunge. :) -- Best regards, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Beta Changelog
Hello all, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, Indie_Dev wrote: Anyone have any idea where I can find it? I'd like to track the progress from my current [release] version to the current Beta before I make the plunge. :) all fixes reported in offcial Bugtraq are here: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/changelog_page.php changelogs from developers are included in TBBETA archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/tbbeta@thebat.dutaint.com/ -- Bye Marek Mikus Czech support of The Bat! http://www.thebat.cz Using the best The Bat! 3.99.21 (BETA) under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 with MyMacros,XMP,AnotherMacros, NOD32 Antivirus plugin and AntispamSniper v 2.6.0.7 Notebook Toshiba, Core2 Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:38:51 PM, you wrote: In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : *snip* X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-Mozilla-Keys: X-Imported: from Eudora by Eudora Rescue 0.7 Received: Eudora Rescue [0.7]; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:07:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:07:34 -0500 To: *censored* From: *censored* Subject: *censored* X-Attachments: *censored* Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Errr... isn't that (the Received:) the import date I mentioned as required? I don't understand the question, but my point is that TB! can import the email without have to mess with the original 'Received' date of the email. Thats what is being set to in TB! and the actual 'Received' date, set to 'Created'. Hence the confusion in the sorting of emails. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[6]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 2:18:50 PM, you wrote: 8/22/2007 2:14 PM Hi Indie_Dev, On 8/22/2007 Indie_Dev wrote: I Well, that can be resolved by just not reading topics that don't I interest you. There was a great solution for this, the filter I just created sends your messages to the trash. It allows me to focus on the contributors who clean out the non-pertinent stuff in a reply and state problems and suggestions in a manner focused on improvement rather than bashing. Well then, there you go. That wasn't so hard now, was it? -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[6]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:52:41 PM, you wrote: In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : It seems illogical for it to work that way with that view setting. It seems you want to bend TB! to conform to you instead of learning how to use the program. Thunderbird needs a developer, seems like a golden opportunity for you. TB! is chock full of stuff not found elsewhere. Is it perfect? What is? I Thats a pretty odd assumption. I If you can select all messages in one dialog and not the other, when I in fact BOTH dialogs offer the _same_ functionality, thats 100% I wrong and _inconsistent_. There's absolutely no argument there, unless I of course you're a fan of straw arguments. It's not exactly the same functionality so it's not that inconsistent. Who said that they should behave exactly the same way? Oh? Please explain why its not the same functionality. The _only_ difference between the two, is the view. Which is why we have... View/Attached Files/Hide (to button) View/Attached Files/Hide (to pane) View/Attached Files/Hide To me, when you see a cluster of such functionality, they are doing the same thing but giving the choice of how you want that data presented. So, - if I choose option #1, I can only delete a bunch of attachments, one by one. This is due to how the dialog was constructed. - if I choose option #2, I can delete a bunch of attachments one by one or collectively (as per Windows conventions). This is due to how the dialog was constructed. The fact you can do one thing - to reach the same end goal - in one and not the other, is an inconsistency. By your argument, I shouldn't be able to do CTRL+A to select all (text, objects or whatever) when viewing a text document in, say, MS Word, because I happened to have a picture visible at the same time. I don't if you're going accept this comparison as reasonable but here goes: Thumbnail view is one of the available views in Explorer were it's possible to see the content of picture files before opening and that's not possible in any of the available views. Its possible to CTRL+A in any view and delete all files from the view. The viewing of thumbnails presents completely different functionality from, say, displaying a list of files. So, it stands to reason that functionality would be different. In the case of this pane vs button ability to do CTRL+A, the functionality presented by _both_ is _identical_ i.e. you can view and delete attachments. The only problem is that it is _inconsistent_ in that you can delete all attachments in one but not the other. Oh, and the manual doesn't tell you this, nor why its this way. Just an FYI. To mimic the functionality of the attachment pane to the attachments button it would have to be possible to choose any random set of files for deletion because its one of the possible thing you can do with the pane view. Wrong. See my above explanation about 'functionality'. The functionality of the 'attachment display' has nothing to do with 'randomnesss' since the population of that [attachments] list is not random i.e. it displays attachments, not random bits of data objects pulled from elsewhere (as in random). -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.20 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 1:45:29 PM, you wrote: *snip* Paul, he may not have understood that there will probably be no more major add-ins or fixes in this version before it becomes version 4. I think he does now. Indeed. But quite honestly, I really don't know what the furor is about. I don't see _any_ email where I've actually _asked_ for or _demanded_ something. All I've been doing is pointing out what I perceive to be inconsistencies. Having used various email software over the years and being a developer, this sort of thing sticks out - at least to me - like a sore thumb. I am on several dev programs for various industry companies such a nVidia, ATI/AMD, Microsoft etc. So this sort of thing is par for the course. You don't incite change. You influence change. BIG difference. Right now, I'm evaluating VS2008, I can't begin to tell you just much stuff in that version, was promised and/or overlooked in VS2005. Some, in fact many - many - changes in VS2005, came about as a result of the open developer Beta. Nobody yelled at me and several devs, for telling them - REPEATEDLY - that the darn feacp.dll usage in VS2005 was a resource hog and near brings the system to halt when versioning PCH. Did they listen? No. The result is that its the #1 complaint every dev that I know, has with VS2005. The fix? Delete or rename the file. When we complained incessantly that we really needed the ability to have more than one source control module, did they listen? No. The end result, you either use one, or create a batch file that changes the registry value that VS2005 looks for when determining which SCM to use. So, for us who use more than one (for reasons I'm not even going to get int) such as Code Co-Op and Subversion, we have no choice but to use a hack because MS won't budge. Lets not get into the fact that you can have as many plugins as you want. But when it comes to SCM, you can only have one. So, for TB!, I wasn't asking for anything to be changed and/or implemented one way or another. I'm not that arrogant to assume that after only a few days of using the Bat! that I'm going to be that influential. The bottom line is that over the years, I've used various email programs and switched. If I do switch from the Bat!, I'll do what I always do when I switch: tell everyone _not_ to use it, and give the reasons why and my _personal_ experiences with it. To me, $35 is nothing. I can't even fill up my vehicle's gas tank on that. So moving on - at some point - if the Bat!'s issues prove to be overwhelming in the long run, is meaningless to me. As long as I can convert my email to whatever target email program I go to, I'm fine. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:04:46 PM, you wrote: 8/22/2007 2:57 PM Hi Rick, On 8/22/2007 Rick Grunwald wrote: RG but there ARE some inconsistencies with the way some RG things are implemented. I have had issues (sorting and threading if I RG remember correctly) where it did not work the way it SAID it should RG work. Too many were quick to jump in and tell me it was supposed to RG work that way - even in the face of a contrary description. Just RG because someone has DONE it that way for a long time does not make the RG reasoning correct. Agreed, I have also been irritated by seemingly irrational behavior. That is not the point however, rather it is the method of dealing with it. This guy just joined the club and wants TB! to act like his old habits and bashes when it doesn't and spews volumes to describe something that could be expressed in a well thought sentence. Please don't do that!! Apart from your grossly inaccurate depiction of what I'm writing (e.g. where did I bash anyone or anything?). there is no need to get personal. And if I breached anonymity and told the list who I was, you'd know that I'm probably the _last_ person on God's Earth, that you want to be messing with at a personal level. So please, just don't do that. RG Then I want my DELETED VIEW TAB!!! I supported this too. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. ...you're assuming that all flies like Honey or that from within a controlled environment (chaos theory notwithstanding) that flies would otherwise not be attracted to vinegar in the absence of Honey. You're wrong. Again. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 3:04:46 PM, you wrote: 8/22/2007 2:57 PM Hi Rick, On 8/22/2007 Rick Grunwald wrote: RG but there ARE some inconsistencies with the way some RG things are implemented. I have had issues (sorting and threading if I RG remember correctly) where it did not work the way it SAID it should RG work. Too many were quick to jump in and tell me it was supposed to RG work that way - even in the face of a contrary description. Just RG because someone has DONE it that way for a long time does not make the RG reasoning correct. Agreed, I have also been irritated by seemingly irrational behavior. That is not the point however, rather it is the method of dealing with it. This guy just joined the club and wants TB! to act like his old habits and bashes when it doesn't and spews volumes to describe something that could be expressed in a well thought sentence. Please don't do that!! Apart from your grossly inaccurate depiction of what I'm writing (e.g. where did I bash anyone or anything?). there is no need to get personal. And if I breached anonymity and told the list who I was, you'd know that apart from being a highly trained and well respected developer, that I'm probably the _last_ person you'd want to be messing with at the personal [attack] level. So please, just don't do that. It is uncalled for and there is no reason for it. RG Then I want my DELETED VIEW TAB!!! I supported this too. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. ...you're assuming that all flies like Honey or that from within a controlled environment (chaos theory notwithstanding) that flies would otherwise not be attracted to vinegar in the absence of Honey. You're wrong. Again. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Beta Changelog
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 4:29:29 PM, you wrote: Hello all, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, Indie_Dev wrote: Anyone have any idea where I can find it? I'd like to track the progress from my current [release] version to the current Beta before I make the plunge. all fixes reported in offcial Bugtraq are here: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/changelog_page.php changelogs from developers are included in TBBETA archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/tbbeta@thebat.dutaint.com/ Thanks! This should be an interesting read, so that I can get all caught up. Being on vacation has its benefits. :) -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote on 23/08/2007 at 00:34:44 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : Of course, The Bat! could use last Received date form the message header, but as you know, this is the date when the message arrived to the server. When you connect to the server tomorrow, The Bat! will receive the message and write internally the tomorrow date as 'receiving' date. From this point of view all is logically correct. uhm, er, wot? Zygmunt Wereszczynski is quite right. The Received column means Received by TheBat! and not Received by the last mailserver. We _know_ that. But its wrong and unconventional. Apart from the fact that its not the RFC standard. The Bat is not technically receiving the email. It is being imported. It should _leave_ the headers as they are without injecting that condition in it, which is what is causing the problem. I do not know if the terms technically receiving and imported are explained somewhere, but TheBat makes no modification in the headers of received eMails. I could imagine that TheBat! adds some lines to the header of the eMail. Maybe in this form: Received: from 206.190.53.232 (EHLO mta232.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.53.232) by The Bat! (v3.xxx) UNREG(!) with POP3; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:31:20 +1100 Received: from 87.234.203.180 (EHLO thrall.0x539.de) (87.234.203.180) by mta232.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:25:29 -0700 Then, even if eMail is exported, the original date of firs receiving is still there. But for which purpose? It makes no sense and I have no idea why they do it. You can - like every other email program I've used - import email as-is without messing with the received date that is _already_ in the header. They do not. Following your logic to the end, we need several Received columns as there are often 4 or more Received lines in an eMail header. [ironie]It could be interesting to sort messages by first/second/third/fourth receiving entry...[/ironie] Roelof Otten explained very well in [EMAIL PROTECTED] how it works and the logic behind this behaviour. I think this is good logic and TheBat should not modify anything there. -- Sincerely Hendrik Oesterlin - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] TheBat! 3.99.20 (BETA) and Regula Anti-Spam Plugin 2.2.6.0 on Windows 2000 ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Roelof Otten wrote on 23/08/2007 at 04:52:56 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : Come on. Read what I write. Purging isn't based on header information, it's based on date of arrival. For me it's quite logical. When my aunt goes on holiday to Germany and sends me postcard (she did), I don't care when the card has been sent, because I haven't seen it. I don't care when it's been delivered into my mailbox, as I haven't seen it yet. I do care when I collect the card from my mailbox, because that's the moment I see it. Now I decide to archive my cards when they're seven days old, I don't start to count from the day they were sent, nor from the day it arrived in my mailbox, but I count from the day I've got it in my hands, that's logic. And that's the same logic TB uses. :-) -- Sincerely Hendrik Oesterlin - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] TheBat! 3.99.20 (BETA) and Regula Anti-Spam Plugin 2.2.6.0 on Windows 2000 ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 5:29:52 PM, you wrote: Roelof Otten wrote on 23/08/2007 at 04:52:56 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : Come on. Read what I write. Purging isn't based on header information, it's based on date of arrival. For me it's quite logical. When my aunt goes on holiday to Germany and sends me postcard (she did), I don't care when the card has been sent, because I haven't seen it. I don't care when it's been delivered into my mailbox, as I haven't seen it yet. I do care when I collect the card from my mailbox, because that's the moment I see it. Now I decide to archive my cards when they're seven days old, I don't start to count from the day they were sent, nor from the day it arrived in my mailbox, but I count from the day I've got it in my hands, that's logic. And that's the same logic TB uses. OK, I'll bite. Here's my question What has that got to do with TB! messing about with the RECEIVED dates of emails when in fact we don't really care about it, since thats what the CREATED date is for? By your example - Your aunt sends you a postcard in 1996. You know this because you've already _seen_ this archaic artifact. - You move to a new house. - On that day, you once again get an email from your dear ol' aunt only to find that, even though it says (by the date) that she wrote it in 1996, the postal office, decides to send you another one. As if the original was lost. Only this time, you see the original 1996 stamp and near (or on top of) that, you see the postal service's stamp for the day you moved to your new house. The fact that we're even debating the merits of an email program importing emails incorrectly and creating not only unwanted Deja Vu but also sorting problems, is astonishing to me. Look, if I wrote an email in 1996 and its in my inbox. I don't want it showing up in my DEFAULT filter that CLEARLY says YESTERDAY when I know for a FACT that the email was written in 1996 and has _no_ business being in that filter. *sheesh* -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 5:28:48 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote on 23/08/2007 at 00:34:44 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : *snip* Following your logic to the end, we need several Received columns as there are often 4 or more Received lines in an eMail header. [ironie]It could be interesting to sort messages by first/second/third/fourth receiving entry...[/ironie] No, thats not what I'm implying. Lets try this again. Too bad we don't have access to a chalk board and a box of crayons because this is a classic classroom debate that can only be resolved by some hardcore wielding of chalk. :) OK, here goes... If I import my email that my previous email programs says I received in 1996 and which doesn't show up on my 'today' filter, when I export that email, I expect it to appear in the target email program _exactly_ like that. No messing about. The fact that I have emails from 1996, showing up in the 'today' (the day of the import) filter under the 'received' heading is 100% wrong and inconsistent. Period. End of story. And in case you didn't know this already, _only_ the Bat! does this. NO other email does this. None. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hallo Indie_Dev, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:54:34 -0400GMT (22-8-2007, 23:54 +0200, where I live), you wrote: ID Look, if I wrote an email in 1996 and its in my inbox. I don't want ID it showing up in my DEFAULT filter that CLEARLY says YESTERDAY when I ID know for a FACT that the email was written in 1996 and has _no_ ID business being in that filter. What part of incompatibilities between your old and your new mail system did you not understand? -- Groetjes, Roelof Veni, Vedi, Vomitus. (I came, I saw, it made me sick) http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.99.21 (BETA) Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 2 pop3 accounts OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpUln5xfQiJo.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Interface Inconsistencies
you wrote: ID you wrote I am going to have to paddle ALL your asses THEN stick you in the corner! Either that or individually tie all the combatants upside down and feed them a good LAXATIVE:D -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Paul Van Noord wrote: Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. and shit attracts even more than honey. cuz it smells stronger. lol. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Roelof Otten wrote: For me it's quite logical. When my aunt goes on holiday to Germany and sends me postcard (she did), I don't care when the card has been sent, because I haven't seen it. I don't care when it's been delivered into my mailbox, as I haven't seen it yet. I do care when I collect the card from my mailbox, because that's the moment I see it. Now I decide to archive my cards when they're seven days old, I don't start to count from the day they were sent, nor from the day it arrived in my mailbox, but I count from the day I've got it in my hands, that's logic. And that's the same logic TB uses. following the same logic, there can't be anything older than you are. even our planet is not any older than your date of birth, right? :) -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote on 23/08/2007 at 09:00:24 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : The fact that I have emails from 1996, showing up in the 'today' (the day of the import) filter under the 'received' heading is 100% wrong and inconsistent. Period. End of story. And in case you didn't know this already, _only_ the Bat! does this. NO other email does this. None. OK, I think I got your point of view Note that TheBat does [almost] anything you want... ;-) Create an Virtual Folder and set an appropriate Filtering criteria (Age, Date of or Time interval) I think Time interval-of create date is will fit your needs, but just play around to find out which criteria fits best. -- Sincerely Hendrik Oesterlin - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] TheBat! 3.99.20 (BETA) and Regula Anti-Spam Plugin 2.2.6.0 on Windows 2000 ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Beta/21
Hello Maxim, I will repeat all test as soon as I can and report on results. OK, feel free to test as many days as you need, and then report to the bugtracker entry by putting this issue to Resolved state. Of course your textual comments are very welcome at the bugtracker in the meanwhile. It certainly looks like it has been fixed. I've been jumping back and forth between 3.99.06 and 3.99.21, making changes to the S.O. in each of them and everything seems correct with both versions. I will anyway allow at least one more day before closing the BT bug report. Good work! :) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 6:14:07 PM, you wrote: Hallo Indie_Dev, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:54:34 -0400GMT (22-8-2007, 23:54 +0200, where I live), you wrote: ID Look, if I wrote an email in 1996 and its in my inbox. I don't want ID it showing up in my DEFAULT filter that CLEARLY says YESTERDAY when I ID know for a FACT that the email was written in 1996 and has _no_ ID business being in that filter. What part of incompatibilities between your old and your new mail system did you not understand? The part whereby my new email system is doing things incorrectly and in an unconventional and against acceptable standards. Yeah, that would be it. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 6:17:33 PM, you wrote: you wrote: ID you wrote I am going to have to paddle ALL your asses THEN stick you in the corner! Either that or individually tie all the combatants upside down and feed them a good LAXATIVE 'e started it!!! /me pointing -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 6:43:18 PM, you wrote: Roelof Otten wrote: For me it's quite logical. When my aunt goes on holiday to Germany and sends me postcard (she did), I don't care when the card has been sent, because I haven't seen it. I don't care when it's been delivered into my mailbox, as I haven't seen it yet. I do care when I collect the card from my mailbox, because that's the moment I see it. Now I decide to archive my cards when they're seven days old, I don't start to count from the day they were sent, nor from the day it arrived in my mailbox, but I count from the day I've got it in my hands, that's logic. And that's the same logic TB uses. following the same logic, there can't be anything older than you are. even our planet is not any older than your date of birth, right? LMAO *splutter* *gag* *choke* *splutter* OK, I didn't see that coming. Thats the last time I read email on this list with liquid in my mouth. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
LMAO *splutter* *gag* *choke* *splutter* OK, I didn't see that coming. Thats the last time I read email on this list with liquid in my mouth. Yeah and don't do it near the Mayonnaise, it makes it hard to find! :D -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Indie_Dev On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 you wrote: and feed them a good LAXATIVE 'e started it!!! /me pointing It's not going to get you away from being tied upside down! ... THEN a time out in the corner! -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Indie_Dev On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 you wrote: I am going to have to paddle ALL your a**es THEN stick you in the corner! Either that or individually tie all the combatants upside down and feed them a good LAXATIVE Moderator, what I meant was DONKEYS! I was going to beat their DONKEYS as it is illegal in some countries to beat children. That is a proper use of the word (ROTFLMAO) :-D -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hi Zygmunt, On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, at 22:45:03 [GMT +0200] (which was 22:45 where I live) you wrote about: 'Interface Inconsistencies' [...] The Bat! knows nothing about the the receiving in that program. The Bat! uses current date and set it as 'receive' date. When you retrieve (not import) messages from the archive, you retrieve all information, including receive date for each message. That is not completely true. TB could extract the date from the 'Received' headers in the email. For example your message has the following Received headers in my message base: Of course, The Bat! could use last Received date form the message header, but as you know, this is the date when the message arrived to the server. When you connect to the server tomorrow, The Bat! will receive the message and write internally the tomorrow date as 'receiving' date. From this point of view all is logically correct. After reading all the responses to this thread I think the only sensible solution is for TB to have an option (during import) to set the received date to the last Received date from the header or the current date. -- Robert van der Hulst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 3.99.20 (BETA) on Windows Vista.6.0.6000 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hendrik Oesterlin wrote: OK, I think I got your point of view in fact, there are some other considerations, which none of you two seems to figure out. the Date: field, as per the respective RFC, has a well-defined format. however, a lot of mail senders (mostly those web-based, which are written by people that follow Roelof's logic™), do dumbly add it in human-readable (by 'standard' means of php, perl, java, .net or whatever backend engine used by the site). and, to make things worse, when that indian-developed engine is deployed on the environment of a language-purist admin in some country like France... brrr... :) thebat does a lot of effort to guess these formats. obviously, this can never get good enough, as long as there are developers that consider that email standards appeared only at that very moment when THEY got their hands on these things. no, Roelof, that logic™ of yours (better said, philosophy, isn't it?) sucks baaadly. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
jueves, 23 ago 2007 at 01:24, it seems you wrote: Moderator, what I meant was DONKEYS! I was going to beat their DONKEYS as it is illegal in some countries to beat children. That is a proper use of the word (ROTFLMAO) :-D my two cents for add skip thread or ignore thread to TB! and not see threads as this one. -- /\/ Using The Bat! 3.99.21 (BETA) Professional / \ / \ / Windows XP (5.1.2600 Service Pack 2) /\/ e t \/ i c i o u s Plugins: AntiSpamSniper 2.6.0.7 and miniRelayPlug 0.05.50 Moderator of Spanish TBUDL Spanish Translation Coordinator of The Bat! Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 6:52:47 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote on 23/08/2007 at 09:00:24 +1100 subject Interface Inconsistencies : The fact that I have emails from 1996, showing up in the 'today' (the day of the import) filter under the 'received' heading is 100% wrong and inconsistent. Period. End of story. And in case you didn't know this already, _only_ the Bat! does this. NO other email does this. None. OK, I think I got your point of view Note that TheBat does [almost] anything you want... Create an Virtual Folder and set an appropriate Filtering criteria (Age, Date of or Time interval) I think Time interval-of create date is will fit your needs, but just play around to find out which criteria fits best. Thanks for the suggestion. I haven't yet looked into the virtual folders filtering, but seriously, that means I have to keep - yet another folder/view when all this needed to do was _not_ mess with the original sorting of the received mail. PLUS, given that I manage several very large projects, I'm going to either end up with several virtual folders or several different views with different sorting criteria. Seriously, whats worth all this hassle? *sigh* -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Rick Grunwald wrote: I am going to have to paddle ALL your a**es Moderator, what I meant was DONKEYS! I was going to beat their DONKEYS as it is illegal in some countries to beat children. That is a proper use of the word (ROTFLMAO) :-D not as long as he/she/it stubbornly thinks only around attracting flies! ;) -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 7:20:30 PM, you wrote: Hello Indie_Dev On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 you wrote: and feed them a good LAXATIVE 'e started it!!! /me pointing It's not going to get you away from being tied upside down! ... THEN a time out in the corner! Darn. Man, you're tough :) Seriously though, I don't take _anything_ personally. Life's too short. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 7:32:11 PM, you wrote: Hendrik Oesterlin wrote: OK, I think I got your point of view in fact, there are some other considerations, which none of you two seems to figure out. the Date: field, as per the respective RFC, has a well-defined format. ..and that is what I've been saying all along. If TB! stuck to the RFC standards - like _all_ other email programs, I won't have to be looking emails from 1996 in a default filter for yesterday. Its just ridiculous to me. We're not talking about a casual email user here. Those people won't care. But when you're talking about gigabytes of emails, going back that many years, its.just.wrong. - DS -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: Life's too short. huh? too short to figure out that Date: has its STRICT formatting rules?! -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Dear Rick, @22-Aug-2007, 19:24 -0400 (23-Aug 00:24 here) Rick Grunwald [RG] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Indie_Dev: I am going to have to paddle ALL your a**es ... snip RG Moderator, what I meant was DONKEYS! I was going to beat their DONKEYS RG as it is illegal in some countries to beat children. That is a proper RG use of the word (ROTFLMAO) :-D I'm a brit. An ass is a donkey. An A*se is something that I will go no further in mentioning lest it be taken up and used in vain, thus demanding an official trouting. I might make a moderatorial intervention concerning animal cruelty, however. -- Cheers -- //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user TB! v3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows Vista 6.0.6000 ' pgp9GW2AN5Btj.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 7:30:15 PM, you wrote: Hi Zygmunt, On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, at 22:45:03 [GMT +0200] (which was 22:45 where I live) you wrote about: 'Interface Inconsistencies' [...] The Bat! knows nothing about the the receiving in that program. The Bat! uses current date and set it as 'receive' date. When you retrieve (not import) messages from the archive, you retrieve all information, including receive date for each message. That is not completely true. TB could extract the date from the 'Received' headers in the email. For example your message has the following Received headers in my message base: Of course, The Bat! could use last Received date form the message header, but as you know, this is the date when the message arrived to the server. When you connect to the server tomorrow, The Bat! will receive the message and write internally the tomorrow date as 'receiving' date. From this point of view all is logically correct. After reading all the responses to this thread I think the only sensible solution is for TB to have an option (during import) to set the received date to the last Received date from the header or the current date. No, I think the sensible solution is to _not_ mess with it _at_all_. Just import it as-is. Problem solved. No debate needed. So when you import your email, the received and created field will be identical since they decided that they'd go an complicate and confuse things by adding a header that is clearly _not_ required. Every email program has the subject, sender, recipient, data, size and then you have additional stuff like attachments and whatnot. So when my email from 1996 has a received 'date' of 1996 and then I expect it to TB! and it comes up under 'received' date of the day of the export and again under the 'created' date which is the actual and accurate data, its just wrong. And if you disable the 'received' field in TB!, then you lose that particular piece of information. As I write this email, I am staring at emails - all from today - with identical received and created dates. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: Every email program has the subject, sender, recipient, data, size and then you have additional stuff like attachments and whatnot. datA? geez, man, your life is WAY too short! LOL. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hi NetVicious and fellow beta testers, Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 7:40:40 PM, you wrote: N my two cents for add skip thread or ignore thread to TB! and not N see threads as this one. I certainly would support that! -- Regards, Perry Using The Bat! v3.99.8 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Hello Marck On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 you wrote: I might make a moderatorial intervention concerning animal cruelty, however. Well I WAS going to say that they are acting like animals, but animals don't ACT like that !!! :hrhr::D -- Rick The Bat Version 3.99.21 (BETA) on Windows XP, Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: the Date: field, as per the respective RFC, has a well-defined format. ..and that is what I've been saying all along. If TB! stuck to the RFC standards - like _all_ other email programs, I won't have to be looking emails from 1996 in a default filter for yesterday. Its just ridiculous to me. We're not talking about a casual email user here. Those people won't care. But when you're talking about gigabytes of emails, going back that many years, its.just.wrong. RFC822 was written BEFORE 1996. that mail of yours is.just.wrong™ all the way since its very birth. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: To me, $35 is nothing. I can't even fill up my vehicle's gas tank on that. $35 doesn't worth enough gasoline to fill up a tank, so you've decided to fill your stomach instead? :) -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 7:51:50 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote: Life's too short. huh? too short to figure out that Date: has its STRICT formatting rules?! No. Too short that Date: has its STRICT formatting rules that TB! refuses to ack during a _simple_ import of Unix formatted email. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 8:10:00 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote: the Date: field, as per the respective RFC, has a well-defined format. ..and that is what I've been saying all along. If TB! stuck to the RFC standards - like _all_ other email programs, I won't have to be looking emails from 1996 in a default filter for yesterday. Its just ridiculous to me. We're not talking about a casual email user here. Those people won't care. But when you're talking about gigabytes of emails, going back that many years, its.just.wrong. RFC822 was written BEFORE 1996. that mail of yours is.just.wrong™ all the way since its very birth. OK, now you're just either being silly or yanking my chain. So, by your submission, because TV was invented way before I was born, I can't complain about not getting channel 2 on the UHF band as opposed to VHF? Right. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 8:03:14 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote: Every email program has the subject, sender, recipient, data, size and then you have additional stuff like attachments and whatnot. datA? geez, man, your life is WAY too short! LOL. I know you know that I meant 'date' You know, that I know, that you know that I meant 'date' I'm quite certain that once you knew that I knew that you know full well that I meant 'date' that you became full in the knowledge that, well, you're being silly. :) -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: So, by your submission, because TV was invented way before I was born, I can't complain about not getting channel 2 on the UHF band as opposed to VHF? Right. wrong. as opposed to UHF and VHF, back in 1996 there was no other standard except RFC822 that would allow Date: be in a different format. just make sure your mail of that time obeys RFC822. if yes, and all the rest of your sayings still hold - fire up a bugreport on the tracker. i've had enough fun with you for today. thanks for mooding me up. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: I know you know that I meant 'date' is that all you know that i know? You know, that I know, that you know that I meant 'date' you don't know that i didn't know that you didn't know how to properly use a keyboard. I'm quite certain that once you knew that I knew that you know full well that I meant 'date' that you became full in the knowledge that, well, you're being silly. :) i'm quite certain that if you've indeed been a good programmer as you claim, you don't have to manually trace well-written recursions any further than one single step. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: LMAO *splutter* *gag* *choke* *splutter* OK, I didn't see that coming. Thats the last time I read email on this list with liquid in my mouth. yeah... liquid... i toldya to not drink gasoline, didn't i? -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 8:31:32 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote: So, by your submission, because TV was invented way before I was born, I can't complain about not getting channel 2 on the UHF band as opposed to VHF? Right. wrong. as opposed to UHF and VHF, back in 1996 there was no other standard except RFC822 that would allow Date: be in a different format. just make sure your mail of that time obeys RFC822. if yes, and all the rest of your sayings still hold - fire up a bugreport on the tracker. i've had enough fun with you for today. thanks for mooding me up. OK, lets try this again. Those _same_ emails imported into the following WORK JUST FINE and with NONE of this silliness that we're so hotly debating. Outlook Outlook Express Windows Mail Windows Live Mail Windows Live Mail Desktop Eudora EudoraPro Thunderbird PocoMail Heck, even Agent (the newsreader), read my pre-1996 emails just fine, since back then when I was on Netcom ISP, thats what I used for news and email since it was one of the very few programs that had an integrated news and email program. Your turn. -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Interface Inconsistencies
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 8:17:53 PM, you wrote: Indie_Dev wrote: To me, $35 is nothing. I can't even fill up my vehicle's gas tank on that. $35 doesn't worth enough gasoline to fill up a tank, so you've decided to fill your stomach instead? ROTFLMAO!!! Well actually, given the price of gas and given that I have several gas guzzlers here, it takes upwards of $75 to fill the gas tank of just one. So, if I don't drive to work for a week, I can make up for the loss of the $35 on the purchase of the Bat! :) -- cheers, Indie_Dev Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Interface Inconsistencies
Indie_Dev wrote: OK, lets try this again. i knew you'll like it. Those _same_ emails imported into the following WORK JUST FINE and with NONE of this silliness that we're so hotly debating. Outlook Outlook Express Windows Mail Windows Live Mail Windows Live Mail Desktop Eudora EudoraPro Thunderbird PocoMail Heck, even Agent (the newsreader), read my pre-1996 emails just fine, since back then when I was on Netcom ISP, thats what I used for news and email since it was one of the very few programs that had an integrated news and email program. Your turn. you just deaf or what? make sure they're compliant, then fire up a bugreport with a couple of samples attached. end of story. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
