Re: Part.ATT???

On 8/4/05, Manuel Breitfeld wrote: > I'm sorry, this was just a duplicate entry. The entry, which is currently open > for opinions, is the following: ;) > > Filenames of attachments are not correctly decoded (RFC 2231): > https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4197 Yes, this definitely sounds lik

Re: Part.ATT???

On 8/4/05, Peter Palmreuther wrote: > I'd say yes. Something formatted the text in a way The Bat! ain't > using, so I'd say it's a sender side thing. Maybe you want to have a > look in these messages headers for "X-Mailer" ... Maybe the people you > receive the "Part.ATT" mail from are using the sa

Part.ATT???

It seems that since "upgrading" to 3.51.10 more people have started to complain that messages they send to me are not delivered. I am also receiving - frequently but not always - replies to my messages that come in two parts: text and "Part.ATT". I have not seen this "Part.ATT" before. It seems to

Re: IMAP - Multiple Connections, and bad behaviour

On 8/4/05, Kevin Amazon wrote: > Exactly. I have now 3 tasks that are obviously hung (having been > "executing" for over 3 hours). It is pretty obvious to me that IMAP is > still not quite ready for prime time. Pardon me for jumping into this thread without studying the entire discussion, but is

More Confusion about Lycos Mail

I just thought to download the 3.51 MSI to test how it upgrades a simple, largely non-functional OTFE installation on a desktop that I rarely use. So once again I had an opportunity to see the advert for Lycos Mail. I must admit that I still find that advert confusing, mainly because it appears to

Re: PM Re: Old Smiley Quoting Bug still present in 3.51.10

On 7/28/05, Mary Bull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Natasha! Come on, girls, please take it offline already. That's four messages so far, and I am starting to feel like a captive voyeur. :yech: -- jaywalker Windows XP Pro SP2 and The Bat! Pro (No OTFE) 3.51.10 _

Re: version confusion

On 7/28/05, NetVicious wrote: > miércoles, 27 jul 2005 at 16:39, it seems you wrote: > > > Upcoming release version: 3.6 > > Latest test build: 3.51.8 > > WHAT? > > Ritlabs, please, number the upcoming release version as 3.60. NV, I completely agree, but... as others have argued... TB ha

Re: how long to unsubscribe?

On 7/27/05, Dave Gorman wrote: > Yesterday I sent TBBETA & TBUDL unsubscribe requests to the address in the > headers. I am still receiving list mail. How long does it usually take for > unsubscribe requests to be completed? Try going to the following URL: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLI

Re: 3.51.10 Muggle Bat

On 7/27/05, Wayne Howard wrote: > I am the wrong person to ask. I discovered this on my own, with some > help from Mary. As far as it being corrupted, that is my speculation. > It could very well be that it simply has outmoded or superfluous > entries. Look at it in notepad. It contains a lot of in

Re: 3.51.10 Muggle Bat

On 7/27/05, Wayne Howard wrote: > I should also have said that you should backup your existing > tbuser.def first. You will lose any modifications that you have made > that are stored here. However, for me, remaking the few modifications > I had was well worth it! Recreating the tbuser.def file re

Re: 3.51.10 Muggle Bat

On 7/27/05, Roelof Otten wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:06:02 +0300GMT (27-7-2005, 7:06 +0200, where I > live), you wrote: > > AY> What I mean to say is that in 3.51.10 - and maybe in some earlier > AY> versions - I go to my Tools menu and see at the bottom an arrow that > AY> is unnamed (Voldemo

3.51.10 OTFE Search Engine Still Hangs

Just tested this on another machine. Went from 3.51.10 Non-OTFE, where the search engine works okay, through the somewhat painful and time-consuming process of backup and uninstall and reinstall and then finally restore to get the 3.51.10 OTFE implementation of TB. And here on this *third* machine

3.51.10 Muggle Bat

In these days of renewed Pottermania, I am surprised to see that RL is still suppressing its TB wizards. What I mean to say is that in 3.51.10 - and maybe in some earlier versions - I go to my Tools menu and see at the bottom an arrow that is unnamed (Voldemort?) pointing to a submenu that is empt

Re: About 3.51 release

9Val, thank you for your patience with all of my questions. On 7/26/05, 9Val wrote: > JW> If this be so, when do you suppose RL will look into the issue > JW> involving the search engine hanging - for me, at least, whenever I try > JW> to implement OTFE? In other words, the same search in Non-OTFE

Re: About 3.51 release

9Val, thank you for your patience with all of my questions. On 7/26/05, 9Val wrote: > JW> If this be so, when do you suppose RL will look into the issue > JW> involving the search engine hanging - for me, at least, whenever I try > JW> to implement OTFE? In other words, the same search in Non-OTFE

Re: About 3.51 release

9Val, thank you for your patience with all of my questions. On 7/26/05, 9Val wrote: > JW> If this be so, when do you suppose RL will look into the issue > JW> involving the search engine hanging - for me, at least, whenever I try > JW> to implement OTFE? In other words, the same search in Non-OTFE

Re: About 3.51 release

On 7/26/05, 9Val <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Jay, > > JW> But, personally, two things are of most interest to me in respect to 3.51: > JW>o Can I rely on MicroEd to not distort the text of my email messages? > > Yes Thank you, 9Val. Relying on your assurance, I will then install 3.51.

Re: About 3.51 release

On 7/26/05, 9Val <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3.51.10 > > 3 = the major version number > 51 = first cipher means feature list > second cipher encodes stability/bugfix list > 10 = public build revision, used for minor fixes and beta versions 9Val, if I understand this correctly, then we are cu

Re: About 3.51 release

On 7/25/05, 9Val <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JW> many TB users will probably prefer to > JW> stick with a safe and stable version - one that has all of the > JW> components that they need and most of the components that they want. > > 3.51 is more stable than 3.5.30 and has the same component

Re: About 3.51 release

On 7/25/05, 9Val <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know, that there are a lot of complaints about 3.51 beta serie. > Now I'll describe some reasons why we release it. Sorry, 9Val, I did not realize that you had already made a public release of 3.51 when you wrote this. I thought that you were ta

Re: About 3.51 release

Thanks for the clarification, 9Val. Please see below for my perspective. On 7/25/05, 9Val <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's look more detailed - IMAP and Unicode support need a lot of > architectural changes. They are not possible to be finished in one > beta serie. So... On the one

Re: Re[3]: The Bat! 3.51.10 is now available

On 7/25/05, Marek Mikus wrote: > >> My suggestion remains the same (as mentioned in the "3.51, > >> Communications, and Ethics" thread): Drop back to 3.5.36 and package > >> something from there - before you started trying to resolve some > >> additional charset issues - for distribution as your 3.

Re: Re[3]: The Bat! 3.51.10 is now available

On 7/25/05, Marek Mikus wrote: > >> My suggestion remains the same (as mentioned in the "3.51, > >> Communications, and Ethics" thread): Drop back to 3.5.36 and package > >> something from there - before you started trying to resolve some > >> additional charset issues - for distribution as your 3.

Re: Re[2]: The Bat! 3.51.10 is now available

Gleason, one thing more that I neglected to say... On 7/25/05, Gleason Pace wrote: > I disagree. The past few betas have been much, much better in general > use. For the first time in months, I can say that I am delighted to > be able to use TB as my full time email client. My suggestion is to

Re: Re[2]: The Bat! 3.51.10 is now available

On 7/25/05, Bernd Distler wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:44:19 -0700, "Gleason Pace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > So why don't we get a bugfixed release? > > No, we get a lot of new betas with not/bad (i don't mean not bad!) > working unicode-support and in following of this a not working RegEx

Re: Re[2]: The Bat! 3.51.10 is now available

On 7/25/05, Gleason Pace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > of beta tests. From the comments that I am seeing from testers - for > > example, "With broken RegEx? No, thank you." - it does not seem to > > me that we are very close to getting an acceptable, stable release. > > .30 had big problems an

Re: The Bat! 3.51.10 is now available

Maxim, On 7/25/05, Maxim Masiutin wrote: > It is supposed to be a replacement of the currenlty downloadable 3.5.30. With the MSIs for both 3.51.9 and 3.51.10, you have added the above line at the end. I appreciate the spirit of this remark (as reflected in my comments on the "3.51, Communications

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/19/05, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:07:24 +0200, Jay Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Jay > > >> Could we end this maybe and call him Avi Yashar again? > > > Wow! That's not just OTT (over the top) but a

Re: OT: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/19/05, Roelof Otten wrote: > Hallo Jay, > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:07:24 +0300GMT (19-7-2005, 11:07 +0200, where I > live), you wrote: > > AY> Wow! That's not just OTT (over the top) but also OTW (off the wall) > AY> and NAZI (not any zebra intheworld). > > > Note: This moderator's interje

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/19/05, Alexander S. Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:00:59 +0200, Natasha V Pearce > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jay > > Could we end this maybe and call him Avi Yashar again? Wow! That's not just OTT (over the top) but also OTW (off the wall) and NAZI (not any

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/19/05, Natasha V Pearce wrote: > > I suppose it might be inflammatory to someone who works for RL; although I > > see > > no sign that RL employees are inflamed > > They show remarkable forebearance in the face of such amusingly OTT > accusations. > > > I don't see why those words should i

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/19/05, Thomas Fernandez wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:41:28 +0300 GMT (19/07/2005, 00:41 +0700 GMT), > Jay Walker wrote: > > JW> Again, Thomas, you are talking like someone who is at the > JW> beginning of a beta cycle and not the end of a beta cycle. > > Cor

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/18/05, Thomas Fernandez wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:50:07 +0300 GMT (18/07/2005, 21:50 +0700 GMT), > Jay Walker wrote: > > JW> I might be wrong, but it seems to me that RL is now trying to > JW> implement a new degree of unicode support and that RL knew - or > JW

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/18/05, Natasha V Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And you believe the following to be non-inflamatory? > > "This announcement goes beyond carelessness and irresponsibility. I > hesitate > to use terms like criminal neglect, but I believe a case could be made in > such > a direction.

Re: Re[2]: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/18/05, Maxim Masiutin wrote: > Monday, July 18, 2005, 11:58:56, you wrote: > > >>With an introduction like that - and with the > >>BayesIt problem still unresolved - who would imagine that we would be > >>embarking on an entirely new series of beta (pardon, me, alpha) > >>testing of a very ri

Re: Re[2]: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/18/05, Chris Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you sure you are cut out for testing software? Testing software? Yes. Testing a RitLabs email client? I am not sure any longer... for the reasons stated in my initial message on this thread. The simple fact is that I cannot afford to have

Re: 3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

On 7/18/05, Natasha V Pearce wrote: > been taken out of context, but if you feel I've misquoted you and/or > quoted > them in a misleading or otherwise inappropriate manner, please feel free > to > send down the fire-breathing trout of vengeance to toast me in the pit > of > etern

3.51, Communication, and the Ethics of Beta Testing

I don't know about others, but when 3.51 rolled up I thought that RL was just polishing a release to replace the faulty one on their Website - the one that somehow eliminated BayesIt. I had no idea that instead of this ostensible objective RL was going to use me as an alpha tester for a feature or

Re: MicroEd dropping random characters

On 7/14/05, Peter Meyns wrote: > MB> Where can I choose the character set to be used? > It is displayed in the message editor bottom right. Rightclick and see > all installed charsets to make your selection. Right-click, left-click... it's the same. But this setting only seems to apply to the cur

Re: MicroEd dropping random characters

On 7/14/05, Ian A. White wrote: > Well, now that you mention it this happened to me this morning. > > My normal template uses a disclaimer and I went to great lengths to > make sure that it was spelling mistake free. Then when I sent an > e-mail to my accountant this morning, the normal spelling c

Re: MicroEd dropping random characters

On 7/14/05, Natasha V Pearce wrote: > I write part of an email, save it and come back to it in the Outbox later, > only > to find some random characters have disappeared. Can be from > anywhere: > beginning, middle or end of a word or sometimes it can span between two > words. It h

Re: Search hangs

On 7/14/05, Marck D Pearlstone wrote: > @13-Jul-2005, 21:38 +0700 (13-Jul 15:38 UK time) Thomas Fernandez [TF] > in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck: > > MDP>> Confirmed! Keep forgetting to report this. It happens to me too. > > TF> Are you guys using OTFE? > > I'm not. I can't... the search

Re: Lycos mail plugin....

On 7/12/05, Alexander S. Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:36:40 +0200, Jay Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So let me get this straight. Instead of free POP3 access and nearly > > 2.5Gb storage with Gmail, Ritlabs is recommending a spam

Re: Lycos mail plugin....

On 7/12/05, Miroslav Florensen wrote: > > How can we request that? > > German - http://www.ritlabs.com/lycos_ex_de > English - http://www.ritlabs.com/lycos_ex_en > French - http://www.ritlabs.com/lycos_ex_fr So let me get this straight. Instead of free POP3 access and nearly 2.5Gb storage wi

Re: Re[2]: Lycos mail plugin....

On 7/11/05, Maxim Masiutin wrote: > Monday, July 11, 2005, 9:46:32, you wrote: > > >>That would be my guess. And, if so, the Lycos offers local POP3 access > >>only with a paid account and no local IMAP access, even with a paid > >>account. So, should that be the case, there really does not seem t

Re: Lycos mail plugin....

On 7/11/05, Manuel Breitfeld wrote: > On Monday, 11 July 2005 at 07:55 AM, Jay Walker wrote: > > >> Accordingly to your link, the basic package has HTTP/IMAP... > > > > You are right, Goncalo. No POP3 unless you pay, but "HTTP/IMAP" even > > fo

Re: Re[2]: Lycos mail plugin....

On 7/11/05, Goncalo Farias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JW> > http://secure.mail.lycos.co.uk/services/content/advdetail.jsp?advid=advdetails&advsvc=advcompare > > Accordingly to your link, the basic package has HTTP/IMAP... You are right, Goncalo. No POP3 unless you pay, but "HTTP/IMAP" even for

Re: Lycos mail plugin....

On 7/10/05, Liz wrote: > hehehe > > http://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/thebat/download.php > > You get to "sing up"! Another "I scratch your back - you scratch my back" promotion deal. Anything for money. It could just as easily have been "sin up". As far as I can tell, you don't even get POP3

Re: Re[11]: Question about helpfile pictures

On 7/9/05, Goncalo Farias wrote: > I'm not a traveller... but if I were I would start by the fiords :) > They're my next best thing after my home<->job itinerary :P Then don't miss Norway - a great country and a great people... even if they do talk through their nose. :-) -- jaywalker Windows XP

Re: Re[9]: Question about helpfile pictures

On 7/9/05, Goncalo Farias wrote: > I was kidding... :) Well, I was serious, but I wasn't upset... not with you at least. Your remarks were neither deprecating nor pretentious. And, just FTR, I was always "relaxed". > What's all about Magyar? If you really want to know the answer to that, Gonca

Re: Re[7]: Question about helpfile pictures

On 7/8/05, Ben Allen wrote: > Howdy Jay, Howdy, Ben. > Friday, July 8, 2005, 9:12:10 AM, Jay wrotened: > JW> Pardon me, Goncalo, but that was not Vili's question. Vili asked me > JW> how it happens that I know this word. > > Calm let your hackles settle... No hackles, Ben. I was just pointi

Re: Re[5]: Question about helpfile pictures

On 7/8/05, Goncalo Farias wrote: > > In reply to : > > V> Hello Avi, > > >> On 7/6/05, Vili wrote: > >>> Download the Hungarian manuals :)) > >> Well, the documentation probably could not be any less clear to me in > >> Magyar than it is in English. :-) > > V> "Magyar"..

Re: 3.51

On 7/7/05, Allie Martin wrote: > Men don't experience that .. Well, I'll have to confirm this with Tony. He has been clarifying a lot of such matters for me lately. But thanks for your specification of gender. All this time I thought it was "Allie", like maybe Ally McBeal with an "ie" instead of

Re: 3.51

Hi Manuel, On 7/7/05, Manuel Breitfeld wrote: > Hello James, First of all, the name is "Jay" or, if you like, "jaywalker". Not James - never James. That's too British for my current incarnation. > On Tuesday, 07 July 2005 at 08:04 AM you (James (Jay) Walk

Re: 3.51

On 7/7/05, Allie Martin wrote: > On Wednesday, July 06, 2005 at 11:57:26 PM [GMT -0500], James (Jay) > Walker wrote: > > > And, FWIW (although only Allie seems to have a block here), in the > > outline numbering system, 3.9 would be followed by 3.10. > > I'm famil

Re: 3.51

On 7/6/05, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > on 06-Jul-2005 at 20:28 you (Allie Martin) wrote: > > > Version numbering almost always exhibits a natural mathematical > > progression unless, the number defines a date or have some other > > similar meaning, or numbers are separated by non-numeric string. >

Re: Mod: Moderator's comment (was: Question about helpfile pictures)

On 7/7/05, Marck D Pearlstone wrote: > Dear Avi, > > Please don't feel singled out Avi. > > )<)))'> > > You are writing to the list using the name Avi Yashar and I haven't > moderated one of your messages for over a week. SCNR :gdr: Did h**l freeze over, or is Mr. P finally developing a sense

<    1   2