Hello all,
Tuesday, July 26, 2005, Wayne Howard wrote:
Yes. You told something about Servant Salamander.
V That is a good software...
It seems terribly basic to me.
old free 1.52 is very basic, but small and stable. Current 2.5 beta is
very great, but I hate their releasing scheme, who
Hallo Marek,
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:02:24 +0200GMT (26-7-2005, 9:02 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
Yes. You told something about Servant Salamander.
V That is a good software...
It seems terribly basic to me.
MM old free 1.52 is very basic, but small and stable. Current 2.5 beta is
Hi, everyone.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, 11:29:37 PM, I wrote:
I'm still on version 3.0.9.13. One reason that I have never upgraded
this version and completely stopped using The Bat! some time ago is that
it is unusable due to a constantly recurring error message.
No matter which account
Well, after I posted a few minutes ago, I started up The Bat!
again, and this time, quickly switched away from Inbox to a
different folder as soon as possible. I navigated around to
several folders before going back to Inbox.
It's now been several minutes, and no error messages. So what
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:38:16 +0200, Vili [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Subpatt 1 should match on Schönen guten Tag, but it only finds
Sch and this is very annoying :-(
Still broken in .10 ...
2. send the bug in private to 9Val with high priority
My first mail because of this bug was in CC to
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:40:05 +0200, Vili [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes. You told something about Servant Salamander.
That is a good software...
I never contradicted this :-)
--
Bye, Bernd
Current beta is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBBETA'
Hallo Bernd,
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:53:26 +0200GMT (26-7-2005, 10:53 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
Yes. You told something about Servant Salamander.
That is a good software...
BD I never contradicted this
BD
moderator
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not
On Monday, July 25, 2005 at 10:20:22 PM [GMT -0500], Gary wrote:
that is a good idea for the outbox.. I just hope that in time, I will
achieve smooth IMAP operation. I can't explain it, but it does happen on
both my Unix (FreeBSD) and Windows servers. Also, combine this with the fact
that all
On Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 2:45:10 AM [GMT -0500], Keith Russell
wrote:
Firstly, I'm a FastMail user and can confirm that TB! can work well with
it. So your problems with it should be reproducible by me if there were
problems with FastMail.
As soon as I started up the new version, I started
On Monday, July 25, 2005 at 5:12:51 PM [GMT -0500], Alexander S. Kunz
wrote:
Offering all three versions maybe would show the commitment to
stability, while not sacrificing the benefit of the progress that has
been made in the meantime.
I tend to agree, especially as an IMAP user.
IMO,
Hello Keith,
Monday, July 25, 2005, 4:18:34, you wrote:
The file thebat_pro_3-51.msi is not a valid installation package.
Ideas? Do I need to uninstall the old version before installing
this? Or what?
Maybe the download got corrupted? Did you try to check the digital signature of
the file?
On 2005-07-26 at 03:18:34 Keith Russell wrote:
I am installing over a very old beta version (didn't write down
the beta version and now I can't run the program). Before
starting the installation I renamed the installation folder from
TheBat to The Bat! (Finally graduated from DOS and I'm
7/26/2005 9:49 AM
Hi Dimitry,
On 7/26/2005 Dimitry Andric wrote:
DA This means that thebat_pro_3-51.msi is not the original .msi file
DA that you installed your old The Bat with. You need a copy of that to
DA complete the uninstall. It's a completely braindead system, I agree,
DA but that's
On 2005-07-26 at 15:53:32 Paul Van Noord wrote:
complete the uninstall. It's a completely braindead system, I agree,
but that's just the way MSI works...
So why does RIT Labs insist on using it??
There could be several reasons:
- Microsoft Windows Logo compliance, though not sure if
Hello 9Val,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:12:31 +0300 GMT (26/07/2005, 02:12 +0700 GMT),
9Val wrote:
9 I know, that there are a lot of complaints about 3.51 beta serie.
9 Now I'll describe some reasons why we release it.
Your explanation is highly appreciated.
I see some minor glitches in this
Hello Thomas Fernandez everyone else,
on 26-Jul-2005 at 16:53 you (Thomas Fernandez) wrote:
3.51.10 runs vary stable
^
LOL!!!
typo of the month!
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
The doors of Heaven and Hell are
Hello Boris,
BA So none bug of BugList can be fixed without serious changes?
Surely there are a lot of cosmetic fixes and traslation issues, but
I don't think somebody will be satisfied with them more than three
days.
--
Hello Boris,
BA I'm sure you said already something about numbering system but could you
BA or somebody else please explain again (or send mid) how the new nubering
BA system should be work?
3.51.10
3 = the major version number
51 = first cipher means feature list
second cipher encodes
Hello Jay,
JW But, personally, two things are of most interest to me in respect to 3.51:
JWo Can I rely on MicroEd to not distort the text of my email messages?
Yes
JWo Will it give me an OTFE implementation that I can use (i.e. that
JW will search my message base without hanging and
:) Is it so important to you?
It's more an issue of convenience. If I've got the files for 3.51.1
3.51.9 and 3.51.10 then windoze organises them in the order
3.51.1
3.51.10
3.51.9
if you used the format x.xx.xx then windoze would list them in version
number order.
--
Stuart Hemming
Using
Hello Alexander,
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:19:52 +0200 GMT (26/07/2005, 22:19 +0700 GMT),
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
3.51.10 runs vary stable
ASK ^
ASK LOL!!!
ASK typo of the month!
I do expect a plaque for that. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Heut debug ich, morgen
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 currently
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:
JWo 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
3.51.10 and
Stuart Hemming wrote:
It's more an issue of convenience. If I've got the files for 3.51.1
3.51.9 and 3.51.10 then windoze organises them in the order
3.51.1
3.51.10
3.51.9
if you used the format x.xx.xx then windoze would list them in version
number order.
And then it will break again
Hello Dimitry,
On 2005-07-26 at 15:53:32 Paul Van Noord wrote:
complete the uninstall. It's a completely braindead system, I agree,
but that's just the way MSI works...
So why does RIT Labs insist on using it??
There could be several reasons:
- Microsoft Windows Logo compliance, though
Hi Keith!
I browsed to the correct location for the installation file--
which, of course, is not named thebat_professional.msi, but
rather thebat_pro_3-51.msi--and continued. I then got this message:
The file thebat_pro_3-51.msi is not a valid installation package.
Ideas? Do I need to
Hello Stuart,
Tuesday, July 26, 2005, 10:48:13 AM, you wrote:
:) Is it so important to you?
SH It's more an issue of convenience. If I've got the files for 3.51.1
SH 3.51.9 and 3.51.10 then windoze organises them in the order
SH 3.51.1
SH 3.51.10
SH 3.51.9
Hmmm, here are two fixes:
1.) sort
Hi all,
I am having a problem using TB against an Exchange 2003 server using MAPI. I
have filed a bug report (https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4934) however I
would be grateful if someone could confirm it so we can get it moved forward
and resolved. This issue is currently preventing me
Thanks, everyone, for your replies. Sorry to be so slow to
respond. I was actually able to complete the installation last
night, but forgot to post to this thread with that information,
and was busy this morning.
In any case, the thread has turned out to be very educational. I
will know in the
In reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
KR Hi, all.
KR Here I am again, ready for another try...and I can't get the
KR program to install!
KR I am installing over a very old beta version (didn't write down
KR the beta version and now I can't run the program). Before
KR starting the
Hi,
I just tried to send a mail with uuencoded attachments but the source
code of the message in the sent folder tells me that the mail is still
base64 encoded.
Can someone confirm?
--
Regards,
Raymund
Current beta is 3.51.10 | 'Using
Hello Jay,
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 runs
JW fine; but after restoring from backup and trying to search the same
JW
Hello Stuart Hemming everyone else,
on 26-Jul-2005 at 17:48 you (Stuart Hemming) wrote:
if you used the format x.xx.xx then windoze would list them in version
number order.
Use TweakUI XP, enable intuitive filename sorting in the Explorer options
and that little annoyance is a goner.
--
TBBETA Keith,
:snip: No way could I get to a menu to disconnect from the server, nor
could I repair the database. :snip:
You have to click on the IMAP account, click on the Account --
IMAP Commands --, Disconnect from Server **before** you run folder
maintenance, otherwise TB! will interact
On 2005-07-26 at 21:19:10 Raymund Tump wrote:
I just tried to send a mail with uuencoded attachments but the source
code of the message in the sent folder tells me that the mail is still
base64 encoded.
Can someone confirm?
Can't confirm. Attaching a small test file gives the following
TBBETA,
On 7/26/2005, 10:28 AM, you scribbled:
9 Hello Boris,
BA So none bug of BugList can be fixed without serious changes?
9 Surely there are a lot of cosmetic fixes and traslation issues, but
9 I don't think somebody will be satisfied with them more than three
9 days.
A pearl of
TBBETA,
On 7/25/2005, 03:14 PM, you scribbled:
9 Hello Jay,
JW I understand this. But what is not clear to me is why we went from
JW 3.5.30 to 3.5.36 and then jumped to 3.51 without ever seeming to
JW complete the 3.5.xx series.
9 Actually 3.51 is the same serie, it just uses new numbering
On Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 3:46:45 PM [GMT -0500], Mike Rourke wrote:
:snip: No way could I get to a menu to disconnect from the server,
nor could I repair the database. :snip:
The pacmen are cute, but the noise level is high in the message when
they're so numerous. They're distracting and
TBBETA,
On 7/26/2005, 05:02 PM, you scribbled:
C On Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 3:46:45 PM [GMT -0500], Mike Rourke wrote:
:snip: No way could I get to a menu to disconnect from the server,
nor could I repair the database. :snip:
C The pacmen are cute, but the noise level is high in the
Paul Van Noord [PVN] wrote,
The stuff I develop and distribute uses an *.exe and it works!
Yeah, but that's way to easy! :)
--
Regards,
Ron Secord
Using TB! 3.51.10 Professional
Under Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2
If the conniption fits, wear it!
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 runs
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 runs
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 runs
Hello Mary,
On Monday, July 25, 2005, at 6:04:36 PM, you wrote
re: RARed betas reset Menu shortcuts:
I noticed a few weeks ago that when I install a RAR archived beta and
run it, that it puts my customized Menu shortcuts back to default.
Anyone else notice this?
MB Yes, it was from
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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
