Hello Ben,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 12:23:08 AM, you wrote:
Thursday, October 12, 2006, 10:12:33 PM, Graham wrotened:
GS I have a person who I email regularly. Emails that I initiate, get
GS through to him, but if I reply to one of his emails he doesn't
GS receive it.
Do they bounce
Hello Thomas,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 2:43:12 AM, you wrote:
GS Thanks, but only one entry for this contact and no reply templates
GS defined.
When you reply, is the a spelling mistake in his address?
No, I have checked this
Just guessing: Maybe he has a spelling mistake in his Reply-To
Hallo Graham,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:59:18 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 8:59 , where I
live), you wrote:
GS How do I view the Reply to header? I have right clicked on the header
GS and selected the Reply to option in the headers menu, but it isn't
GS showing up.
Press Shift-Ctrl-K to view all headers
Hallo Tom,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:22:53 +1000GMT (13-10-2006, 4:22 , where I
live), you wrote:
TL Only issue is that if I write emails, the old account still shows up
TL as an option. Is there any way only to show active accounts so that I
TL don't use the old account by mistake when sending an
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Original message text=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Closing the firewall still gets the error beep from the bat checking
email... I would like to momentarily tell the bat to not check email.
Going thru 30 accounts and turning it off for a moment would be a pain...
But if we get enoguh
Hello Roelof,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 9:10:49 AM, you wrote:
Press Shift-Ctrl-K to view all headers (including the reply-to header)
while viewing the message. Press Shift-Ctrl-K again to make them
disappear.
I have extracted the headers from a send to email (upper) and a reply
to email
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 at 10:16:52 +0200, Roelof wrote:
I think that in order to drop it in the hierarchy you've got to change
stuff in the registry in:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT\The Bat!\Users Depot
No you don't. Ctrl-Shift-Up and Ctrl-Shift-Down will move accounts as
well as folders
Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:06:26 PM, you wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 at 10:16:52 +0200, Roelof wrote:
I think that in order to drop it in the hierarchy you've got to change
stuff in the registry in:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT\The Bat!\Users Depot
No you don't. Ctrl-Shift-Up and
Hello Tom,
I think you misunderstood. I realise that I can shift the account and folder
itself in the panel up or down. My issue is that when creating a new
message and checking the active account under options, the now
obsolete account is prominently featured in the number 2 spot next to
Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:43:53 PM, you wrote:
Hello Tom,
I think you misunderstood. I realise that I can shift the account and folder
itself in the panel up or down. My issue is that when creating a new
message and checking the active account under options, the now
obsolete account is
Hello Thomas,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 2:43:12 AM, you wrote:
GS Thanks, but only one entry for this contact and no reply templates
GS defined.
When you reply, is the a spelling mistake in his address?
No, I have checked this
Just guessing: Maybe he has a spelling mistake in his
Hello David,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 1:50:48 PM, you wrote:
For your information I have exactly the same problem when sending
emails to a client in Australia. All replies disappear into the
ether. Sending standalone emails seems to work. I have asked their
IT people to look into their
Hallo Graham,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:21:19 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 11:21 , where I
live), you wrote:
disappear.
GS I have extracted the headers from a send to email (upper) and a reply
GS to email (lower). Can anyone see anything strange about them. Many
GS thanks.
I can't see anything wrong
Hallo David,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:50:48 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 14:50 +0200, where
I live), you wrote:
DE etc? If this works it's either a Bat or a server issue.
moderator
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not
just to the person being replied to, even if their
Hello Roelof,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:08:33 PM, you wrote:
Because I can't see anything wrong with both messages.
You can disable reply numbering at:
Account - Properties - Templates - Reply - Use reply numbering in the
subject line
Is this going to affect message threading?
--
Hallo Graham,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:27:15 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 16:27 , where I
live), you wrote:
You can disable reply numbering at:
GS Is this going to affect message threading?
No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients.
For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject
Hello Roelof,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:52:06 PM, you wrote:
You can disable reply numbering at:
GS Is this going to affect message threading?
No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients.
For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject it
might improve threading.
Hello Graham,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:59:18 +0100 GMT (13/10/2006, 13:59 +0700 GMT),
Graham Smith wrote:
When you reply, is the a spelling mistake in his address?
GS No, I have checked this
That crashes my theory.
Just guessing: Maybe he has a spelling mistake in his Reply-To header,
which
Hello Scott,
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:51:53 -0500 GMT (13/10/2006, 11:51 +0700 GMT),
Scott wrote:
What I do, is close my firewall. This is a mere workaround. I would
like a menu item under Options / Network Admin to do that.
S =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Original message text=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
S Closing
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:52:06 +0200, Roelof Otten wrote:
GSIs this going to affect message threading?
No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients.
For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on
subject it might improve threading.
However, other mail clients DO have a problem when
Hello Thomas,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 4:17:40 PM, you wrote:
Crtl-K was suggested to see all headers. You can also hit F9 to see
the whole source of the message, which is what I usually do. It will
also show you other problems, such as unbalanced boundaries. Not that
I have experienced
Hello Arjan de Groot everyone else,
on 13-Okt-2006 at 17:27 you (Arjan de Groot) wrote:
In short, this Re: numbering is non-RFC
Can you point me to the RFC that says reply prefixes *MUST NOT* contain
these numbers?
superfluous and stupid, and RIT should get rid of it as soon as
possible
Hello Roelof,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:52:06 PM, you wrote:
You can disable reply numbering at:
GS Is this going to affect message threading?
No. Not for TB and other threading mail clients.
For non-threading mail clients that only thread/sort on subject it
might improve threading.
Hello David,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 1:50:48 PM, you wrote:
For your information I have exactly the same problem when sending
emails to a client in Australia. All replies disappear into the
ether. Sending standalone emails seems to work. I have asked their
IT people to look into their
Hallo Graham,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:24:39 +0100GMT (13-10-2006, 19:24 , where I
live), you wrote:
You can disable reply numbering at:
GS This seems to have worked :-)
In that case it's most likely that the Re[2]: in the subject was
triggering some sort of spam filter.
Just out of curiosity,
Hello Roelof,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 7:08:24 PM, you wrote:
You can disable reply numbering at:
GS This seems to have worked :-)
In that case it's most likely that the Re[2]: in the subject was
triggering some sort of spam filter.
Just out of curiosity, did you even receive your own
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:15:27 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
In short, this Re: numbering is non-RFC
Can you point me to the RFC that says reply prefixes *MUST NOT*
contain these numbers?
RFC-2822 has this to say:
3.6.5. Informational fields
[...] The Subject: field is the most common and
On Friday, October 13, 2006, 3:24:35 PM, Arjan de Groot on TBUDL wrote:
Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though.
That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid.
I never have understood why we had that option to begin with. That's
always one of the first things
Hello Arjan de Groot everyone else,
on 13-Okt-2006 at 21:24 you (Arjan de Groot) wrote:
[...] The Subject: field is the most common and contains a
short string identifying the topic of the message. When used in a
reply, the field body MAY start with the string Re: (from the
Latin res, in
Hello Roelof Otten everyone else,
on 13-Okt-2006 at 20:08 you (Roelof Otten) wrote:
In that case it's most likely that the Re[2]: in the subject was
triggering some sort of spam filter.
That sounds very plausible. There's been quite some spam in the past
that contained this Re: numbering in
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:25:45 -0400, David Calvarese wrote:
Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default
though.
That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid.
I never have understood why we had that option to begin with.
That's always one of the first things I do on
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:53:46 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
If I understand correctly, it implies: you MAY use 1 instance of
Re: in a reply, but you SHOULD NOT use other strings as it can
lead to undesirable consequences.
That is one interpretation. :-) Another fine example of an RFC that
Hi
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 at 1:06:00 AM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Phillips
wrote:
MFPA,
you wrote:
Using The Bat! v3.80.06 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Also suggest you upgrade both XP Bat.
[OT]
Cannot upgrade XP as Service Pack 2 causes windows explorer to
Hi
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 at 1:04:51 AM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Phillips
wrote:
Check that you do not have a tick in Do not include attachments in
the filter.
Had not noticed the edit button... but no luck, all three tick
boxes already unticked.
--
Best regards,
MFPA
Hi
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 at 7:49:24 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Roelof Otten wrote:
Could not connect to the server is an odd error. You tried this:
smtp.googlemail.com TLS to port 465
pop.googlemail.comTLS to port 995
smtp authentication enabled of course, but don't select
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 14 Oct 2006,
@ @ at 00:01:36 +0200, when Arjan de Groot wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:53:46 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
If I understand correctly, it implies: you MAY use
36 matches
Mail list logo
