Re: Vista RTM
Hi, ,- - [ Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 vers 21:28 Jernej Simonèiè écrivait: ] - - | Sorry but i need those logs for archival purpose. I know i can send them as attachements, but it's easier for me like that, it's why i use TheBat!, wich is able to handle those kind of mails, even if it use much memory for that. ... /var/log/archive/cron.log 0 0 * * 0tar cvf /dev/tape /var/log/archive/* That's not the purpose of this list, thus do not try to find another solution, just know that for some reasons the logs must be send to another computer for security purpose, and email is the easiest way to handle a queue, if the destination computer is down there's no problem, the mail is still send to another MX, and thus in every case i know that the log is send away from the server as soon as possible, even when the server itself loosed the internet connexion, when those connexion bring back, the mail server do it's job nicely. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Voyager usage problems
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED] everyone else, on 25-Dez-2006 at 19:28 you ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm using Voyager up at my Dad's house and am having problems. Whatever I set I can't send, only receive. I have to send via Mail2web. My Dad's PC has McAfee security centre and he gets the following message now when he tries to use Outlook Express for his messages: The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'localhost', Server: '127.0.0.1', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E I'm a little bit confused, you seem to describe two different problems... 1. you can't send with Voyager and 2. your dad can't connect using OE. Is that correct? I've had a look at the McAfee centre but can't adjust the settings for SpamKiller which is, according to various mailing lists, the trouble maker. Anyone know a solution? If the McAfee spam killer works as a local proxy and automatically adjusts the configuration, the entries in OE would be correct (using localhost as the server). You could try to use the real server addresses for POP3 access to your dads email account and enter them in OE. As it looks now, the McAfee spam filter is not working, and OE can't connect to the local proxy. Regarding the unability for you to send messages with Voyager, there could be different causes for that: a) the personal firewall (McAfee it seems) is set to something like high security and blocks every SMTP connection attempt to outside hosts that are not explicitely configured as allowed - you have to check the configuration of the McAfee firewall in that case b) the provider of your dad blocks SMTP connections to foreign SMTP servers and people must relay all messages thru their own SMTP server (you can't do anything about that) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) The struggle for knowledge has a pleasure in it like that of wrestling with a fine woman. -- Lord Halifax Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Weird addressbook problem
Hallo Costas, On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:42:16 +0200GMT (26-12-2006, 7:42 , where I live), you wrote: CP Regarding the possible causes of the error, it's true that I have CP duplicate entries in my Addressbook, if one counts as duplicates those CP entries that have the same email address, but are otherwise different CP (including having a different nickname (handle)). That's duplicate enough to cause problems. -- Groetjes, Roelof Wizard's Guild Parking Only: Violators will be Toad. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.95.5 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpy55jLgEXCG.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Weird addressbook problem
Hello Roelof, Tuesday, December 26, 2006, 12:28:42 PM, you wrote (possibly edited): On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:42:16 +0200GMT (26-12-2006, 7:42 , where I live), you wrote: CP it's true that I have CP duplicate entries in my Addressbook, if one counts as duplicates those CP entries that have the same email address, but are otherwise different CP (including having a different nickname (handle)). That's duplicate enough to cause problems. I'll accept that, and I should note that thankfully this behaviour only occurs with just one email address - mine! By the way, with the other duplicate email addresses, the nicknames appear inconsistently in the email messages, that is for some group members the nickname is the correct one for the group whereas for others the email recipient's nickname in the email that I send is the one belonging to the email address, but in another group of the same addressbook. To illustrate, if I have Group A and Group B in the same addressbook, and nickname1 and nickname2 for the same email address respectively, then an email may be sent to Group A showing nickname2 instead of nickname1. However, this irregularity may not arise for other people in the groups. As I couldn't find any pattern for this, I gave up trying to fix it some time ago. -- Best regards, Costas Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Weird addressbook problem
Roelof Otten wrote: That's duplicate enough to cause problems. With regard to duplicate email addresses. I have a customer who uses his Secretary's email address so that all emails to him are filtered by her. I sometimes need to email her individually so I have two address book entries for two separate people, but each have the same email address. I take it that this causes problems in TB!? I wouldn't have thought that this was that uncommon, even in today's world I guess people still share an email address in much the same way as people share a postal address? So perhaps this is a shortcoming of TB!? -- Best regards Barry. Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Weird addressbook problem
Hello Barry everyone else, on 26-Dez-2006 at 11:58 you (Barry) wrote: I take it that this causes problems in TB!? Depends on what you're doing. If you're using two different templates for the boss and the secretary, yes. How should TB determine which email address belongs to whom when you're just using the mail address? So perhaps this is a shortcoming of TB!? Partly. TB should maybe use a contact based address book, and not an email address based address book. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) NP: Schöneberg (Original Marmion Mix) by Marmion Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Weird addressbook problem
Hallo BJH, On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:58:10 +GMT (26-12-2006, 11:58 , where I live), you wrote: B With regard to duplicate email addresses. B I have a customer who uses his Secretary's email address so that all B emails to him are filtered by her. B I sometimes need to email her individually so I have two address book B entries for two separate people, but each have the same email address. B I take it that this causes problems in TB!? It won't cause any problems, unless you're going to use %ABToXXX macros in your messages to them. And I think that only one them will receive a mass mailing message when you include both of their entries. B I wouldn't have thought that this was that uncommon, even in today's B world I guess people still share an email address in much the same way B as people share a postal address? It isn't that uncommon, but there is a major difference with a postal address. Your snailmail gets delivered per envelope, so your housemates see your name and let it closed. Unfortunately receiving an email message makes it very hard not to read it. So there is a distinct difference between the two kinds of addresses. B So perhaps this is a shortcoming of TB!? IMO it's no shortcoming. I guess it's kind of impossible to personalise a message to a non personal address. Not doing the impossible isn't a shortcoming, is it? -- Groetjes, Roelof Every person constructs their own bed of nails. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.95.5 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpuDzMECofkh.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Weird addressbook problem
Hallo Costas, On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:51:23 +0200GMT (26-12-2006, 11:51 , where I live), you wrote: CP By the way, with the other duplicate email addresses, the nicknames CP appear inconsistently in the email messages, that is for some group CP members the nickname is the correct one for the group whereas for CP others the email recipient's nickname in the email that I send is the CP one belonging to the email address, but in another group of the same CP addressbook. To illustrate, if I have Group A and Group B in the same CP addressbook, and nickname1 and nickname2 for the same email address CP respectively, then an email may be sent to Group A showing nickname2 CP instead of nickname1. However, this irregularity may not arise for CP other people in the groups. As I couldn't find any pattern for this, I CP gave up trying to fix it some time ago. The pattern might be that the nickname to be used is the nickname that belongs to the oldest entry. The solution might be to skip the duplicate entries (you can add the same entry to multiple groups) and use separate AB fields for the nicknames for the different groups. And then you use %ABToHandle for your templates regarding group1 and %ABToFirstName for your group2 templates. This makes it easier to mutate changing addresses. In stead of finding out how many entries you've got with a changed address and then change them all now you've only got one to change. -- Groetjes, Roelof Ga Naar WINDOWS 95. Ga Niet Langs DOS. Ontvang Geen f 2,- http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 3.95.5 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpDTNN1R9kwW.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Vista RTM
On Monday, December 25, 2006, 23:49:41, Tony wrote: My problems where mainly with commercial software. Maybe the software itself worked but things crashed due to anti-piracy measures. (hardware keys/dongles etc) Hardware dongles are something else, and I can easily imagine that they don't work - but that's because 32bit Windows OSes don't let any software access hardware directly anymore (because it's too easy to crash the system otherwise). Most people buy complete systems (like Dell). Try to find something without XP installed. Shortly that will be Vista. (just like half already has a Core CPU) Vista hardware requirements are high but *not* on the box. There you find the usual conservative MS specs. But there is big diffrence between home edition and Premium with that glass windows. Some time ago (very soon after Vista RTM was released to MSDN subscribers), a few people I know compared Vista with XP on a 1GHz Via C3 system. With all effects disabled, Vista still needed 30% CPU when *idle*, compared to XP, which needed 2-5%.. About the 5%... Vista isn't really launched for the main public right now. Like always MS will start heavy advertising and they start to sell. It worked that way with all Windows versions. It might sell with new systems (because XP won't be available anymore to OEMs), but I doubt many existing customers will switch from XP to Vista. JS Intel? Intel was hiding that it's CPUs supported long mode for a long long JS time. The 64-bit CPUs where way to expensive for home use. Until now ATM Intels 64-bit CPUs are about the same price as their 32-bit ones. So I see no reason to buy 32-bit. My guess is that the 32-bit CPUs get fased out soon. You're confusing IA64 and x64 CPUs. IA64 was Intel and HP's joint CPU design, incompatible with existing x86 CPUs, primarily meant for server market (where it never really took off). x84 (or, to be precise, AMD64) is AMD's 64bit upgrade to the existing x86 (IA32) CPU architecture. Intel at first didn't want to support it at all, since it didn't see any reason for desktop computing to move to 64 bits, while it wanted it's own IA64 technology for the server market. However, it turned out that AMD's vision was right, and Intel very quietly licensed their technology and added it to the Pentium4 CPUs - but kept it disabled for a long time (and when they finally enabled the long mode on P4's, it was still hard to know in advance if you'll get a 64bit capable CPU, unless you looked really hard on Intel's website for CPU model numbers). For now I stick with Win XP Pro with classical view because I hate that gamecomputer interface. You can easily disable useless eye-candy in Vista, too - it's just that there's still so much happening in background, that your CPU is never really idle. -- Jernej Simončič http://deepthought.ena.si/ Government expands to absorb revenue, and then some. -- Wicker's Law Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Vista RTM
Hello Jernej, JS Some time ago (very soon after Vista RTM was released to MSDN subscribers), JS a few people I know compared Vista with XP on a 1GHz Via C3 system. With all JS effects disabled, Vista still needed 30% CPU when *idle*, compared to XP, JS which needed 2-5%.. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Vista uses little resources. I just say MS has quality marketing that makes people believe otherwise. About the 5%... Vista isn't really launched for the main public right now. Like always MS will start heavy advertising and they start to sell. It worked that way with all Windows versions. JS It might sell with new systems (because XP won't be available anymore to JS OEMs), but I doubt many existing customers will switch from XP to Vista. I don't know the ratio OEM to normal licences. Almost all OEMs + some normal licences + warez = a lot I think. You JS Intel? Intel was hiding that it's CPUs supported long mode for a long long JS time. The 64-bit CPUs where way to expensive for home use. Until now ATM Intels 64-bit CPUs are about the same price as their 32-bit ones. So I see no reason to buy 32-bit. My guess is that the 32-bit CPUs get fased out soon. JS You're confusing IA64 and x64 CPUs. IA64 was Intel and HP's joint CPU JS design, incompatible with existing x86 CPUs, primarily meant for server JS market (where it never really took off). x84 (or, to be precise, AMD64) is JS AMD's 64bit upgrade to the existing x86 (IA32) CPU architecture. Intel at JS first didn't want to support it at all, since it didn't see any reason for JS desktop computing to move to 64 bits, while it wanted it's own IA64 JS technology for the server market. However, it turned out that AMD's vision JS was right, and Intel very quietly licensed their technology and added it to JS the Pentium4 CPUs - but kept it disabled for a long time (and when they JS finally enabled the long mode on P4's, it was still hard to know in advance JS if you'll get a 64bit capable CPU, unless you looked really hard on Intel's JS website for CPU model numbers). Itanium was not a desktop chip (besides being incompatible) The 64-bit functionality on other CPUs was either not there , switched of or kept silent. AMD did beat Intel to it but XP got all kind of delays in the 64-bit release. I remember the gossip that Intel made/asked MS to delay XP 64-bit to catch up. So I think we agree here. 64-bit CPUs didn't exist or where a well kept secret for the consumer market. (and not much choice in motherboard either besides brands like SuperMicro) For now I stick with Win XP Pro with classical view because I hate that gamecomputer interface. JS You can easily disable useless eye-candy in Vista, too - it's just that JS there's still so much happening in background, that your CPU is never really JS idle. Disabling the eye-candy is the 1st thing I do for sure. But first I need to convince myself the benefits of Vista. Eye-candy, resource hog and DRM crap aren't exactly benefits. (possibly) wider know 64-bit versions are good but not without 64-bit programs. Stability XP is very stable here. Security... well MS you know. Already a (backward compatible) exploit Personally every step I make hard and software wise will be toward 64-bit. But I have no hurry because although I see the 64-bit platform have potential it still has to mature (software wise) A happy New Year to all. -- Best regards, Tony How can sweet and sour sauce be sweet and sour at the same time? Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Voyager usage problems
Hello Alexander, On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ASK 1. you can't send with Voyager and ASK 2. your dad can't connect using OE. ASK Is that correct? Indeed it is. I used to be able to send with no problems but the last two times I've been up (and since he upgraded his McAfee) I haven't been able to connect, even though I put all the usual SMTP settings in for my Voyager, and then there's something that completely screws up MacAfee so that Spamkiller doesn't work. On going to the internet chat forums I found out that it's the Spamkiller programme that doesn't actually load and using Voyager causes that. I've now completely removed it but still can't send myself using Voyager. ASK If the McAfee spam killer works as a local proxy and automatically ASK adjusts the configuration, the entries in OE would be correct ASK (using localhost as the server). Yes, it does work if I manually install Spamkiller but that's beyond my Dad so that's why I've removed it. ASK As it looks now, the McAfee spam filter is not working, and OE ASK can't connect to the local proxy. Indeed, that's what turned out to be the problem. ASK a) the personal firewall (McAfee it seems) is set to something like ASK high security and blocks every SMTP connection attempt to outside ASK hosts that are not explicitely configured as allowed - you have to ASK check the configuration of the McAfee firewall in that case The first time I use Voyager McAfee asks for permission to allow it. The firewall itself is set to normal security. ASK b) the provider of your dad blocks SMTP connections to foreign SMTP ASK servers and people must relay all messages thru their own SMTP server I suppose that's a possibiliy although he's using BT in the UK and I think they'd allow that sort of thing. At the moment I'll just have to content myself with being able to read mails but having to send using Mail2Web. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.86.03 with POP3 account AntispamSniper 1.7.0.8 | Windows XP (build 2600) version 5.1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot | CPU: Athlon 1.09 Ghz | RAM: 1024 MB Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Vista RTM
Hello Tony everyone else, on 26-Dez-2006 at 14:43 you (Tony) wrote: Disabling the eye-candy is the 1st thing I do for sure. I don't know about Vista, but dis/-enabling eye candy in XP has no effect on the performance. When you disable menu fading and menu delay, window zooming etc. things may feel snappier - but that has nothing to do with the performance. Themes and font smoothing have no measurable impact on the performance. Same goes for TB - if you're using the default Windows theme or any of the built-in themes doesn't make a difference either. Everything is a theme somehow... -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) But what ... is it good for? -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Vista RTM
Hello Alexander, Tuesday, December 26, 2006, 3:49:31 PM, you wrote: ASK Hello Tony everyone else, ASK on 26-Dez-2006 at 14:43 you (Tony) wrote: Disabling the eye-candy is the 1st thing I do for sure. ASK I don't know about Vista, but dis/-enabling eye candy in XP has no ASK effect on the performance. It's more that I don't like the fat borders around the windows etc. -- Best regards, Tony Work is accomplished by those employees who have not reached their level of incompetence.. Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Voyager usage problems
Hello Roelof, On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] RO Kill spamkiller when you're using Voyager on your dad's system. I've actually uninstalled it as my Dad doesn't use his PC a great deal and knows nothing about them so, when something goes even slightly wrong, he's flummoxed and it's difficult as he lives on his own. OE now works fine but I still can't send with Voyager. His MCafee firewall asks for permission to use Voyager which I grant but still no luck. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.86.03 with POP3 account AntispamSniper 1.7.0.8 | Windows XP (build 2600) version 5.1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot | CPU: Athlon 1.09 Ghz | RAM: 1024 MB Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Voyager usage problems
Hello Peter, On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PO 'localhost' is the computer you were working on at that time PO '127.0.0.1' is the same as 'localhost' PO Both are not likely to be valid as account or server, unless you PO created such a setup yourself. I didn't set it up but that is, believe it or not, the set up that was installed by some local firm when they set it up for my father. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.86.03 with POP3 account AntispamSniper 1.7.0.8 | Windows XP (build 2600) version 5.1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot | CPU: Athlon 1.09 Ghz | RAM: 1024 MB Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
