Re: v3.0 filter failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Tue, 7 Sep 2004, at 19:49:10 +0200, @ @ when MAU wrote: If you are lucky you'll try firstly esc, before you close the box using X, instead OK. As seen in TBBeta, Esc is not really equivalent to Cancel. It may work some times and sometimes not, Oh, even better. Thanks for the warning. - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast [Earth LOG: 8 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBQNKk9q62QPd3XuIRAsXJAJ9Q94wiWzt2qiHpUUm+AnJQnQuTVgCaAtzm ECg3acC0B83MJIhLtstVPcI= =mbNq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Wed, 8 Sep 2004, at 02:55:05 +0200, @ @ when Roelof Otten wrote: Hallo Mica, On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:14:20 +0200GMT (7-9-2004, 15:14 +0200, where I live), you wrote: As far as converting OFS to NFS is concerned. Delete the NFS restart TB and it'll automatically translate the old filters to the new ones. MM I do not understand the last sentence: I'd have to delete the new MM filters in order to get old filters translated to new filters. Yes. That's because some betas already converted to the NFS. But when you never used it, it'll probably be an unsatisfactory conversion. So the proper way to start with the NFS is to check whether you've got some (faulty) account.srb files. In case you do, you delete them. You start TB and it'll convert your OFS (account.srx) to the NFS (account.srb) Of course you shouldn't delete the .srb files when you've done some modifying on the previously converted NFS. OK, it's now clear to me what you meant by deleting NFS (the conf. file, not anything else), and what relationship the OFS and NFS live in. I didn't know either what the .srb file is for (since it is not readable as the previous conf. format). ...TB becomes a bit cryptic and... occult, as I feel somehow? MM I will just lose all my filters this way! Am I reading correctly? Not quite. Only your new filters. OK, the new filters in NFS. Now clear all. Thanks. (-: - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast [Earth LOG: 9 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBQNU89q62QPd3XuIRAuI8AJ94m9YBwDZXETtm2zOlOosUCmQSIwCeLqrG iefgkjIPHURAsnV5+f2nBAE= =EOa4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Sat, 4 Sep 2004, at 21:38:07 +0200, @ @ when Roelof Otten wrote: Hallo Mica, On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:56:44 +0200GMT (4-9-2004, 20:56 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MM Is there anywhere some documentation covering this NFS? For instance, MM listing the new features and differences as to OFS, and of how to MM convert OFS to NFS? The only one available is the TB community. Mentioning ideas and experiences to each other. OK, thanks. Btw, here is one of experiences (it's NFS experience #2, on my list of NFS Experiences): it HAS NO the cancel button/function! Grrrooo...! Chop, chop, chop! grrr) If you are lucky you'll try firstly esc, before you close the box using X, instead OK. As far as converting OFS to NFS is concerned. Delete the NFS restart TB and it'll automatically translate the old filters to the new ones. I do not understand the last sentence: I'd have to delete the new filters in order to get old filters translated to new filters. I will just lose all my filters this way! Am I reading correctly? - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBPbQr9q62QPd3XuIRAgJgAJ9Pb0AHnEdO3Oam2K7SiOVPrQs3TQCcCQ7G oQDFx2Am7Zj7AnDwYKrpAiQ= =NEB9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hello Mica, If you are lucky you'll try firstly esc, before you close the box using X, instead OK. As seen in TBBeta, Esc is not really equivalent to Cancel. It may work some times and sometimes not, -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.0.0.7 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hallo Mica, On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:14:20 +0200GMT (7-9-2004, 15:14 +0200, where I live), you wrote: As far as converting OFS to NFS is concerned. Delete the NFS restart TB and it'll automatically translate the old filters to the new ones. MM I do not understand the last sentence: I'd have to delete the new MM filters in order to get old filters translated to new filters. Yes. That's because some betas already converted to the NFS. But when you never used it, it'll probably be an unsatisfactory conversion. So the proper way to start with the NFS is to check whether you've got some (faulty) account.srb files. In case you do, you delete them. You start TB and it'll convert your OFS (account.srx) to the NFS (account.srb) Of course you shouldn't delete the .srb files when you've done some modifying on the previously converted NFS. MM I will just lose all my filters this way! Am I reading correctly? Not quite. Only your new filters. -- Groetjes, Roelof The Bat! 3.0.0.8 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 1 pop3 account, server on LAN Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. pgpbzz267T9aP.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hi 9Val, Saturday, September 4, 2004, 10:34:35 PM, you wrote: 9Val Hello Doug, 9Val There was a bug with message source filtering which was already fixed. 9Val BTW, message source filtering is too expensive operation, there it is 9Val possible use header or text filtering DW I don't think I understand this -- and does it mean one should always DW use header filtering rather than filter by one field in a header? 9Val No, it means only that when it is possible narrower type of search 9Val should be used. And therefore full message source search should be 9Val used quite rarely only for special purposes if you want to achieve 9Val better performance Thanks. That makes sense. Doug -- Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated The Bat! 3.0 Doug and Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure Update
Hello all, On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 11:06 AM, I wrote: PJ I installed the trial version of 3.0 over my 2.12 easily... now the PJ filters don't seem to be working. I've checked the sorting office (and PJ think I will come to like the new format very much) and all my old PJ filters are in place; just not working... Just wanted to say that after following the great advice I received, the filters are now working perfectly. Thanks again, Roelof, Miguel, 9Val. -- Pat A Canadian in Houston Using The Bat! v3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
v3.0 filter failure
Hello, I installed the trial version of 3.0 over my 2.12 easily... now the filters don't seem to be working. I've checked the sorting office (and think I will come to like the new format very much) and all my old filters are in place; just not working. Has anyone any experience with this, or other advice to offer? I'm not sure exactly what to do to correct this. And here I thought (at first glance this morning) that I actually received 12 personal emails! ...Just unfiltered spam. :-( Thanks in advance. -- Pat A Canadian in Houston Using The Bat! v3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hallo P.Johnson, On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:50:28 -0500GMT (4-9-2004, 17:50 +0200, where I live), you wrote: PJ I installed the trial version of 3.0 over my 2.12 easily... now the PJ filters don't seem to be working. Is that as in all of the filters or some of the filters? Just check the conditions to see whether something might be converted badly. And spend some extra time on the filters you're suspecting from misbehavior. This same checking run could be used to adapt your filters to the possibilities that the NFS offers. For instance, I changed my tbudl filter from the condition: text: Reply-To: *.tbudl@ with regexp enabled to this: Header Field - Reply-To - contains - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suppose that could've skipped a bit on the address, but that's not the issue. This definitely makes your filters better readable, even though the regexp part of the filter wasn't very difficult to interpret, it's just one of my filters and I did it for all (also cut some dead wood) About all of my filters got converted ok. But I checked them roughly, since I already was using a heavily edited filter set due to beta testing. (Only moved my account.srb file, so a new one was generated, but I could return to my own edition) -- Groetjes, Roelof The Bat! 3.0 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 1 pop3 account, server on LAN Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. pgpUhZU0OKmX9.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hello P.Johnson, Has anyone any experience with this, or other advice to offer? I'm not sure exactly what to do to correct this. Most of my filters were converted correctly and are working with no problems. I had problems with a few that used Regex and, although being apparently correct, they were not working. Are you using Regex in your filters? If so, I would advise to try to change them to not use Regex. The NFS has more options for setting up conditions without needing Regex. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v4.123 Beta/Umpteen Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: v3.0 filter failure
Hello Roelof, On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 11:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RO On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:50:28 -0500GMT (4-9-2004, 17:50 +0200, where I RO live), you wrote: PJ I installed the trial version of 3.0 over my 2.12 easily... now the PJ filters don't seem to be working. RO Is that as in all of the filters or some of the filters? RO Just check the conditions to see whether something might be converted RO badly. And spend some extra time on the filters you're suspecting from RO misbehavior. Sorry I wasn't more clear... as far as I can tell, so far it is only the TBUDL and Spam filters that are not functioning correctly. And, strangely, some TBUDL message are filtered into their folder, some are not. The condition for the TBUDL filter is: Message Source - match - [EMAIL PROTECTED] RO This same checking run could be used to adapt your filters to the RO possibilities that the NFS offers. For instance, I changed my tbudl RO filter from the condition: RO text: Reply-To: *.tbudl@ with regexp enabled RO to this: RO Header Field - Reply-To - contains - [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is *without* regex enabled? I will try that, thanks. BTW, I don't see where I enable or disable regex. The Options tab has what looks like fewer options too-- or does the content depend on conditions and actions previously selected? The non-working spam filter is set up like this: Message source - match - ^X-Spampal: SPAM I'll try a few alternates and see if I can get it working again. Roelof, thank you so much for your quick response. I know a lot of it is just common sense (lacking here) but I was just a little hesitant about fiddling with the NFS settings when the filters are such an important part of my system. -- Pat A Canadian in Houston Using The Bat! v3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hallo P.Johnson, On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:08:47 -0500GMT (4-9-2004, 19:08 +0200, where I live), you wrote: PJ BTW, I don't see where I enable or disable regex. The Options tab has PJ what looks like fewer options too-- or does the content depend on PJ conditions and actions previously selected? If I got it right, the filter's using regexp when it says 'match' and it doesn't when it says 'contains' PJ The non-working spam filter is set up like this: PJ Message source - match - ^X-Spampal: SPAM Try this: Options - Preferences - Message headers - Add: Display: X-Spampal RFC name: X-Spampal uncheck the three options Now you've made TB recognize the X-Spampal header Create a new filter: Header Field - X-Spampal - contains - SPAM PJ Roelof, thank you so much for your quick response. I know a lot of it PJ is just common sense (lacking here) That's lacking here too, that's why I like to train it. (You can translate that to: Sharpen on somebody else) PJ but I was just a little hesitant about fiddling with the NFS PJ settings when the filters are such an important part of my system. Remember that whenever you've made an absolute mess of it, you can delete your account.srb files (with TB closed) and TB will convert your v2 filters again (as long as you don't delete your account.srx files). -- Groetjes, Roelof The Bat! 3.0 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 1 pop3 account, server on LAN Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. pgpk6DcyIopAX.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: v3.0 filter failure
Hello Miguel, On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 12:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone any experience with this, or other advice to offer? I'm not sure exactly what to do to correct this. M Most of my filters were converted correctly and are working with no M problems. I had problems with a few that used Regex and, although being M apparently correct, they were not working. Are you using Regex in your M filters? If so, I would advise to try to change them to not use Regex. M The NFS has more options for setting up conditions without needing M Regex. I have no real understanding of regex so will happily disable it! As I mentioned to Roelof, it's not immediately apparent where the regex settings are, but hey, I've got a free afternoon. :-)) Thanks so much, Miguel. -- Pat A Canadian in Houston Using The Bat! v3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Sat, 4 Sep 2004, at 19:24:46 +0200, @ @ when Roelof Otten wrote: Remember that whenever you've made an absolute mess of it, you can delete your account.srb files (with TB closed) and TB will convert your v2 filters again (as long as you don't delete your account.srx files). Is there anywhere some documentation covering this NFS? For instance, listing the new features and differences as to OFS, and of how to convert OFS to NFS? - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBOg/q9q62QPd3XuIRAs9oAJ9SB0YnUPgle+onHrCuTEbtYQrf2QCeKk/W 4RAjGQ7JBWlVYR1csExe8jo= =xwL0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hallo Mica, On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:56:44 +0200GMT (4-9-2004, 20:56 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MM Is there anywhere some documentation covering this NFS? For instance, MM listing the new features and differences as to OFS, and of how to MM convert OFS to NFS? The only one available is the TB community. Mentioning ideas and experiences to each other. As far as converting OFS to NFS is concerned. Delete the NFS restart TB and it'll automatically translate the old filters to the new ones. -- Groetjes, Roelof The Bat! 3.0 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 1 pop3 account, server on LAN Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. pgpv7f3DmDIvz.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
On Sat 4-Sep-04 11:29am -0400, MAU wrote: Most of my filters were converted correctly and are working with no problems. I had problems with a few that used Regex and, although being apparently correct, they were not working. I was about to upgrade to v3 today when I came upon this thread. This looked like a real deal breaker until I did some analysis of my own incoming filters. I only have 13 filters that contain RegEx and 12 of them are of the form: Presence: Yes Location: Kludges Strings:^(?i-s)reply-to: .*jpsoft[_.]support They all use either 'reply-to', 'return-path' or 'delivered-to'. From Roelof Otten's message, I can probably use the NFS form: Header Field - header_field_name - contains - except the example I gave - which will need '- match -' to handle what will now be simply 'jpsoft[_.]support' - if I've read correctly. But from what you both appear to be saying, the above RegEx may not work? If not, there's probably an easy way around that by using an '|' or an 'Alternates' - or whatever's equivalent in NFS. My 13th filter looks for a RegEx in any 'recipient' field. The RegEx is: ,.*,.*,|pobox\.com.*pobox\.com For anyone reading that's not familiar with RegEx, I'm looking, in any recipient field, for either (1) four or more addresses or (2) two or more addresses with the domain 'pobox.com'. I suspect I'm SOL if the RegEx mechanism is not working in v3. I'm pretty sure Ritlabs will fix that quickly, so I'll wait before downloading/registering v3. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hello Bill, BM I was about to upgrade to v3 today when I came upon this thread. This BM looked like a real deal breaker until I did some analysis of my own BM incoming filters. It has a trial period :) BM I only have 13 filters that contain RegEx and 12 of them are of the BM form: You can send to me some messages (or just their headers) for testing And old filters in .srx file BM My 13th filter looks for a RegEx in any 'recipient' field. The RegEx BM is: BM ,.*,.*,|pobox\.com.*pobox\.com Tested on syntetical generated message and works fine -- 9Val Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hello P.Johnson, PJ not. The condition for the TBUDL filter is: PJ Message Source - match - [EMAIL PROTECTED] There was a bug with message source filtering which was already fixed. BTW, message source filtering is too expensive operation, there it is possible use header or text filtering -- 9Val Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hello Doug, 9Val There was a bug with message source filtering which was already fixed. 9Val BTW, message source filtering is too expensive operation, there it is 9Val possible use header or text filtering DW I don't think I understand this -- and does it mean one should always DW use header filtering rather than filter by one field in a header? No, it means only that when it is possible narrower type of search should be used. And therefore full message source search should be used quite rarely only for special purposes if you want to achieve better performance -- 9Val Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
On Sat 4-Sep-04 4:18pm -0400, 9Val wrote: BM I only have 13 filters that contain RegEx and 12 of them are of the BM form: You can send to me some messages (or just their headers) for testing And old filters in .srx file BM My 13th filter looks for a RegEx in any 'recipient' field. The RegEx BM is: BM ,.*,.*,|pobox\.com.*pobox\.com Tested on syntetical generated message and works fine Thanks, I'm fairly confident now that my filters will work fine and will be more efficient one I modify the 12 that can now use the new NFS feature of filtering on specific header lines - very nice idea. I went to the RiTlabs site to register and am totally confused about Home vs Pro. From what I've read here, they have identical executables. The Pro has the spell check files and some language files that can be downloaded, if you choose Home, from some unspecified location. Right? Does the executable turn off some features when it is presented a Home key? If so, what features are turned off? I don't mind spending an extra $6 or so for Pro, but I only speak one language - so I don't need those language files. However, I do want spell checking to work. The text on your home page says only that both are safe however Home is easy while Pro is efficient. I guess that if I have to choose, I prefer efficient. But if it's the same executable, how is Pro more efficient? Is there a time delay when the Home key is used? Could you please briefly clarify this confusing? Thanks 9Val! -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: v3.0 filter failure
Hello 9Val, On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:18:58 +0300 GMT (05/09/2004, 04:18 +0700 GMT), 9Val wrote: BM I was about to upgrade to v3 today when I came upon this thread. This BM looked like a real deal breaker until I did some analysis of my own BM incoming filters. 9 It has a trial period :) It's a release version, not a beta (or is it?). I have no intention of manually changing all filters with regexes when migrating from - the rock-stable - 2.12 to v3. Once it has been confirmed that v3 can convert all filters correctly, I'll give it a try in my main partition (now running it dry as I do not dare jeopardise my filters). Trial or not, we are talking about serious conversion bugs in a *release version*. -- Cheers, Thomas. Apple - Typically a device to seduce men, usually equipped with a display screen. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.12.02 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
