On Saturday, March 15, 2003, 22:44, Adam wrote:
> You could try Offline files, supported under Windows 2000/XP, as
> Jernej mentioned before.
I use Second Copy, recommended by Miguel which does pretty much the
same (but better, IMHO). I was hoping for a better solution, though.
Anyway, thanks f
Hello Marcus,
Friday, March 14, 2003, 8:17:41 AM, you wrote:
MO>>> or that the files are stored _and_ processed remotely which would
MO>>> mean only the relevant information is sent to the client, not the
MO>>> entire message base.
>> What do you mean by relevant information?
MO> What I was
Hello Mark,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:04:42 -0800 GMT (15/03/03, 05:04 +0700 GMT),
Mark Wieder wrote:
TF>> network. I prefer to lock them completely rather than for write access
TF>> only. Mind you, if someone opens a file, it will be open for less than
TF>> a second (to be vague), because once the
Hello Mike,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:20:59 + GMT (15/03/03, 04:20 +0700 GMT),
Mike Alexander wrote:
> Is there no way of locking the files so one instance locks out any
> other access?
Yes, there is, but only on programming level. All you can do as a user
is send a wishlist item to Ritlabs.
-
* Marcus Ohlström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I myself are interested in having TB! installed as a server on machine
> A, and on machine B run TB! with two accounts, one which should connect
> to the server as a non tcp/ip workstation, the other which should work
> as a generic email client.
As
Thomas-
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 4:52:10 PM, you wrote:
TF> If two users are writing to a file at the same time, it *will* cause
TF> problems. I don't understand what you mean by locking "properly": a
TF> file is locked or not. Depending on the programming language, you
TF> might be able to dist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Wieder [MW] wrote:
MW> I've gotten into the habit of archiving the registry settings on the
MW> first workstation I set up in a system and then importing the
MW> settings onto the next one and so forth. It makes the configuration
MW> job a simple
Allie-
I've gotten into the habit of archiving the registry settings on the
first workstation I set up in a system and then importing the settings
onto the next one and so forth. It makes the configuration job a
simple double-click - all the accounts are pointing to the proper
place on the server,
Hi Thomas,
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 4:48:30 AM, you wrote:
>> Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time?
TF> Loss of data integrity, corruption or loss of data.
Is there no way of locking the files so one instance locks out any
other access?
--
Best regards,
Hello DG,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:27:18 -0500 GMT (15/03/03, 00:27 +0700 GMT),
DG Raftery Sr. wrote:
TF>> Want to talk with me about semaphores and how file
TF>> locking works? Or what physically happens when a file on a network
TF>> drive is accessed for writing by two users at the same time and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, March 14, 2003
12:14:25 PM
RE: "when a server is not a server..."
Greetings Thomas,
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, 7:52:10 PM, you wrote:
TF> Want to talk with me about semaphores and how file
TF> locking works? Or what ph
On Friday, March 14, 2003, 12:59, Allie Martin wrote:
> With the setup I initially described, i.e., changing the home
> directory via the registry, no mail bases are transferred. All
> account data is stored on the server. You're just seeing a display
> of it through your installa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote:
MO> What I was hoping for was a setup where the client is merely a
MO> display of what's going on at the server side, like with Microsoft's
MO> Terminal Server. Then, if the client caches the message bases
MO> locally and u
On Friday, March 14, 2003, 11:50, Allie Martin wrote:
MO>> or that the files are stored _and_ processed remotely which would
MO>> mean only the relevant information is sent to the client, not the
MO>> entire message base.
> What do you mean by relevant information?
What I was hoping for was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote:
>> Each account has a home directory. Again, you can change this to the
>> home directory of an account on the server.
MO> Ah, I see. Is that how TB!'s client/server works?
Yes.
MO> I'd rather have all *.tb(b|i) file
On Friday, March 14, 2003, 11:23, Allie Martin wrote:
> Mixed? I reviewed your message and see what you meant. Sorry about
> that.
No problem.
> Each account has a home directory. Again, you can change this to
> the home directory of an account on the server.
Ah, I see. Is that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote:
MO> It does? I know there's information about the client/server mode,
MO> but I didn't see any about the mixed setup I want. I'll go back and
MO> have a look again.
Mixed? I reviewed your message and see what you meant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Wieder [MW] wrote:
MW> Well, that's an interesting question. It's not a simple yes/no
MW> thing. I use a server mode TB running on a Win2k server machine. The
MW> other computers had TB installed in workstation (no TCP) mode to
MW> generate the r
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, 03:29, Allie Martin wrote:
>It is possible. Take a look in the help section 'Mailing Within the
>Internet'//'Network and Administration'//'The Bat! Networking
>Course
>A detailed description of how to do what you seem to want to do is
>outlined th
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 17:58, Tomasz Nidecki wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't it just be easier to install Hamster?
> It's a freeware mail and news server, and I believe (but I might be
> wrong - I only use it for news) it should have the necessary
> capabilities... Check it out.
Allie-
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 4:29:45 PM, you wrote:
AM> Are you running a TB! server/clients network? Or are you running
AM> multiple TB!'s in 'Worstation' mode, but which are all configured to
AM> use the same working mail directory?
Well, that's an interesting question. It's n
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, 7:48 PM, you wrote:
PC>> at the same time... I mean I COULD just do a backup, right? and
PC>> restore it to the laptop.
AM> Yes, you could. Do you have direct CD? This could make it that much
AM> easier.
that would be EASYCDCreator, and NO I don't have it. I
Hello Mark,
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:06:22 -0800 GMT (14/03/03, 03:06 +0700 GMT),
Mark Wieder wrote:
>>> Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time?
TF>> Loss of data integrity, corruption or loss of data.
> I, OTOH, try to go by the rule that if you don't know what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Cartwright [PC] wrote:
PC> I have a CD-RW, but I've never done a re-writable CD
PC> maybe it is TIME!! let's see, I buy 100 CD's for $22, I don't think
PC> using just a CD each time would kill me either, AND it is a BACKUP,
PC> at the same time.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Wieder [MW] wrote:
MW> I, OTOH, try to go by the rule that if you don't know what you're
MW> talking about, don't post answers.
MW> I've been using the networked multiuser solution on my own system
MW> and on several client systems for a couple
Hello Paul,
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 3:39:26 PM, you wrote:
PC> yes, and a fine moderator you are too sir!!! You and Marck have been
PC> doing a great job, I don't mind saying so, and I mention it to everyone
PC> any time I get the chance!! I vote to just DUMP Rick, do we get a
PC> vote???
I f
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, 8:39:26 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
AM>> Wow! Still trying to use floppies for this sort of thing? :) It
AM>> will really be frustrating then. A rewriteable CD would be better..
AM>> or a zip disk. I guess you don't have either, so you have to
AM>> struggle with that in
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 9:11 PM, you wrote:
PC>> Last time I tried the synchro it took 15 floppies, because of the
PC>> size of the HOME account.
AM> Wow! Still trying to use floppies for this sort of thing? :) It will
AM> really be frustrating then. A rewriteable CD would be bette
Thomas-
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 8:48:30 PM, you wrote:
>> Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time?
TF> Loss of data integrity, corruption or loss of data.
I, OTOH, try to go by the rule that if you don't know what you're
talking about, don't post answers.
I'
Hello Gerard,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:30:21 +0100 GMT (12/03/03, 22:30 +0700 GMT),
Gerard wrote:
AM>> It's possible to have two pc's with a TB! installation using the
AM>> same message bases and accounts.
> Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time?
Loss of data in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus Ohlström [MO] wrote:
MO> I myself are interested in having TB! installed as a server on
MO> machine A, and on machine B run TB! with two accounts, one which
MO> should connect to the server as a non tcp/ip workstation, the other
MO> which shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerard [G] wrote:
G> Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same
G> time?
Since I haven't tried it, I'm not sure. I hope someone with such a
setup can step in here and share their experience.
- --
-= allie_M =- | List
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ss [S] wrote:
S> (large ship) (to save bytes, you know :-)
AM>>HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\rit\The Bat!\\Working Directory
S> Thank you very much for the hot tip...
You're welcome. :)
AM>>If you simply change the Mail directory via the TB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Cartwright [PC] wrote:
PC> this synchro process isn't exactly meeting my needs, or I'm not able
PC> to do it right. For simplicity sake, say I have 2 accounts HOME &
PC> WORK. I get most of my mail from the HOME account, but need access
PC> to bo
Allie,
Good answer!
AM> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
AM> Hash: SHA1
AM> Ss [S] wrote:
S>> Reason is dead simple - I have one main PC (the "server") where most
S>> of the mailing stuff gets done (will be done), but I have another PC
S>> in the bedroom, on which I would lazy over on Sundays
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 11:41:55 AM, Marcus wrote:
> I myself are interested in having TB! installed as a server on machine
> A, and on machine B run TB! with two accounts, one which should connect
> to the server as a non tcp/ip workstation, the other which should work
> as a generic email cli
ON Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 12:15:48 PM, you wrote:
AM> It's possible to have two pc's with a TB! installation using the same
AM>message bases and accounts.
Hi Allie,
Any idea what happens when both try to access the files at the same time?
--
Best regards,
Gerard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello Allie,
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 11:15:48 AM, you wrote:
(large ship) (to save bytes, you know :-)
AM>HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\rit\The Bat!\\Working Directory
Thank you very much for the hot tip...
AM>If you simply change the Mail directory via the TB! interface, TB!
AM>wil
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 6:15 AM, you wrote:
AM>The only way to do this is to synchronise the installation or use an
AM>external application to synchronise the Mail directories for the
AM>server and the laptop.
this synchro process isn't exactly meeting my needs, or I'm not able
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ss [S] wrote:
S> Reason is dead simple - I have one main PC (the "server") where most
S> of the mailing stuff gets done (will be done), but I have another PC
S> in the bedroom, on which I would lazy over on Sundays and send mail
S> from it rather than
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 03:39, SS wrote:
> In any case, what I am interested to do is have a "server" mode Bat
> running on a given PC and then 2 more "workstation" connecting to
> it, but all being able to see one and the same set of accounts.
I'm afraid I cannot help you,
Hi
I've been happily sharing the folder where I have my The Bat e-mails
using MS-Networking. Then I install TB in another PC on the local net,
I create a new account and I browse over to other computer and use
those files, too. It works great and no special setup is needed :)
Roberto
Tuesday,
Hello Folks,
I am struggling over a question on the "server" functionality of TB.
I understand (I think) that in standalone mode TB collects and shows
you your email (like for most of us), in non-TCP mode acts as an
internal workgroup mail client (whatever) and lastly in server mode
43 matches
Mail list logo
