-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ."_)~~
~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Thu, 10 Mar 2005,
@ @ at 16:39:21 -0800, when Melissa Reese wrote:
> over that past few years, I've implemented more
> "complicated/convoluted" filter rules than I can count or even
> remember. All I know is that they're working! :-)
That's pretty same situation with me too. I had made them, and I forgot
how, for many of them. But they are working.
> I had to dig into my filters and make some adjustments when I moved
> from v1 to v2, and I'm wondering if I'll have to do the same if I now
> move on to v3?
You will have to. (-: At *least* for just few of them, or in general
depending on how much you made them "complicated/convoluted", "along the
way".
I was told that the old filters will "automatically" adjust/transfer to
the new filtering system (NFS), I followed, very carefully,
instructions, and lost two "harvests" of about 60-70 messages, in about
two hours. They were *all* deleted from server, totally regardless my
("old") filtering rules. (-: Happily, no one of them had any very
"important" message, so I could read few of them (the LOG recorded them
all well, thanks at least to that fact) at lists' web interfaces.
I didn't try "third time". The "3rd time" consisted of kicking the v3
out. (-:
> So far, v2.12.00 has worked brilliantly for me, and I'm just a bit
> wary of moving on to the next major version "just because it's there".
I agree completely with you; "just because it's there" is not enough
reason, especially if it could make some harm. Being wary is wise.
> I will at least try to learn more about the new filtering system
> before I make up my mind.
That's the only part I see as most "vital" one.
On the other hand, I still didn't notice anything enough "new", or
simply useful for me, personally, which would justify this new pace to
v3. Except this "on the fly" encryption, though. But it depends on the
new filtering system, again. (-;
There *was* actually just one tiny detail, when I had no this encryption
in mind yet, namely a new feature of "filtering by file" attached, but I
solved it on another level, using old (Selective Download) filtering
system, accompanied with few new "features" of my *personal* routines
(the "first line of defense", as you would name it). It works charmingly
and I receive 0, zero, nada of SPAM.
> Being a bit more conservative these days about using "bleeding edge"
> software, and since TB! development seems to move at a pretty fast
> pace in certain areas, I guess I'll continue to monitor v3.x from a
> distance to see if anyone encounters any real "show stopper" problems,
> or can demonstrate any real advantages that I just couldn't live
> without.
It's pretty good maneuver. Okay then, you monitor them and I'll monitor
you (-: since I think you are much better chess player than I am. (I was
monitoring them, but didn't notice any food, yet. (: So, be friend and
drop a note if you find some fatty morsel, and of what are your
experiences with v3, since you will *certainly* pick it up sooner than
I. I feel somehow...)
> I'm all for supporting TB! development by upgrading, and I'm sure that
> someday I will again upgrade, but I'm just so happy with how my 2.x
> version is working for me now that I'm a little reluctant to mess with
> it. :-)
If you would need my "opinion" then it would be this: I'd like to see
you happy more than any new v3 making your days, in a bad way. (-:
Just you be "conservative" and enjoy. It's anyway just one part of the
pair conservative-progressive, which makes the whole thread, and when
the wave is up, it will surely slide down, and vice versa. The
conservative one tides timely and that's it.
> My mother is still using v1.62r, and when v2 was released (and also
> v3), I told her about it, but she's even more afraid than I am to try
> something "new and improved"; especially while she's still coming to
> grips with v1! (which, if you know how my mother gets along with
> computers in general, is pretty impressive already!). :-)
It *is* impressive, indeed! I can understand pretty well the "fear of
computers" too, but what would you do with mother whose byword is "any
change is good, even if it's to the worse"? (-: The last time she
uttered that a serials of various civil wars started nearby, and now you
sit and think, are you happy or not, with yours. <g> Oh you are,
definitely, as I am with mine, as much as it is possible, but mine
couldn't learn more than driving in "Need for Speed", and still has
forgotten it, so she's "driving" mainly banging at roadsides with 100
mph (she uses only the first gear).
Actually, digressive as I am sometimes, I wanted to say that I myself
would stick with v1, just if they would have few "tinier" features I
*really* need, and all of them *can* fit a v1 size. TB develops in a way
which produces lots of "unfinished" things, and if you need just one (I
needed just a LOG feature which would record data about mail deleted
from server, when I last time upgraded a v2) you will have to pick all
the rest up.
I still muse sometimes of how to "remove" HTML, IMAP, RTV etc., and of
how, someday, TB will deliver all of them as a "plug-ins", so you could
decide what to use and what not to. But they still seems do not grasp
what a GREAT this idea is. I should have patented it, but now is too
late...
Enjoy the day.
- --
Mica
PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/
[Earth LOG: 192 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing]
OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium
with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1 UMSDOS Linux, and with Bochs 2.1.1
with a small DLX Linux; and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector
via Wine...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFCMzqD9q62QPd3XuIRAq+AAJ9EXDT08STGHcS2RNXt4/7/gkWJTQCfdi3V
8YEA0C8F0W/cP4WsEZkTcPU=
=hOQJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________
Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
