batting the bat

[Patrick Erler]

hi,

as i announced some time ago, i wrote a bit about my quest for finding a
new email client. here it is: http://techtech.blogspot.com/

it's not meant to offend anyone, just criticism from someone who lost it's
confidence..

cu,

PAT

[Paul Cartwright]

Hello Patrick,

PE> as i announced some time ago, i wrote a bit about my quest for finding a
PE> new email client. here it is: http://techtech.blogspot.com/

I liked it, here is the entire article, just so people don't have to go
FIND it:), and I agree, I think IMAP support should have been a bigger
priority than some of the NEW features, like virtual folders ( but
that's just my opinion;0)

batting the bat or how i switched email clients..


there are different types of email clients. on the pc side of the world
you can maybe differentiate between outlook-like types (easy and
unflexible) and netscape mail-like types (the classical 3 panel setup -
folders, messages, message preview - multiple accounts, filters and so
on..).

i've always been in the latter camp with using, certainly, netscape,
pmmail/2 and for the last years the bat.

the bat has always been the closest to pmmail, that's why it has been
chosen at the time (some 4 years ago) and it was fast as hell even with
giant message bases at that time of some 10.000 messages.

but - this was then and now is now. the world of email changed
radically, first with the heavy increase of spam, than of virii and
worms and later with the demand for increased mobility and the need for
synchronisation or online access to you mailbox by IMAP. today, message
bases of power users count in the gigabytes and 100.000 messages.

using an email client seems to be a bit like driving a car of a certain
brand. when you need a new car you take the successor of your old one.
so, when a new version of my mail client is released, i certainly use
that.

with the bat it was the same, i shelled out the 45 EUR for the business
version, i use it partly for that purpose and appreciate the work on a
program of that complexity.

but then, things went ugly. the IMAP support in the bat's 1.x branch was
crude but usable, it basically provided the same functionality like you
had with POP3. the 2.0 release of the bat, expected and announced for
years, promised high and mighty "full IMAPrev1 support" - but what an
exaggeration!

from the developers point of view this statement may even have been
right - client and server could exchange commands and data according to
IMAPrev1 - but the client side was so lousy! basic UI considerations
like instant feedback was not provided. filtering mechanisms - the proud
of the POP3 side of the bat just didn't work.

but not enough, after waiting some months until the arrival of a
maintenance version which, after some testing provided at least an again
usable IMAP support i bought my license in the hope, that ritlabs (the
developers of the bat) are working on fullfilling their promises. a week
later they suddenly removed the "full IMAP-support" advertising. great.
i bought a new version with a lot of new mostly questionable usefull
features minus one usefull. thanks.

it was time to look thoroughly for an alternative.

finding an email client with full IMAP support turned out to be hopeless
- if i didn't want to change to, cough, outlook. yes, outlook is the
only email client on the market which uses the strong points of IMAP to
an extent, that you could call "innovative". it hurts a bit to say such
things abut the big evil from redmond, but hey, honour where honour
belongs to.. IMAP offers multiple connections to servers, server side
folders and searching, server side implemented instant notification
about new messages without the need to check "every x minutes" (not all
servers support all features, but their enough out there who do). but
these features are supported only by outlook and to some extent from
mulberry (which has a lot of drawbacks in other areas, IMHO)

ok, i forgot about my IMAP dreams and concentrated on the client's
capabilities when it comes to managing my mail. i have multiple
accounts, i have a lot of contacts, receive some 100 mails a day and
never throw away anything - i keep even spam for some time - you never
know what's gonna happen to your penis ;)

after installing and uninstalling some ten or fifteen different demo
versions of email clients i sat back and tried to tackle the problem
differently - by thinking about it.

my first question was "what is email?" email is an exchange of
information - and more and more a tool for archiving it. you can at best
compare it with the letters and documents you find in your (real life)
mailbox. and suddenly i realized something strange: in the last years i
had developed two completely different approaches of handling email on
the one side and dead tree documents on the other.

in RL i try to spend as few time as possible on organizing my working
life. i get the bills, enter them into the tax program, put them in a
file and that's it. quarterly i do my turnover tax statement and put the
file with the bills into a box. all letters which require an action go
into a todo file - everything else gets into a different file and get
into a big box at the end of the years - which goes into the basement
later. that's it. this way, all i have are two files and a box. when i
need a letter from a year ago, i know, it's somewhat deeper in the box
and search for it. this takes less time then organizing everything in
different files for different senders, months or whatever - considered
how seldom i need a year old letter..

but - when it comes to email i suddenly behave like 65 year old prussian
bureaucrat. i have some 200 folders and subfolders in the bat, write
extensive filters to move incoming mail into them and look proudly at
this manic work of a psychopath. why do i do this? i have no clue! all i
usually do is looking into the inbox for unread mail, read them, answer
them and put a red flag on them if i want to answer them later.
sometimes i need to refer to an older message, let's say a seller's
message from ebay and scroll thru my 2000 pixel long folders tree until
i come to business|ebay|sellers|unfinished deals. or i just press f7 and
wait 10 seconds until i get 20 results which i scroll thru to find the
mail from yesterday. or i take some 10 seconds more time to refine the
filter to include only mails not older then 3 days old. but hell, why
did i filter the mail in the first place when i now do the good old
search/eye ball search thing?! obviously, something went wrong in my
routine in the last years.

and then i remembered the "revolutionary" new mail client in my browser
of choice, opera. incidently at the same time opera entered the 7.5er
beta cycle which brought improvements for the mail client - and so i
gave it a try.

what shall i say - someone in norway had the same thoughts like me.
opera mail fits perfectly to the routine i describe above. it's approach
is to put everything into one big box, a database obviously. a database
you can index, and everyone who knows a bit about databases knows what
this means to search speed. nowadays i have some filters for reoccuring
types of emails (status mails from my servers, one folder for ebay and
folders for mailing lists) and everything else i do with incoming mail
is giving them labels (mainly todo and mail back).

all my mail arrives into the inbox, beside the above mentioned regular
mails, i read them, give them a label or just mark them read - and the
nice thing is, you can set the inbox to "show only unread mails" so that
all mails i dealed with just disappear - which is very rewarding somehow
;) (if i pressed to fast "mark as read" - no problem, ctrl-z works as it
should)

when i need a mail from some time ago, i go into the big "received"
folder and type a detail from the mail into the quicksearch box. with
every letter i type the amount of mail shown in that windows shrinks
until i find the mail i was looking for. with a drop down box with
options like "show mails from this week" or "show mails from today" i
can quickly refine my search. all this usually doesn't take longer than
2 seconds and i found the mail i was looking for. HEAVEN!

opera mail sacrificed a little bit of flexibility for speed and
usability - that's a price I am willing to pay.

the problem with the bat and it's developers, ritlabs, is, that they
never listened to their user base, nor thought about the changes in the
world of email in general and, instead, implemented features without
plan and vision. meanwhile, they get more and more autistic by shutting
down the user forum on their website without announcement and
explanation, and beside announcements of new betas almost noone is
talking to their beta testers anymore. (not that they did very much in
the last years anyway..)

somehow i have to say "thank you" to ritlabs - for giving me a decent
mail client over years - and forcing me to think about what went wrong
lately ;)
--
Best regards,
Paul
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1
Apr2004 (4.1.396) (avast! version number)
0420-4 (14.05.2004) (avast! DB version number)
4.1.396 (avast! plugin version number)


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Paul,

@16-May-2004, 18:35 -0400 (16-May 23:35 UK time) Paul Cartwright
[PC] in mid:1433423157.20040516183551-***@public.gmane.org said to Patrick:

PC> I liked it, here is the entire article, just so people don't
PC> have to go FIND it:), and I agree, I think IMAP support should
PC> have been a bigger priority than some of the NEW features, like
PC> virtual folders ( but that's just my opinion;0)

I have to comment. Patrick has his opinion. That's fine. But it
lacks a certain level of information about the process and
management of a software development project.

Consider how many programmers work on each feature. Say there are
three in the team, each with areas of responsibility. One works on
IMAP while another implements virtual folders and another works on
HTML. RIT have four main programmers. Some features are implemented
quickly and appear, therefore, to "take precedence". This is not the
case. It is merely the result of different development time-scales
crossing and giving the less discerning eye reason to doubt.

IMAP certainly does have a very high priority but is taking a long
time to get right. Would you have the other programmers sent home
until it's finished? I don't think so!

I can understand people becoming impatient when developments take
too long and it looks like they are being sacrificed to
trivialities. But I do want to point out that my understanding is
different and that I believe myself to be well informed on this
topic.

I have nothing to discuss with regard to Patrick opinions, I just
wanted to set the record straight.

[Paul Cartwright]

Hello Marck,

Sunday, May 16, 2004, 6:51:02 PM, you wrote:

MDP> I have to comment. Patrick has his opinion. That's fine. But it
MDP> lacks a certain level of information about the process and
MDP> management of a software development project.

I love comments, that's why we are here, to talk about TB.

MDP> Consider how many programmers work on each feature. Say there are
MDP> three in the team, each with areas of responsibility. One works on
MDP> IMAP while another implements virtual folders and another works on
MDP> HTML. RIT have four main programmers. Some features are implemented
MDP> quickly and appear, therefore, to "take precedence". This is not the
MDP> case. It is merely the result of different development time-scales
MDP> crossing and giving the less discerning eye reason to doubt.

that makes sense, especially with a small shop like Ritlabs, as opposed
to the megalopolis of M$. I've seen some of the easter eggs imbedded in
MS crap.. and I do mean CRAP.

MDP> IMAP certainly does have a very high priority but is taking a long
MDP> time to get right. Would you have the other programmers sent home
MDP> until it's finished? I don't think so!

or, if they were done with their part, why not all work on IMAP, since
it seems to be taking the longest time to implement ?

MDP> I can understand people becoming impatient when developments take
MDP> too long and it looks like they are being sacrificed to
MDP> trivialities. But I do want to point out that my understanding is
MDP> different and that I believe myself to be well informed on this
MDP> topic.
I'm not impatient for IMAP, I gave up on it. I also retired from a job
where it would have been much more critical to my needs, and I can see
where others are waiting for those very features, and getting very
frustrated. Informed is one thing, having Rit keep us in the loop ( or
not) is another.

MDP> I have nothing to discuss with regard to Patrick opinions, I just
MDP> wanted to set the record straight.

but you just did discuss it ;0). I value your thoughts more than his,
but sometimes the devils advocate comes out in me..
and you are right, I might be too critical of features I might not want
right now ( virtual folders for instance), when something like IMAP has
not been finished. I gave up a perfectly good email account ( IMAP)
because it became worthless to me, since I couldn't make it work with
TB. Luckily it was a free account, didn't cost me anything, except time
to move lists, and my time to setup more filters...Others don't have
that luxury.
--
Best regards,
Paul
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1
Apr2004 (4.1.396) (avast! version number)
0420-4 (14.05.2004) (avast! DB version number)
4.1.396 (avast! plugin version number)


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Paul,

@16-May-2004, 19:16 -0400 (17-May 00:16 UK time) Paul Cartwright
[PC] in mid:63229290.20040516191627-***@public.gmane.org said to Marck:

MDP>> IMAP certainly does have a very high priority but is taking a
MDP>> long time to get right. Would you have the other programmers
MDP>> sent home until it's finished? I don't think so!

PC> or, if they were done with their part, why not all work on IMAP,
PC> since it seems to be taking the longest time to implement ?

Because you can't pile multiple programmers into a job and have it
become smaller. It's not a "if it takes 5 men 2 days to dig 10
ditches..." problem. Programming software isn't like that. By the
time the other team members have

1) Learnt the fundaments of the IMAP protocol
2) Worked their way around the other guy's code
3) Split up the source code into meaningful sub-projects
4) Decided who can best work on which sub-section
5) Actually produced something useful for the project

You have wasted precious time and resources. Furthermore, carving up
a source code module and decide who's going to work on which bits of
it like you'd segment a ditch for digging. Again, you're faced with
the problem of one programmer waiting for another to fix a bug in
the functions they're working on before the project can move forward
again.

In a big software company, analysts will map out the functionality
of the software well in advance and produce project plans from which
team responsibilities can be allocated. In a small company like RIT
(or me), you just have to get the code written and can only split
the projects by functionality.

... <snip>

[Paul Cartwright]

Hello Marck,

Sunday, May 16, 2004, 7:30:29 PM, you wrote:

MDP> Because you can't pile multiple programmers into a job and have it
MDP> become smaller.

I came from a group that started to use Rational software for source
code archiving. That is the mentality of groups of programmers.

MDP> In a big software company, analysts will map out the functionality
MDP> of the software well in advance and produce project plans from which
MDP> team responsibilities can be allocated. In a small company like RIT
MDP> (or me), you just have to get the code written and can only split
MDP> the projects by functionality.

I fully understand the concept. I paid my money for TB long ago, mainly
because it was so powerful, and the support from the lists was so much
better than any user manual or HELP index. I can't imaging going back to
any other client right now. But it looks like IMAP is the wave of the
future, and I'd like to give it a try...
--
Best regards,
Paul
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1
Apr2004 (4.1.396) (avast! version number)
0420-4 (14.05.2004) (avast! DB version number)
4.1.396 (avast! plugin version number)


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Charlie Kroeger]

But it looks like IMAP is the wave of the future, and I'd like to give it a
try...

hummm. really? why do you think that. I use a free service at safe-mail.net
and they have IMAP or POP whichever you want. Of course you couldn't access
your account using IMAP on TB, but it would work if you wanted to use the
Netscape client. (and also "Thunderbird") I have not tried using the Opera
client excepting on Linux where it is 'better' compared with some of the
Debian/KDE alternatives considering my experience.

Safe-mail must have had a lot of complaints from their subscribers or they had
lots of problems keeping their IMAP server working because after struggling
for a few weeks with erratic service, they suddenly offered POP as by way of
an alternative. It works well with TB as you know, and has the advantage of
also using SSL to communicate between TB and their server.

So..why do you think IMAP is better, and the wave of the future.

C.

--

TB 2.10 RC/1 on win98se





________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Charlie Kroeger
for a few weeks with erratic service, they suddenly offered POP as by
way of an alternative. It works well with TB as you know, and has the
advantage of also using SSL to communicate between TB and their server.

you surely can use encryption together with IMAP to..

Post by Charlie Kroeger
So..why do you think IMAP is better, and the wave of the future.

picking just one aspect, for instance, i can check my office mail at home,
can reply to it, move it into folders etc. and when i return to the office
i see all the changes i made. no need for synchronisation.

PAT

[ken green]

Post by Charlie Kroeger
So..why do you think IMAP is better, and the wave of the future.

Whether IMAP is "better" may be a matter of opinion. That's it's the
wave of the future is sort of hard to ignore.

Aside from the HUGE benefit of accessing a mailbox from multiple
locations (search the archives for why doing this with POP is
undesirable), there is the proliferation of mobile devices and
wireless connectivity that has exploded in recent years.

Accessing a mailbox on a PDA or phone needs to be done with IMAP:
grabbing headers, selectively downloading, etc. Many handheld apps
don't even give you a choice - you are accessing with IMAP.

There can be problems with read flags when you access a POP account
after having accessed that same account with a phone (using IMAP).
Messages marked read aren't downloaded.

IMAP doesn't have this problem. You access the message from however
many access points you want - they all get synchronized.

Personally, IMAP isn't the best solution for EVERYTHING... But for
most daily mail (especially business e-mail), it's a necessity.
--
Ken Green
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello ken,

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:02:54 -0500 GMT (17/05/2004, 23:02 +0700 GMT),
ken green wrote:

kg> There can be problems with read flags when you access a POP account
kg> after having accessed that same account with a phone (using IMAP).
kg> Messages marked read aren't downloaded.

This is not quite correct. When you access by POP, there are no read
flags. This list of UIDs is kept by the mail client. As long as you
haven't downloaded a message with that email client, it will be seen
as unread and hence be downloaded.

kg> IMAP doesn't have this problem. You access the message from however
kg> many access points you want - they all get synchronized.

I think the point of IMAP is that you can access your mails - sorted
into folders you need to create only once - with any computer that has
access to the server (and an IMAP client installed, which is not the
case in internet cafes AFAIK). If you carry your laptop around, the
mails are on your computer and can be filtered into folders there, you
always only download new messages.

This is for me the basic difference between POP and IMAP. CMIIW.

kg> Personally, IMAP isn't the best solution for EVERYTHING... But for
kg> most daily mail (especially business e-mail), it's a necessity.

Only if you need to access your business mail from different
computers.
--
Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

"Was ist das Problem der heutigen Gesellschaft - mangelndes Wissen
oder mangelndes Interesse?" - "Weiss ich nicht, ist mir auch egal."

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.10.01
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[ken green]

Thomas Fernandez wrote:
kg>> There can be problems with read flags when you access a POP
kg>> account after having accessed that same account with a phone
kg>> (using IMAP). Messages marked read aren't downloaded.

Post by Thomas Fernandez
This is not quite correct. When you access by POP, there are no read
flags. This list of UIDs is kept by the mail client. As long as you
haven't downloaded a message with that email client, it will be seen
as unread and hence be downloaded.

Sorry for being unclear. I was referring to accessing a mailbox using
both IMAP and POP, and creating unread flag problems then. So, in
effect, it's really best to use POP *or* IMAP for a mailbox, and not
try to access the same mailbox with both protocols. (note I say
"best")

The problem is when you want to access mail using an IMAP web-based
client or a PDA or phone that uses IMAP. If you read those messages
on the server, they do not always download correctly using POP.

I repeat: if a message gets read using IMAP, the download using POP is
not consistent. This happened to me again and again with The Bat
(using TB for POP access). I had to go get all messages using the
Dispatcher.



kg>> IMAP doesn't have this problem. You access the message from however
kg>> many access points you want - they all get synchronized.

Post by Thomas Fernandez
I think the point of IMAP is that you can access your mails - sorted
into folders you need to create only once - with any computer that has
access to the server (and an IMAP client installed, which is not the
case in internet cafes AFAIK). If you carry your laptop around, the
mails are on your computer and can be filtered into folders there, you
always only download new messages.

Server-side filters and folders are part of IMAP, yes. But really I
was only speaking to the multiple access points.

If you access mail from more than one location, IMAP is the more
elegant choice every time (note I say "more elegant" and not "only").
The option to leave mail on the server is, in many ways, a function
trying to emulate IMAP.

And as you noted earlier, POP does not have the ability to mark a
message Read. So, using POP: if you access a mailbox with 100 messages
at location A and read 45 of those messages, when you go to location
B, you will download 100 messages - all of them New/Unread. This
doesn't bother everyone.



kg>> Personally, IMAP isn't the best solution for EVERYTHING... But for
kg>> most daily mail (especially business e-mail), it's a necessity.

Post by Thomas Fernandez
Only if you need to access your business mail from different
computers.

Right. I assumed by me saying "Personally..." it was clear that I
meant for me. I guess I could have ended that sentence: "it's a
necessity for me." to be more clear.
--
Ken Green
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Allie Martin]

Post by Charlie Kroeger
So..why do you think IMAP is better, and the wave of the future.

kg> Whether IMAP is "better" may be a matter of opinion. That's it's
kg> the wave of the future is sort of hard to ignore.

IMAP being better really depends on the needs of the user. For some
user models, POP is just fine and actually better. For others, POP
just doesn't cut it and IMAP is the better option.

For those who wish to manage the same e-mail account from multiple
PC's and being able to continue where they left off with mail
management, then IMAP is the solution. For those who manage their
e-mail from a single PC then POP is the better solution. There are
those who use POP even when they manage the same mail from multiple
locations. However, it's not as elegant as IMAP in such a setting.

[Charlie Kroeger]

Hello Charlie,
Please include a signature delimiter in your messages. This consists of a
<dash><dash><space><return>, i.e., a '-- ' by itself on a line.

hummm..I actually thought I had done that..must have left out a space
perhaps..could one put in such a step with a reg expression in the reply
template to insure it always got done?

How would that look?

Thanks,

C.K.







________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Alexander Leschinsky]

Hello Charlie,

On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:53:31 -0500 (18.05.2004 7:53 my local time),
received Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 15:05:45 +0600,
you wrote about "Mod: Cut mark (was: batting the bat)",
at least in part:

CK> could one put in such a step with a reg expression in the reply
CK> template to insure it always got done?
%Cuthere macro from MyMacros
--
Best regards,
Alexander Leschinsky

Powered by
• The Bat! 2.10.03 • POP3 Catcher 1.3.718.1120
• MyMacros 1.10 • AnotherMacros 0.3.21 /24ED1B1E0/ • Useless Macro Collection 1.3.387
Weakened by Windows XP 5.1.2600



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[MAU]

Hello Marck,

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
Because you can't pile multiple programmers into a job and have it
become smaller. It's not a "if it takes 5 men 2 days to dig 10
ditches..." problem. Programming software isn't like that.

That's what many people don't understand about software development. I
was in s/w development myself for many years and remember the difficulty
I had explaining the big boss that hiring 2 or 3 programmers for a
couple of months would not help us to meet a schedule, it would probably
make things even worse :)
--
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v2.10.03




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
Dear Paul,
@16-May-2004, 18:35 -0400 (16-May 23:35 UK time) Paul Cartwright
PC> I liked it, here is the entire article, just so people don't
PC> have to go FIND it:), and I agree, I think IMAP support should
PC> have been a bigger priority than some of the NEW features, like
PC> virtual folders ( but that's just my opinion;0)
I have to comment. Patrick has his opinion. That's fine. But it
lacks a certain level of information about the process and
management of a software development project.
Consider how many programmers work on each feature. Say there are
three in the team, each with areas of responsibility. One works on
IMAP while another implements virtual folders and another works on
HTML. RIT have four main programmers. Some features are implemented
quickly and appear, therefore, to "take precedence". This is not the
case. It is merely the result of different development time-scales
crossing and giving the less discerning eye reason to doubt.

marck, i'm quite aware of these things. but what is the message, when an
advertising like "full IMAP support" is removed from their website without
explanation? that they are working full steam on it?

PAT

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Patrick,

@17-May-2004, 09:58 +0200 (17-May 08:58 UK time) Patrick Erler [PE]
in mid:opr74wfuiir6sth8-***@public.gmane.org said:

... <snip>

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
case. It is merely the result of different development
time-scales crossing and giving the less discerning eye reason to
doubt.

PE> marck, i'm quite aware of these things. but what is the message,
PE> when an advertising like "full IMAP support" is removed from
PE> their website without explanation? that they are working full
PE> steam on it?

Yes.

They thought the new IMAP implementation was good.

They advertised it on the website.

They realised, after much 'input' from users, that there was a lot
of work to do on it to make it compete.

They removed the advertisement from the website.

They are working on it - it would be suicide not to.

Where's the mystery?

Oh! They didn't tell anyone. A private company with few employees
failed to communicate internal decisions to their customers. How
strange is that? Pretty common in my experience.

RIT is a company that's always been poor at communications with
customers and potential customers has merely stayed true to form. I
will agree that it's not the best of approaches to any kind of
market place, but it's hardly 'uncommon'.

What is the message? There is no message.

[ken green]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
Yes.
They thought the new IMAP implementation was good.
They advertised it on the website.
They realised, after much 'input' from users, that there was a lot
of work to do on it to make it compete.
They removed the advertisement from the website.
They are working on it - it would be suicide not to.
Where's the mystery?

Where's the mystery? How do we know Ritlabs is working on IMAP?
Because *you* say so? I don't discount your knowledge of The Bat and
possibly your close position with Ritlabs. But I seem to recall that
this list is definitively *separate* from Ritlabs.

How do you know Ritlabs is working on IMAP? How does the customer
base that purchased TheBat expecting "Full IMAP Support" (Ritlabs
quote) know that Ritlabs is working on IMAP? What about those
customers that don't subscribe to TBBETA?

Not picking on you personally, but surely you can see the problem with
suddenly removing any mention of IMAP from the website.

A simple "Continuing to improve IMAP" would suffice.

Complete removal of any mention of IMAP is almost cowardly, IMO.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
Oh! They didn't tell anyone. A private company with few employees
failed to communicate internal decisions to their customers. How
strange is that? Pretty common in my experience.

From what I've read of your posts in the past, this point seems pretty
out of character for you. You are basically saying "other companies
do this too" as a justification.

Also, communicating an internal decision is one thing. Going from
"Full IMAP Support" to no mention of IMAP at all is quite another.

I don't think anyone expects full disclosure from RitLabs. That's not
very realistic. I know they are a small company with a small
development team.

Again, a simple "Continuing to improve IMAP" would go a long way
toward credibility.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
RIT is a company that's always been poor at communications with
customers and potential customers has merely stayed true to form. I
will agree that it's not the best of approaches to any kind of
market place, but it's hardly 'uncommon'.

Again, your logic here is a bit surprising to me. Microsoft lies to
its customers. So do lots of other companies. Does that make it OK?

I cannot stand the argument commonality = justification. Remove the
last four words from your paragraph above and completely changes in my
eyes.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
What is the message? There is no message.

Referring to the "message" of removing IMAP from their website, that's
up for interpretation. You don't read any message into it. Other
people have different interpretations.

Using the latest full release of TB, when I go to the Help system, I
am immediately greeted with a "What's new in version 2" page, which
leads off with.... "Full support of IMAP protocol"

As a user, if I have problems with IMAP, I am likely going to go to
the company's website for support. And "IMAP" is nowhere to be found.

OK, so maybe IMAP was a bigger beast than RIT thought. To be fair, TB
isn't the only mail client having trouble implementing IMAP (of
course, there are other clients that are implementing it much better
than TB).

Maybe RIT is, in fact, working on IMAP. The only indication I have of
that is you saying so. While you seem to be a trustworthy person ;)
forgive me for not finding this 100% satisfactory of RIT.

To be clear: I'm not saying that I deserve to know the internal
decisions of RIT. What I am saying is that as a paying customer who
purchased an upgrade based on IMAP functionality, I do deserve to know
if that functionality is going to be supported or not.
--
Ken Green
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Ken,

@17-May-2004, 11:26 -0500 (17-May 17:26 UK time) ken green [K] in

They are working on it - it would be suicide not to. Where's the
mystery?

K> Where's the mystery? How do we know Ritlabs is working on IMAP?

@4-May-2004, 12:21 +0300 (04-May 10:21 UK time) Stefan Tanurkov [ST]
in mid:172088388.20040504122121-5ihb6gURvvmw5LPnMra/***@public.gmane.org said to Zeflash:

ST> To answer concerns about IMAP problems mentioned in this thread
ST> - the issues are being addressed right now, so please be a
ST> little bit patient and I hope you'll see the improvements very
ST> soon.

That's how I know. It's how we should all know. Because the
programmer working on the IMAP section said so. It was only just
under two weeks ago and we are awaiting development on this very
list. I don't need to justify any of my comments. I stand by them as
an observation of the industry and my expectations of it. No, it's
not right. No, it's not the way I run my own software business. But
I'm happy to continue using this superb email client. IMHO there's
still nothing to beat it on the market for POP3, automation,
presentation and simple programmability. IMAP - needs work. HTML -
needs work. 'Nuff said.

Now, let's look at the purpose of this mailing list. It's called
TBBETA. It's about beta testing new software. It's not about the
political ramifications of RITlabs marketing decisions or
speculations about what various additions and removals from their
website imply. Please let's move on from this pointless debate and
back to the purpose of the list.

I don't want any more discussion on this thread here. It should
never have got started. If anyone feels the urgent need to flay me
alive once more for betraying their own personal visions of software
nirvana, please do so on TBOT.

[ken green]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
@4-May-2004, 12:21 +0300 (04-May 10:21 UK time) Stefan Tanurkov [ST]

ST>> To answer concerns about IMAP problems mentioned in this thread
ST>> - the issues are being addressed right now, so please be a
ST>> little bit patient and I hope you'll see the improvements very
ST>> soon.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
That's how I know. It's how we should all know. Because the
programmer working on the IMAP section said so.

Well, that was a message with a subject line of: "Re[2]: memory leaks
in thebat! ??"

And lets not forget that the RIT website still has no indication of
IMAP development.

The above point is a serious one - although not necessary directed at
you or your argument. To expect your user base to know about IMAP
development through a subscription beta list is irresponsible and
short-sighted at best.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
It was only just under two weeks ago and we are awaiting development
on this very list.

Ahh.. but not everyone has time to read every message on this list.
That is how I missed the message you referred to. I wasn't
experiencing any memory leaks that I know of, so wasn't interested in
that thread. Had there been a message from Stefan titled "IMAP
progress" I would have more likely been up-to-speed. :)

But that still doesn't excuse completely ignoring the users that don't
subscribe to this list.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
I don't need to justify any of my comments. I stand by them as
an observation of the industry and my expectations of it. No, it's
not right. No, it's not the way I run my own software business. But
I'm happy to continue using this superb email client.

I'm sorry if you felt singled out or attacked. I hesitated even
participating in this thread because it already seemed a bit "touchy"
- my comments about you and your past posts were meant as
complimentary, believe it or not. I did not expect to read a "everyone
else does it" kind of justification from you - that's all I meant.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
IMHO there's still nothing to beat it on the market for POP3,
automation, presentation and simple programmability. IMAP - needs
work. HTML - needs work. 'Nuff said.

I agree with you. And have stated as such. Not really sure why there
seems to be a level of personal conflict with regard to people being
unhappy with TB. I have never understood that - a strange sense of
loyalty where users feel the need to defend a product. If something
works for you, great. If it's not working for someone else and they're
unhappy about it, I feel like they have a right to voice that without
being called names (not you).

I'm actually pretty darn happy with the current release of The Bat.
I'm using it with two IMAP accounts and am enjoying things pretty
well. After a big mishap when upgrading, and some strange stuff that
happened when trying to manage folders, things have gone fairly smooth
for me.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
Now, let's look at the purpose of this mailing list. It's called
TBBETA. It's about beta testing new software. It's not about the
political ramifications of RITlabs marketing decisions or
speculations about what various additions and removals from their
website imply. Please let's move on from this pointless debate and
back to the purpose of the list.

I suppose you are correct. I think there just seems to be a feeling
among some TB users of not having a voice, and TBBETA is apparently
the best place to be heard. Maybe that's not true. I don't know.

I think calling RITlabs behavior around IMAP a marketing decision may
be incomplete. IMAP was (and is) a big issue with beta releases. And
until you pointed out the message above, I honestly felt like RITlabs
had mysteriously clammed up about IMAP altogether.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
I don't want any more discussion on this thread here. It should
never have got started. If anyone feels the urgent need to flay me
alive once more for betraying their own personal visions of software
nirvana, please do so on TBOT.

I never had any intention of personally flaying you. Not in the
least. Nor do I feel the need to argue my vision of software
development (or nirvana..)

I'm not sure why you think this thread should never have gotten
started. Some good points were brought up and expressed. The Bat will
be able to survive criticism.
--
Ken Green
Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Allie Martin]

ken green wrote:

kg> Maybe RIT is, in fact, working on IMAP. The only indication I have
kg> of that is you saying so.

The latest beta involved enhancing the filtering to support
auto-filtering in IMAP accounts. Though it's not working well, it's
being implemented. I'm not sure how you can be saying what I quoted
after such a recent beta release with the first item change has to do
with IMAP. :)

[Frank Sproede]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
They realised, after much 'input' from users, that there was a lot
of work to do on it to make it compete.
They removed the advertisement from the website.

Völlig funktionelle IMAP4rev1 Unterstützung für den und vereinigten
On-Line-Off-Line Gebrauch;

http://www.ritlabs.com/de/products/thebat/

There must be a different IMAP implementation in the german version of TB!
;-)

Regards,
Frank

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Frank,

@6-Jun-2004, 06:13 +0200 (06-Jun 05:13 UK time) Frank Sproede [FS]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
They realised, after much 'input' from users, that there was a lot
of work to do on it to make it compete.
They removed the advertisement from the website.

FS> Völlig funktionelle IMAP4rev1 Unterstützung für den und vereinigten
FS> On-Line-Off-Line Gebrauch;

FS> http://www.ritlabs.com/de/products/thebat/

FS> There must be a different IMAP implementation in the german
FS> version of TB! ;-)

No ... just a much older (out of date?) version of the product info
page in German ;-).

BTW - winking aside, did you compare it to the English version
before writing? The English version of the product information page
is clearly expanded and enhanced. The German page is still the
original early v2 product spec. So we're back in the old chalk v
cheese debate.

[Frank Sproede]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
BTW - winking aside, did you compare it to the English version
before writing?

Yes, because I *can* read the english version and I *know* the german version
is obsolete.

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
The English version of the product information page is clearly expanded
and enhanced.

I get the german version by default, so *why* should I compare it to the
english version? Either the german information should be up to date or taken
offline.

Regards,
Frank

[Dave Crocker]

Folks,

MDP> But it
MDP> lacks a certain level of information about the process and
MDP> management of a software development project.

Users have very simple requirements. They want software that has the
functions they need/want, with adequate usability, adequate
performance and adequate reliability. I'll claim to have a reasonable
amount of experience with both software development and
business/marketing/user-support, and I am very clear that it is the
job of product developers to understand these user requirements,
rather than expect users to understand the concerns of software
developers and software projects.

The only questions that should drive the user-visible aspects of
software development are:

1) what are the features,
2) how easy is it to use the product,
3) what are the performance parameters, and
4) what are the reliability parameters?

TB has an excellent set of features, far better than most/all other
email clients that I've seen; with considerable consistency, TB
developers come up with creative features and creative "models" for
the features.

TB's usability is mediocre; however most of its awkwardness becomes
tolerable with continued, regular use. However, this problem limits
the size of the market TB can penetrate.

TB's performance is mostly pretty good, and that's about as positive a
statement as users will ever tend to make about such a product.

TB's reliability is quite poor, and it is not getting any better.

Software projects tend to have a trade-off between features and
reliability. The discipline of producing software frequently puts
these two into opposition. Rapid production of new features tends to
reduce reliability; requiring high reliability is an impediment to
adding new features. The reasons for this trade-off are not
complicated or subtle. Unfortunately, a long-term, full-time,
daily-use, office product needs to have reliability dominate over
functionality, for most users in the market.

TB's beta testers are pretty darn energetic and loyal. So one would
wish that any pattern of observations from this group would get the
attention of the TB development team. Unfortunately, concerns about TB
reliability and completeness of particular features do not seem to
be heeded. The fact that a problem cannot be easily replicated at RIT
Labs does not make it less urgent to fix it.

TB needs far better instrumentation, so that field testers have ways
of supplying much better data to the developers.

My own current list of continuing, major TB problems:

1. Recent versions of TB are consuming 100% of the CPU, have a very
large memory footprint (46MB current/56MB peak, as I type with 25MB
and 50MB being typical these days), are running 1 million page faults
per minute (yes, that's what Windows Task Manager reports and no, I
can't fathom a number like that either) and when TB exits, the thebat.exe
process does not go away (it stays around forever, continuing its
impressive cpu, memory and paging behaviors.)

2. Far too many mailbox integrity problems.

3. TB does not set the account properly for any of my common folders.
The account affects the From field and the From field affects what
"role" recipients see me in and whether given mailing lists will let
me post.

4. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread

5. For some folders, new messages are automatically marked as read, so
I cannot tell which messages are new.

I'm running the latest software, on 2 different Windows 2K platforms.
None of the above problems is new and most are more than a year old.


d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-***@public.gmane.org>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Marcus Ohlström]

Post by Dave Crocker
4. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread

This feature was much asked for when introduced a while ago. If you
don't like it, go to Account | Properties... | Mail management |
Deletion and check "Purge Unread messages".

Besides this, I agree with the points you are making.
--
Regards,
Marcus Ohlström

Using The Bat! v2.04.7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4
PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc





________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[MAU]

Hello Dave,

I may agree in some/most of the things you say but I'll just comment on
a few.

First, It would be nice if you clarify which version you are using,
saying "the latest" doesn't make it clear. The latest beta? The latest
release?

Post by Dave Crocker
TB's reliability is quite poor, and it is not getting any better.

All I can say is that in 3 years I haven't had a single crash.

Post by Dave Crocker
1. Recent versions of TB are consuming 100% of the CPU, have a very
large memory footprint (46MB current/56MB peak, as I type with 25MB
and 50MB being typical these days),

I have never seen a footprint larger than 20MB or so.

Post by Dave Crocker
2. Far too many mailbox integrity problems.

What do you exactly mean by integrity problems? My message base is
980+MB in some 470 folders and I don't recall a problem.

Post by Dave Crocker
3. TB does not set the account properly for any of my common folders.
The account affects the From field and the From field affects what
"role" recipients see me in and whether given mailing lists will let
me post.

Does that mean that you have set an Identity in each common folder and
TB doesn't include it properly when you start a new message while you
are in one of those folders? Although I hardly use common folder, it
works fine here.

Post by Dave Crocker
5. For some folders, new messages are automatically marked as read, so
I cannot tell which messages are new.

Are you using Incoming filters to sort messages to these folders? If
yes, have you looked in the Actions tan of each filter to see if "Mark
message as read" is selected?

Post by Dave Crocker
I'm running the latest software

Which is latest? You don't say and you don't include an X-Mailer header
either.
--
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v2.10.03




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Patrick Erler]

hi miguel,

Post by MAU
Hello Dave,

Post by Dave Crocker
TB's reliability is quite poor, and it is not getting any better.

All I can say is that in 3 years I haven't had a single crash.

All i can say is, i don't believe this..

Post by MAU

Post by Dave Crocker
1. Recent versions of TB are consuming 100% of the CPU, have a very
large memory footprint (46MB current/56MB peak, as I type with 25MB
and 50MB being typical these days),

I have never seen a footprint larger than 20MB or so.

a) same.. b) this depends clearly from the size of the message base/number
of accounts - so maybe you don't use TB as dave is doing..

Post by MAU

Post by Dave Crocker
2. Far too many mailbox integrity problems.

What do you exactly mean by integrity problems? My message base is
980+MB in some 470 folders and I don't recall a problem.

a program which needs a maintenance center with an integrity check which
finds regularly errors is a clear sign for integrity problems. you will
deny, but you tend to be a bit blind when it comes to criticism about your
favourite mail client/mail client developers, so, we will forgive you ;)


PAT

________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Dierk Haasis]

Hello Patrick!

Post by Patrick Erler

Post by MAU
All I can say is that in 3 years I haven't had a single crash.

All i can say is, i don't believe this..

Beware, the following post is definitely meant as a personal attack on
Patrick; under list rules my post deserves a trout (the first for me).
If you don't want to read personal attacks, just delete this message
and no harm will be done to your educated minds.

















What kind of idiot are you? I know quite a few people from the Eastern
parts of New Germany and all of them are nice fellows and gals,
intelligent folks having had the bad luck to be born and raised under
our second tyranny in one only one Centennial.

You are not one of them. Why do you think we should believe your
nonsensical gibberish, while you c***s****** moron don't believe us? I
don't find anything hinting in the direction that Miguel is a liar. Or
any of us having no or little trouble with TB's stability.

Please plonk me, PE!
--
Dierk Haasis

The Bat 2.11 Beta/6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1

Chat info for ICQ, AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Jabber upon request

Silence is the virtue of fools. (Francis Bacon)




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Leif Gregory]

Hello Dierk,

Wednesday, May 19, 2004, 10:27:51 AM, you wrote:
Dierk> Please plonk me, PE!

I won't trout you because Marck beat me to it, but this really should
have been sent via PM and not to the list.

Please don't do that again.

[Dierk Haasis]

Hello Leif!

Post by Leif Gregory
I won't trout you because Marck beat me to it, but this really should
have been sent via PM and not to the list.

Nope, it shouldn't. You surely know me well enough for that; I stay to
what I do. In this case many people are fed up with his rants and
what-nots, nonetheless he cannot be told by the moderators. Take the
example I answered to, officially - Marck just wrote to me personally
- Patrick did not call Miguel a liar.

I am not a moderator and won't try to interfere with your moderating,
but I can throw around my own fish. This was the first time ever I
lost my temper on list - actually I didn't lose it as can be seen from
my post. It was a deliberate attack on someone who consistently tries
our patience and intelligence.

Just yesterday I had a conversation with Pit (Peter Palmreuther), with
whom I stayed for a few days in Berlin, over Patrick's messages. Guess
what, I am not the only one being annoyed by him. And this, I think,
warrants an on-list flaming, so others can see they are not alone.

Two notes: 1. My flame battle wasn't on my behalf but another member's
(as always), 2. I am rather proud how I staged it up and phrased it
up in all Usenet clichés, even down to the Plonk line.

Post by Leif Gregory
Please don't do that again.

How long am I on the lists, three years, four? So, the next one will
be around June 2008 - unless the membership of the list deteriorates
...

Sorry for the inconvenience, but sometimes PC reaches an end.


PS: Upon re-reading I find this message rather serious, much too much
considering my rather friendly standing with you, Allie and Marck.
As always its all tongue-in-cheek, *cum grano salis*.
--
Dierk Haasis

The Bat 2.11 Beta/6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1

Chat info for ICQ, AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Jabber upon request

That's what Love will make you do ... (Little Milton)




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Martin Webster]

Hello Patrick,

On 19 May 2004, 18:05 +0200 (17:05 local time) Patrick Erler [PE] in
mid:opr788aqylr6sth8-***@public.gmane.org wrote:

PE> a program which needs a maintenance center with an integrity check which
PE> finds regularly errors is a clear sign for integrity problems. you will
PE> deny, but you tend to be a bit blind when it comes to criticism about your
PE> favourite mail client/mail client developers, so, we will forgive you ;)

I think we've had quite enough of this thread now... we all have
opinions and the right to express them on the TB! lists (subject to some
sensible rules) but you and others are taking things too far. There's
absolutely no need for personal attacks.

Please stop or take your arguments off somewhere else. Thank you.

[MAU]

Hello Martin,

There's absolutely no need for personal attacks.

Thank you Martin, but I didn't take it as a personal attack at all. I
guess Patrick feels a bit 'jealous' when seeing me satisfied with TB :)
--
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v2.10.03




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[MAU]

Hello Patrick,

Post by Patrick Erler

Post by MAU
All I can say is that in 3 years I haven't had a single crash.

All i can say is, i don't believe this..

It's up to you to believe it or not, but it is true.

Post by Patrick Erler

Post by MAU
I have never seen a footprint larger than 20MB or so.

a) same.. b) this depends clearly from the size of the message base/number
of accounts - so maybe you don't use TB as dave is doing..

Probably not. All I can say (as I have already said at different times
and places) that TB is my main tool for work that I use all day long.
And when I say all day I mean 12, 14, 16 hours a day. My message base is
about 1 GB, I have a total of 14 accounts (although work mainly with 4)
and some 480 folders and receive some 500 email a day. I use load of filters
(Incoming, Outgoing, Read and Replied) and templates to almost automate
some processes.

What it is true is that I don't look at TB's footprint very often, not
even once a day. But it is true that whenever I have looked, it neves
was above 20MB or so.

Post by Patrick Erler

Post by MAU
What do you exactly mean by integrity problems? My message base is
980+MB in some 470 folders and I don't recall a problem.

a program which needs a maintenance center with an integrity check which
finds regularly errors is a clear sign for integrity problems. you will
deny, but you tend to be a bit blind when it comes to criticism about your
favourite mail client/mail client developers, so, we will forgive you ;)

I must admit one thing, I have never run the integrity checks yet so I
have no idea of what kind of errors get reported. But just like I don't
run the Error Check Tool on my hard drives regularly, only when I detect
symptoms that my lead me to think that I may have a problem with the
hard drive. However, I do check regularly disk fragmentation because
excessive fragmentation may reduce performance of many applications.

TB is not my favourite email client, it just happens to be the only I
have found that will do (or let me do) most of the things I need.

Cheers :)
--
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v2.10.03




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Dave Crocker]

It would be helpful to receive a response from RITLabs staff about the
reliability and long-standing bug issues, described in the attached
message that I posted last month (and before) and that others have
expressed concern about.

The basic question is: When is RIT Labs going to focus on quality
assurance for The Bat! and when is it going to fix some basic,
outstanding bugs.

To repeat my own, favorite hit-list of major problems:

1. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread -- or, at
least, that's my best guess as to the problem.

2. (100% cpu problem not happening for me, now, but it still does
sometimes. It mostly went away went I got rid of a very large number of
references to folders that weren't folders.)

3. Far too many mailbox integrity problems -- TB is regularly popping up
with an unsolicited request to check mailbox integrity.

4. TB does not set the account properly for reply messages to messages
in any of my common folders. It does not read the From/Reply to fields
in templates for these folders.


d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-***@public.gmane.org>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>


===== Forwarded Message =====
From: Dave Crocker <dhc-***@public.gmane.org>
To: tbbeta-***@public.gmane.org
cc:
Date: Monday, May 17, 2004, 8:18:22 AM
Subject: batting the bat

Folks,

MDP> But it
MDP> lacks a certain level of information about the process and
MDP> management of a software development project.

Users have very simple requirements. They want software that has the
functions they need/want, with adequate usability, adequate
performance and adequate reliability. I'll claim to have a reasonable
amount of experience with both software development and
business/marketing/user-support, and I am very clear that it is the
job of product developmers to understand these user requirements,
rather than expect users to understand the concerns of software
developers and software projects.

The only questions that should drive the user-visible aspects of
software development are:

1) what are the features,
2) how easy is it to use the produce,
3) what are the performance parameters, and
4) what are the reliability parameters?

TB has an excellent set of features, far better than most/all other
email clients that I've seen; with considerable consistently, TB
developers come up with creative features and creative "models" for
the features.

TB's usability is mediocre; however most of its awkwardness becomes
tolerable with continued heavy use. However, this problem limits the
size of the market TB can penetrate.

TB's performance is mostly pretty good, and that's about as positive a
statement as users will ever tend to make about such a product.

TB's reliability is quite poor, and it is not getting any better.

Software projects tend to have a trade-off between features and
reliability. The discipline of producing software frequently puts
these two into opposition. Rapid production of new features tends to
reduce reliability; high reliability is an impediment to adding new
features. The reasons for this trade-off are not complicated or
subtle. Unfortunately, a long-term, full-time, daily-use, office
product needs to have reliability dominate over functionality, for
most users in the market.

TB's beta testers are pretty darn energetic and loyal. So one would
wish that any pattern of observations from this group would get the
attention of the TB development team. Unfortunately, concerns about TB
reliability and completeness of particular features do not seem to
be heeded. The fact that a problem cannot be easily replicated at RIT
Labs does not make it less urgent to fix it.

TB needs far better instrumentation, so that field testers have ways
of supplying much better data to the developers.

My own current list of continuing, major TB problems:

1. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread

2. Recent versions of TB are consuming 100% of the CPU, have a very
large memory footprint (46MB current/56MB peak, as I type with 25MB
and 50MB being typical these days), are running 1 million page faults
per minute (yes, that's what Windows Task Manager reports and no, I
can't fathom a number like that either) and when TB exits, the thebat.exe
process does not go away (it stays around forever, continuing its
impressive cpu, memory and paging behaviors.)

3. Far too many mailbox integrity problems.

4. TB does not set the account properly for any of my common folders.
The account affects the From field and the From field affects what
"role" recipients see me in and whether given mailing lists will let
me post.

I'm running the latest software, on 2 different Windows 2K platforms.
None of the above problems is new and most are more than a year old.


d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-***@public.gmane.org>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>
===== End of Forwarded Message =====

[Allie Martin]

Dave Crocker, [DC] wrote:

DC> 3. Far too many mailbox integrity problems -- TB is regularly
DC> popping up with an unsolicited request to check mailbox integrity.

Hmmm. I wonder about this and why you're having so many problems.

Is it the same mailbox all the time or is this a random and repeated
problem with multiple mailboxes?

DC> 4. TB does not set the account properly for reply messages to messages
DC> in any of my common folders. It does not read the From/Reply to fields
DC> in templates for these folders.

I'm unable to duplicate this issue which makes me wonder if you're
doing something wrong.

Common folders will use the default account for mail-to URL's if no
account is defined in the templates. If I define a from macro in a
template, they are reproduced in the relevant fields.

The only thing I've noted is that if you use the %account macro, it's
the accounts identity that is used instead of that which is defined in
the folders identity tab. However, %From macros will always take
precedence.

[Dave Crocker]

Allie,

DC>> 3. Far too many mailbox integrity problems -- TB is regularly
DC>> popping up with an unsolicited request to check mailbox integrity.

AM> Hmmm. I wonder about this and why you're having so many problems.

AM> Is it the same mailbox all the time or is this a random and repeated
AM> problem with multiple mailboxes?

multiple. i have a number of folders (inboxes and others) that have
_very_ high message flow rates. This seems to be the factor that leads
to the problem.


DC>> 4. TB does not set the account properly for reply messages to messages
DC>> in any of my common folders. It does not read the From/Reply to fields
DC>> in templates for these folders.

AM> I'm unable to duplicate this issue which makes me wonder if you're
AM> doing something wrong.

That's always possible, of course. On the other hand, long ago it
worked and now it doesn't.

What is more significant is that there is no way to check a log and see
what TB did. So how do we diagnose whether it is me or TB and, in either
case, what is the detail that is causing it?


AM> Common folders will use the default account for mail-to URL's if no
AM> account is defined in the templates.


TB does not define an "account" for a folder. It permits you to assign
"identity" to From and Reply-To. And that's what I've done and that is
what TB is ignorining.


d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-***@public.gmane.org>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>


________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Dave,

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:29:09 -0700 GMT (06/06/2004, 09:29 +0700 GMT),
Dave Crocker wrote:

AM>> Is it the same mailbox all the time or is this a random and repeated
AM>> problem with multiple mailboxes?

DC> multiple. i have a number of folders (inboxes and others) that have
DC> _very_ high message flow rates. This seems to be the factor that leads
DC> to the problem.

Which TB version are you using?

DC> TB does not define an "account" for a folder. It permits you to assign
DC> "identity" to From and Reply-To. And that's what I've done and that is
DC> what TB is ignorining.

Does the %Account= macro not work in common folders?
--
Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Rentner versaumt seine Beerdigung. *

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.11
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM



________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Allie Martin]

Thomas Fernandez, [TF] wrote:

DC>> TB does not define an "account" for a folder. It permits you to assign
DC>> "identity" to From and Reply-To. And that's what I've done and that is
DC>> what TB is ignorining.

TF> Does the %Account= macro not work in common folders?

Yes, it does.

[Dave Crocker]

Thomas,

DC>> multiple. i have a number of folders (inboxes and others) that have
DC>> _very_ high message flow rates. This seems to be the factor that leads
DC>> to the problem.
TF> Which TB version are you using?

The latest. And it does not matter which exact one that is.

The problem has been around for a very, very long time.


DC>> TB does not define an "account" for a folder. It permits you to assign
DC>> "identity" to From and Reply-To. And that's what I've done and that is
DC>> what TB is ignorining.
TF> Does the %Account= macro not work in common folders?

Yes, but that means I need to make a couple of hundred templates for all
my common folders.

yuck.

/d
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:[phone]>


________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Allie Martin]

Hi Dave,

Post by Dave Crocker
multiple. i have a number of folders (inboxes and others) that have
_very_ high message flow rates. This seems to be the factor that leads
to the problem.

Maybe.

AM>> Common folders will use the default account for mail-to URL's if no
AM>> account is defined in the templates.

Post by Dave Crocker
TB does not define an "account" for a folder.

Well, yes it does. If the folder is within an account, the account
will use that account unless you specify otherwise.

Common folders aren't in any particular account, so there's a problem
deciding which account to use so that an identity can be used and an
outbox used for sending messages. Each account will have in it's
properties, 'This account is the default for mailto'. The account that
has this toggled on will be the account used to send messaqes when no
specific account is defined in the common folders templates or any
other template that may be triggered. If there is no specific identity
defined by a template then this accounts default identity will be
used. Delete the identity setting in a common folder and create a new
message. The From address should be that of the default account.

Post by Dave Crocker
It permits you to assign "identity" to From and Reply-To. And that's
what I've done and that is what TB is ignoring.

If you're referring to setting the identity in the common folders
properties, the only thing that will override it are specific From and
Reply-to in a template or the %account macro in a template.

Order of priority:

From and Reply-to in template
Identity for account defined by the %account(<account>) macro
From and Reply-to defined in the common folder
Default account's identity

So if the common folder's identity settings are being ignored, then
they're being overridden by either an %account macro in a template or
from and replyto's in a template.

[Maurice Snellen]

On Saturday, June 5, 2004 at 19:29 (which was Sunday, June 6, 2004 at

Post by Dave Crocker
multiple. i have a number of folders (inboxes and others) that have
_very_ high message flow rates. This seems to be the factor that leads
to the problem.

I don't know what your definition of '_very_ high message flow' is,
but I manage the alert e-mails that the anti-virus software at work
sends with TB! and I typically have half a million messages passing
through this mailbox in about a month. All these mails are passed
through more than 100 filters to sort the messages by virus in order
to allow me to create statistics for the management.

I've never had any popup from TB! complaining about corrupted message
databases.

The only problem I currently have with this account is that there is a
branch in my folder structure that will no longer sort by name when I
click the 'name' heading.
--
Greetings,
Maurice

Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1


________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Marcus Ohlström]

Post by Dave Crocker
1. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread --
or, at least, that's my best guess as to the problem.

IIRC, I answered this the last time you posted this. Check "Account |
Properties... | Mail management | Deletion | Purge Unread messages"
and TB! will behave as you want it to.
--
Regards,
Marcus Ohlström

Using The Bat! v2.04.7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4
PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc





________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Dave Crocker]

Marcus,

Post by Dave Crocker
1. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread --
or, at least, that's my best guess as to the problem.

MO> IIRC, I answered this the last time you posted this. Check "Account |
MO> Properties... | Mail management | Deletion | Purge Unread messages"
MO> and TB! will behave as you want it to.

I neglected to state that the problem is with Common Folders.
Account>Properties for common folders does not display the switch that
you describe. It only shows up for folder under accounts.

And therein lies a deeper problem. TB used to delete unread messages
that had been around longer than the specified time limit. I suspect
that adding the Purge Unread Messages feature was what caused this
behavior to change, primarily because the default was set to off.


d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-***@public.gmane.org>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>


________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Marcus Ohlström]

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Dave Crocker
1. Purge&Compress is not deleting old messages that are unread --
or, at least, that's my best guess as to the problem.

MO>> IIRC, I answered this the last time you posted this. Check
MO>> "Account | Properties... | Mail management | Deletion | Purge
MO>> Unread messages" and TB! will behave as you want it to.

Post by Dave Crocker
I neglected to state that the problem is with Common Folders.
Account>Properties for common folders does not display the switch
that you describe. It only shows up for folder under accounts.

That is true. I can confirm here, file a bug report (if you haven't
already).
--
Regards,
Marcus Ohlström

Using The Bat! v2.04.7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4
PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc





________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Mark Partous]

Hello Paul,

Monday, May 17, 2004, 12:35:51 AM, you wrote:

PC> what shall i say - someone in norway had the same thoughts like me.
PC> opera mail fits perfectly to the routine i describe above. it's approach
PC> is to put everything into one big box, a database obviously. a database
PC> you can index, and everyone who knows a bit about databases knows what
PC> this means to search speed.

You could have used Mailbag Assistant. I use different E-mailclients and can
archive most of them with MA. Not so with Opera Mail.

I have absolutely nothing against the developers of the Opera browser (now
with E-mail client included), on the contrary.

Alas, first I had to admit I cannot use the browser for professional purposes
and after that I had to give up on Opera Mail too.
--
Best Wishes,
Mark

using
The Bat! Version 2.10.03
MyMacros 1.10
Windows 2000 Professional/5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 (0 days 15:10:56) on Uno AMD Duron



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Mark Partous
Hello Paul,
PC> what shall i say - someone in norway had the same thoughts like me.
PC> opera mail fits perfectly to the routine i describe above. it's approach
PC> is to put everything into one big box, a database obviously. a database
PC> you can index, and everyone who knows a bit about databases knows what
PC> this means to search speed.
You could have used Mailbag Assistant. I use different E-mailclients and
can archive most of them with MA. Not so with Opera Mail.

why should i use two programs when all i wan to do is quick searching for
a mail?

PAT

[Mark Partous]

Hello Patrick,

Monday, May 17, 2004, 10:10:07 AM, you wrote:

PE> why should i use two programs when all i wan to do is quick searching for
PE> a mail?

I did not write that to you. You have made your choice and it's one I don't
share, so there's no use in discussing that subject any further.

But now that you asked for it: why do you think companies that have a lot of
documents, such as banks and insurance companies, don't keep them themselves?
They do not keep them on paper, not on microfilm, not even in a digital form.
All of this is being done by specialised firms and stored elsewhere.

It's a waste of time and resources to keep messages - that you probably will
not need more than once a year - stored in your mailer. I know a lot of
people do that anyway. It's their choice and it's (supposed to be) a free
world. So, go ahead!

Also, I can still access mail that was written/received by mail clients I
don't use anymore, or are no longer installed on my computer. Don't you think
you're becoming a little bit too depending on others? What if Opera is being
discontinued?
--
Best Wishes,
Mark

using
The Bat! Version 2.10.03
MyMacros 1.10
Windows 2000 Professional/5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 (0 days 2:31:44) on Uno AMD Duron



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Paul Cartwright
Hello Patrick,
PE> why should i use two programs when all i wan to do is quick
searching for a mail?
It's a waste of time and resources to keep messages - that you probably
will not need more than once a year - stored in your mailer. I know a
lot of
people do that anyway.

ok, makes sense.. kind of the boxes in my basement (see blog article). i
think i will consider it when the message base get's to large to be
handled effectively by the mail client..

Post by Paul Cartwright
Also, I can still access mail that was written/received by mail clients I
don't use anymore, or are no longer installed on my computer. Don't you
think you're becoming a little bit too depending on others? What if
Opera is being discontinued?

then i need to switch ;) btw, opera can export mail perfectly into unix
mailbox format - so no problem with this. and i can export the whole
message base in one step that way. try this in the bat...

PAT

[Arjan de Groot]

btw, opera can export mail perfectly into unix mailbox format - so
no problem with this. and i can export the whole message base in
one step that way. try this in the bat...

Tried it, using a Virtual Folder. It works perfectly.

I then re-imported the mailbox file into the Inbox and Re-filtered
the lot. And guess what...


Arjan
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Arjan de Groot

btw, opera can export mail perfectly into unix mailbox format - so
no problem with this. and i can export the whole message base in
one step that way. try this in the bat...

Tried it, using a Virtual Folder. It works perfectly.

ok, forgot about that new feature ;)


PAT

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Arjan de Groot

btw, opera can export mail perfectly into unix mailbox format - so
no problem with this. and i can export the whole message base in
one step that way. try this in the bat...

Tried it, using a Virtual Folder. It works perfectly.

ok, i've been to fast.. just tried it, created a VF with "watch all
folders" - when i select the VF the menu "export" is greyed out.. what's
wrong?

PAT

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Patrick,

@17-May-2004, 20:53 +0200 (17-May 19:53 UK time) Patrick Erler [PE]

Post by Arjan de Groot

btw, opera can export mail perfectly into unix mailbox format - so
no problem with this. and i can export the whole message base in
one step that way. try this in the bat...

Tried it, using a Virtual Folder. It works perfectly.

PE> ok, i've been to fast.. just tried it, created a VF with "watch all
PE> folders" - when i select the VF the menu "export" is greyed out.. what's
PE> wrong?

You haven't marked any messages. TB will only export selected
messages.

[Patrick Erler]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
PE> ok, i've been to fast.. just tried it, created a VF with "watch all
PE> folders" - when i select the VF the menu "export" is greyed out.. what's
PE> wrong?
You haven't marked any messages. TB will only export selected
messages.

sure, i did select all messages in the vf.. using bat v2.10 (does it work
only in the betas?)

PAT

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Patrick,

@17-May-2004, 21:14 +0200 (17-May 20:14 UK time) Patrick Erler [PE]

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
You haven't marked any messages. TB will only export selected
messages.

PE> sure, i did select all messages in the vf.. using bat v2.10
PE> (does it work only in the betas?)

I have no idea why it would refuse. Tools | Export works in full for
me and always has, virtual folder or real folder. It may be to do
with the latest beta, but I don't see why it should be.

[Patrick Erler]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:17:11 +0100, Marck D Pearlstone

Post by Marck D Pearlstone
Dear Patrick,
PE> sure, i did select all messages in the vf.. using bat v2.10
PE> (does it work only in the betas?)
I have no idea why it would refuse. Tools | Export works in full for
me and always has, virtual folder or real folder. It may be to do
with the latest beta, but I don't see why it should be.

ok, works in b5 - it seems that menu got just enabled in the last betas..

PAT

[Arjan de Groot]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:28:04 +0200, Patrick Erler wrote:

[Export from VF]

Post by Patrick Erler
ok, works in b5 - it seems that menu got just enabled in
the last betas..

Yes. It was enabled in some 2.05 beta versions, as was Importing
(which was not a very bright thing to do). In the release version
(2.10.x) both options were disabled.

In the first public 2.11 beta the Export option has been restored.

Arjan
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Alexander Leschinsky]

Hello Arjan,

On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:02:56 +0200 (18.05.2004 5:02 my local time),
received Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 8:21:00 +0600,
you wrote about "batting the bat",
at least in part:

AdG> In the release version
AdG> (2.10.x) both options were disabled.
Export from VF works, at least for me
--
Best regards,
Alexander Leschinsky

Powered by
• The Bat! 2.10.03 • POP3 Catcher 1.3.718.1120
• MyMacros 1.10 • AnotherMacros 0.3.21 /24ED1B1E0/ • Useless Macro Collection 1.3.387
Weakened by Windows XP 5.1.2600



________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[MAU]

Hello Alexander,

AdG>> In the release version
AdG>> (2.10.x) both options were disabled.

Post by Alexander Leschinsky
Export from VF works, at least for me

Same here. Import is disabled because there is no sense in trying to
import into a VF.
--
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v2.10.03




________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/6 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/

[Peter Meyns]

Hi Patrick,

Post by Arjan de Groot

btw, opera can export mail perfectly into unix mailbox format - so
no problem with this. and i can export the whole message base in
one step that way. try this in the bat...

Tried it, using a Virtual Folder. It works perfectly.

PE> ok, i've been to fast.. just tried it, created a VF with "watch all
PE> folders" - when i select the VF the menu "export" is greyed out.. what's
PE> wrong?

No idea. I can select "export" in the Tools menu in virtual folders...
--
Cheers
Peter

The Bat! v.2.11 Beta/5, on Win98, 4, 10, build 2222, PII at 200MHz, 64 MB RAM

Winamp currently playing: banco de gaia - last train to lhasa (sasha and john digweed mix)


________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.11 Beta/5 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/