Agent v7.2 Upgrade to v8?

[char...@email.com]

Just checking in on this - is everyone updating from v7.2 to v8? For those
upgraded - any issues to watch out for in Usenet or Emial? For Usenet, I am
currently using Giganews.

Thanks for any input.
charliec

[char...@email.com]

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:05:52 +0000, Jim Higgins <this_...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:12:19 -0700, in
><jf5l4a5dncopvrhvl...@4ax.com>, char...@email.com
>wrote:

>
>>Just checking in on this - is everyone updating from v7.2 to v8? For those
>>upgraded - any issues to watch out for in Usenet or Emial? For Usenet, I am
>>currently using Giganews.
>

>I mainly use Forte APN, with Eternal September as a fallback. All
>changes I see were designed to affect binary downloads... and I wasn't
>having any issues related to the things that were enhanced, so no
>change of any sort seen here. This came as no surprise because I read
>the notes on the Forte site before upgrading.
>
>I upgraded only to encourage Forte to continue developing Agent. I
>just wish forte would include some of the suggestions I've seen here
>from folks who say they also made those suggestions to Forte. Most
>seem much easier to implement than the improvements we just saw.

A quick question - I'm looking at upgrading my v7.2 to v8 and was wondering:

If I backup the v7.2 folder first and then install v8 (I assume it installs in
the same folder), and something doesn't feel right with v8, would I be able to
restore the v7.2 folder from the backup and be back at v7.2. Just trying to
check out the options prior to proceeding!

[DrTeeth]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:05:52 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, Jim Higgins <this_...@is.invalid> disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

>I upgraded only to encourage Forte to continue developing Agent.

I did that for v6 > v7 and there was not much in it for me as a text
user. Not doing that for v8.
--
Cheers,

DrT

** You've never known happiness until you're married;
** but by then it is too late.

[Ralph Fox]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:47:25 -0700, char...@email.com wrote:

> A quick question - I'm looking at upgrading my v7.2 to v8 and was wondering:
>
> If I backup the v7.2 folder first and then install v8 (I assume it installs in
> the same folder), and something doesn't feel right with v8, would I be able to
> restore the v7.2 folder from the backup and be back at v7.2. Just trying to
> check out the options prior to proceeding!

To avoid putting you wrong, we should be clear whether we are talking about
* the v7.2 PROGRAM folder (where agent.exe is, and where you install Agent to)
* the v7.2 DATA folder (where AGENT.INI is)
* or both


In any case...

1) You must back up the entire DATA folder, including AGENT.INI
and all the .dat and .idx files. If you want to go back,
restore the entire DATA folder from the v7.2 backup.

The default location of the v7.2 DATA folder is
%APPDATA%\Forte\Agent
(paste that into Windows Explorer location bar).
Yours might be in a different location.


2) You could back up the PROGRAM folder if you like. But if you
want to go back, it might be better to uninstall v8 and then
re-install v7.2, than to copy the v7.2 files back. If you
just copy the program files back, then you may not be able to
do a repair install of v7.2 in future if you need to.


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[char...@email.com]

>On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:03:36 +1300, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:47:25 -0700, char...@email.com wrote:
>
>> A quick question - I'm looking at upgrading my v7.2 to v8 and was wondering:
>>
>> If I backup the v7.2 folder first and then install v8 (I assume it installs in
>> the same folder), and something doesn't feel right with v8, would I be able to
>> restore the v7.2 folder from the backup and be back at v7.2. Just trying to
>> check out the options prior to proceeding!
>
>
>To avoid putting you wrong, we should be clear whether we are talking about
> * the v7.2 PROGRAM folder (where agent.exe is, and where you install Agent to)
> * the v7.2 DATA folder (where AGENT.INI is)
> * or both

My Agent is installed in "C:\D DRIVE\AGENT", the program is in there and the
Agent.INI file is in there as well. I don't have Agent items anywhere else on
my computer. So, my intent was to backup this Folder prior to installing v8?

>
>
>In any case...
>
> 1) You must back up the entire DATA folder, including AGENT.INI
> and all the .dat and .idx files. If you want to go back,
> restore the entire DATA folder from the v7.2 backup.
>
> The default location of the v7.2 DATA folder is
> %APPDATA%\Forte\Agent
> (paste that into Windows Explorer location bar).
> Yours might be in a different location.

I don't see anything titled %APPDATA%\Forte\Agent anywhere, where is this folder
located? What is it?

[Ralph Fox]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:22:26 -0700, char...@email.com wrote:

> My Agent is installed in "C:\D DRIVE\AGENT", the program is in there and the
> Agent.INI file is in there as well. I don't have Agent items anywhere else on
> my computer. So, my intent was to backup this Folder prior to installing v8?

Yes, back it up. But take note of what I wrote about if you ever
need to do a repair install of v7.2 in future.

> I don't see anything titled %APPDATA%\Forte\Agent anywhere, where is this folder
> located? What is it?

Please paste

%APPDATA%

into the location bar of Windows Explorer, and press ENTER.
Windows Explorer will know how to find it.

What %APPDATA% is, is your Windows application data folder.

If Agent's data is not in the default location then the Windows
application data folder might not have a sub-folder Forte\Agent.


The actual location of %APPDATA% depends on your version of Windows.
I did not find your actual version of Windows in your message, so I
could not tell you where it is actually located. Instead, if you
paste %APPDATA% into the Windows Explorer location bar, Windows
Explorer will find it for you and you will not need to tell me your
version of Windows.



--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Sharon]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:05:52 +0000, Jim Higgins

<this_...@is.invalid> wrote:

>I upgraded only to encourage Forte to continue developing Agent. I

>just wish forte would include some of the suggestions I've seen here
>from folks who say they also made those suggestions to Forte. Most
>seem much easier to implement than the improvements we just saw.

I agree. I've been a happy Agent user since v. 99 and I
have paid for all upgrades since, as a way to support
development. Since I never use binaries and 98% of my use
is for email, I do wish they would focus on that side of
things now, but I'll hang in there as long as the email
portion works well.

Sharon

[Sterling]

Sharon pretended :

I am rather surprised and disappointed that Forte has decided to move
all the way over to the dark side.

The elephant in the room must be acknowledged. By far, the vast
majority of multi-part binaries on Usenet are comprised of illegally
shared, copyrighted material. Forte has now become fully culpabale in
the supply chain of these illegal materials.

No, they did not post the materials themselves, but they are providing
enhancements in version 8 (and APN in general) which are obviously
designed to facilitate the illegal aquisition of these illegal
materials. In fact, all those who participated as beta-testers are
also culpable.

By logical extension, one can assume that Forte no longer objects to
the illegal distribution of cracked versions of Agent. Without being
hypocrites, how could they object? They are now facilitating the
trafficking in every other piece of illegally distributed software,
imagery, audio and video on Usenet.

I apologize if my comments offend anyone. If there is an error in my
thought process, I welcome correction.

[Carl Heinz]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:58:11 -0700, Sharon <musi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I agree. I've been a happy Agent user since v. 99 and I
>have paid for all upgrades since, as a way to support
>development. Since I never use binaries and 98% of my use
>is for email, I do wish they would focus on that side of
>things now, but I'll hang in there as long as the email
>portion works well.

Me too, and I totally agree that they'd focus more on "that side of things".
--
Carl Heinz
cfhe...@charter.net
(Remove number)

[char...@email.com]

I am using Win7, 64bit.

[Ralph Fox]

In Win7, 64 bit

A) %APPDATA% will be C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\Roaming
where %USERNAME% stands for your Windows login name

For example, if your Windows login name were charliec
then %APPDATA% would be C:\Users\charliec\AppData\Roaming

You don't need to tell me your Windows login name.
Instead, just type %APPDATA% into the Windows Explorer
location bar and press the ENTER key.


B) The _default_ location for Agent's data files in v4.2 and later
is
C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\Roaming\Forte\Agent
where %USERNAME% stands for your Windows login name

This is just the default location. Some people (me included)
have Agent's data files someplace else.



--
Kind regards
Ralph

[char...@email.com]

Thanks for the replies. I went ahead and updated to v8 and have not had any
problems to this point. Seems to be working just fine!

Thanks
charliec

[Arthur Conan Doyle]

char...@email.com wrote:

>Just checking in on this - is everyone updating from v7.2 to v8? For those
>upgraded - any issues to watch out for in Usenet or Emial? For Usenet, I am
>currently using Giganews.

I've long since given up downloading binaries from Agent and for me, the last
couple of upgrades have been loyalty upgrades - i.e. there was nothing in the
update that was particularly useful, but I wanted to encourage support of the
software. Not going to do that any more.

[none@given]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
<ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:

> Forte has now become fully culpabale in
>the supply chain of these illegal materials.

So is the Internet and all those who use it. I trust you will do the
decent thing.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Just press 'I' or 'i'

Steve

--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com

[CRNG]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:53:23 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle
<do...@bother.com> wrote in <uhkp4a5qj56b6h33rdba3plhl0vdsg37di@None>

+1
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

[Sterling]

on 10.26.2014, none@given supposed :

I do not understand, please explain.

[Sterling]

Charles Lindbergh brought next idea :

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:15:56 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@easynn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:46:21 +0100, none@given wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
>>> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forte has now become fully culpabale in
>>>> the supply chain of these illegal materials.
>>>
>>> So is the Internet and all those who use it. I trust you will do the
>>> decent thing.
>>
>> Just press 'I' or 'i'
>>
>> Steve
>

> The OP made some good points.
>
> You ignore the thread instead of offering a counter argument?
>
> Personally, I cannot fault the OP's logic.
>
> If anyone could identify flawed logic, I would think Mr. Neural Network
> should be able to do so.

A good way to ignore an inconvenient truth, I suppose.

[DrTeeth]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:40:33 -0700, just as I was about to take a
herb, Sterling <ster...@sterling.invalid> disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

>I do not understand, please explain.

It means, "don't use the internet".

[Geoff]

How could you not understand?

Your logical process should lead you to the inevitable conclusion that
your continued patronage of Internet providers and Usenet providers
constitutes support for those alleged illegal activities, therefore
the right thing to do is to cease all association with them.

Further, your post indicates that you might possibly be involved in
such activity yourself, since your post advocates theft of Forte Agent
and that they have no right to object.

Your use of Albasani.net shows you are perfectly capable of taking
advantage of "free and complimentary" donation-supported Usenet
service. When was your last donation made and how much was it?

By the way, the word is spelled "culpable ".

[Geoff]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
<ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:

>I am rather surprised and disappointed that Forte has decided to move
>all the way over to the dark side.
>

I think you are neither surprised nor disappointed. I think you enjoy
pretending to be morally superior while advocating the very thing to
which you pretend to object.

>The elephant in the room must be acknowledged. By far, the vast
>majority of multi-part binaries on Usenet are comprised of illegally
>shared, copyrighted material. Forte has now become fully culpabale in
>the supply chain of these illegal materials.

The word is spelled "culpable".

>
>No, they did not post the materials themselves, but they are providing
>enhancements in version 8 (and APN in general) which are obviously
>designed to facilitate the illegal aquisition of these illegal
>materials. In fact, all those who participated as beta-testers are
>also culpable.

The word is spelled "acquisition".

>
>By logical extension, one can assume that Forte no longer objects to
>the illegal distribution of cracked versions of Agent. Without being
>hypocrites, how could they object? They are now facilitating the
>trafficking in every other piece of illegally distributed software,
>imagery, audio and video on Usenet.
>

I'm glad you think so, do are you offering to provide cracked
versions?

>I apologize if my comments offend anyone. If there is an error in my
>thought process, I welcome correction.

The error in your thought process is that you think it follows that
designing an application to perform certain tasks that might
facilitate allegedly illegal activities precludes them from defending
their copyright for that work. It doesn't.

Nor does it follow that designing a process to perform certain tasks,
that those tasks will be used by any person to perform alleged illegal
copyright infringement.

By your logic, your continued participation in Usenet or purchasing
Internet access also indirectly facilitates those illegal activities
you allege, since you are supporting the infrastructure where those
activities are taking place.

Your post above implies that you are in favor of cracking an
application and illegally distributing it and that the copyright owner
has no right to object. This is a fallacy.

You're welcome.

[Sterling]

DrTeeth submitted this idea :

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:40:33 -0700, just as I was about to take a
> herb, Sterling <ster...@sterling.invalid> disturbed my reverie and
> wrote:
>
>> I do not understand, please explain.
>
> It means, "don't use the internet".

That makes no sense, but thanks for trying to interpret.

[Sterling]

It happens that Geoff formulated :

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:40:33 -0700, Sterling
> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>
>> on 10.26.2014, none@given supposed :
>>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
>>> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forte has now become fully culpabale in
>>>> the supply chain of these illegal materials.
>>>
>>> So is the Internet and all those who use it. I trust you will do the
>>> decent thing.
>>
>> I do not understand, please explain.
>
> How could you not understand?
>
> Your logical process should lead you to the inevitable conclusion that
> your continued patronage of Internet providers and Usenet providers
> constitutes support for those alleged illegal activities, therefore
> the right thing to do is to cease all association with them.

That makes no sense. I use a text only Usenet provider and a news
client which is designed primarily for text groups.

>
> Further, your post indicates that you might possibly be involved in
> such activity yourself, since your post advocates theft of Forte Agent
> and that they have no right to object.

That is a ridiculous straw man argument.

>
> Your use of Albasani.net shows you are perfectly capable of taking
> advantage of "free and complimentary" donation-supported Usenet
> service. When was your last donation made and how much was it?
>
> By the way, the word is spelled "culpable ".

Your entire reply is based upon straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks
and spell checking. Very convincing.......

[Sterling]

Geoff formulated on Sunday :

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I am rather surprised and disappointed that Forte has decided to move
>> all the way over to the dark side.
>>
>
> I think you are neither surprised nor disappointed. I think you enjoy
> pretending to be morally superior while advocating the very thing to
> which you pretend to object.

Straw man & ad hominem attack.

>
>> The elephant in the room must be acknowledged. By far, the vast
>> majority of multi-part binaries on Usenet are comprised of illegally
>> shared, copyrighted material. Forte has now become fully culpabale in
>> the supply chain of these illegal materials.
>
> The word is spelled "culpable".

Thanks. I do not use a spell checker, I am glad you can offer
substantive disagreement.

>
>>
>> No, they did not post the materials themselves, but they are providing
>> enhancements in version 8 (and APN in general) which are obviously
>> designed to facilitate the illegal aquisition of these illegal
>> materials. In fact, all those who participated as beta-testers are
>> also culpable.
>
> The word is spelled "acquisition".

Thanks. I do not use a spell checker, I am glad you can offer
substantive disagreement.

>
>>
>> By logical extension, one can assume that Forte no longer objects to
>> the illegal distribution of cracked versions of Agent. Without being
>> hypocrites, how could they object? They are now facilitating the
>> trafficking in every other piece of illegally distributed software,
>> imagery, audio and video on Usenet.
>>
>
> I'm glad you think so, do are you offering to provide cracked
> versions?

"do are you"? You correct my typos but do not pay attention to your
own? ROTFL :-)

>
>> I apologize if my comments offend anyone. If there is an error in my
>> thought process, I welcome correction.
>
> The error in your thought process is that you think it follows that
> designing an application to perform certain tasks that might
> facilitate allegedly illegal activities precludes them from defending
> their copyright for that work. It doesn't.

You have a reading comprehension deficiency.

>
> Nor does it follow that designing a process to perform certain tasks,
> that those tasks will be used by any person to perform alleged illegal
> copyright infringement.

In the case of Agent 8 and Usenet, your comment is not logical.

>
> By your logic, your continued participation in Usenet or purchasing
> Internet access also indirectly facilitates those illegal activities
> you allege, since you are supporting the infrastructure where those
> activities are taking place.

Again, your conclusions are illogical.

>
> Your post above implies that you are in favor of cracking an
> application and illegally distributing it and that the copyright owner
> has no right to object. This is a fallacy.
>
> You're welcome.

There is virtually no logic embodied within any of your conclusions.

[CRNG]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:25:50 -0700, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid>
wrote in <187q4ad0e1ec2oc14...@4ax.com>

+1 again. You're good.

[CRNG]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:09:18 -0700, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid>
wrote in <ta6q4apc3cqkiu7c9...@4ax.com>

+1 on all that

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:25:50 -0700, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

The word is spelled "so."

[Sterling]

on 10.26.2014, CRNG supposed :

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:25:50 -0700, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote in <187q4ad0e1ec2oc14...@4ax.com>
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
>> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I apologize if my comments offend anyone. If there is an error in my
>>> thought process, I welcome correction.
>>
>> The error in your thought process is that you think it follows that
>> designing an application to perform certain tasks that might
>> facilitate allegedly illegal activities precludes them from defending
>> their copyright for that work. It doesn't.
>>
>> Nor does it follow that designing a process to perform certain tasks,
>> that those tasks will be used by any person to perform alleged illegal
>> copyright infringement.
>>
>> By your logic, your continued participation in Usenet or purchasing
>> Internet access also indirectly facilitates those illegal activities
>> you allege, since you are supporting the infrastructure where those
>> activities are taking place.
>>
>> Your post above implies that you are in favor of cracking an
>> application and illegally distributing it and that the copyright owner
>> has no right to object. This is a fallacy.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
> +1 again. You're good.

If your tastes run toward ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments,
then he would be about average.

[Geoff]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:03:28 -0700, Sterling
<ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:

>
>If your tastes run toward ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments,
>then he would be about average.

Typical troll behavior. Post, pretend ignorance of the points in
replies, accuse others of ad hominem attacks, in which he has already
engaged WRT Forté. Enjoy the attention he craves.

[Sterling]

Geoff wrote :

You continue the ad hominem attacks in an attempt to divert attention
from Forte's culpability in facilitating the illegal trafficking of
copyrighted materials.

As for the "points" in your replies, they were illogical or blatantly
misrepresented the content of my original post. Obviously, this is a
highly sensitive topic for you which explains why your replies have
been so...... emotional, yes that is the correct word.

[Geoff]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:46:16 -0700, Sterling
<ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:

>It happens that Geoff formulated :
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:40:33 -0700, Sterling
>> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> on 10.26.2014, none@given supposed :
>>>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling
>>>> <ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Forte has now become fully culpabale in
>>>>> the supply chain of these illegal materials.
>>>>
>>>> So is the Internet and all those who use it. I trust you will do the
>>>> decent thing.
>>>
>>> I do not understand, please explain.
>>
>> How could you not understand?
>>
>> Your logical process should lead you to the inevitable conclusion that
>> your continued patronage of Internet providers and Usenet providers
>> constitutes support for those alleged illegal activities, therefore
>> the right thing to do is to cease all association with them.
>
>That makes no sense. I use a text only Usenet provider and a news
>client which is designed primarily for text groups.
>

The fact you post from a text-only provider doesn't prove you don't
use binaries from another.

The fact you are in this news group indicates you are or were a
customer of Forté or a user of Agent. As such you are or were
perfectly capable of using the tool to download binaries. You allege
others who are using it must be doing so and they're using it for
illegal purposes but you argue that you, somehow, are different. This
is simply unfounded and constitutes an ad hominem attack on the other
members of this group who use and support Agent. You are the kind of
hypocrite that lurks here for the sole purpose of getting the kind of
attention you are now receiving.

If you aren't a user of Agent then what other purpose can it serve for
you to be here, offering your unsolicited opinion, about a product you
now claim you don't use?

>>
>> Further, your post indicates that you might possibly be involved in
>> such activity yourself, since your post advocates theft of Forte Agent
>> and that they have no right to object.
>
>That is a ridiculous straw man argument.
>

Straw man? No. Just a logical extension of the same type you offered
in your original post.

>>
>> Your use of Albasani.net shows you are perfectly capable of taking
>> advantage of "free and complimentary" donation-supported Usenet
>> service. When was your last donation made and how much was it?
>>
>> By the way, the word is spelled "culpable ".
>
>Your entire reply is based upon straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks
>and spell checking. Very convincing.......

I am of the opinion that correct spelling and grammar indicate the
intelligence and discipline of the source.

[Geoff]

Not emotional at all. Just feeding the troll to make him rise to the
bait. You baited the group with your unsolicited opinion about the
direction Forté is taking Agent. You attacked the beta testers and
accused them of complicity in an alleged illegal act. You attacked the
user base and then pretended an "apology" for that opinion at the end
of your post. I'm done with you. Your opinion is immaterial to the
greater good of this group.

[CRNG]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:03:28 -0700, Sterling

<ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote in
<mn.d2d37deaf4...@sterling.invalid>

>ad hominem

New phrase for you? You seem to like it.

[badbeta]

Go back to the pedo group you came from Sterling...you are beginning
to really creep me out and since I did buy Agent 8 and you
didn't...kindly FUCK OFF

[Sterling]

Geoff expressed precisely :

No matter how ardently you attempt to divert the discussion, you are
unable to refute my assertion that "enhancements" in Agent V8 only
serve to facilitate illegal trafficking in copyrighted material.

Try to be less emotional and focus on the above statement. Explain how
improving Agent's handling of large, multi-part binaries on Usenet has
any purpose other than to facilitate the acquisition of copyrighted
materials?

[David H.--REMOVE "STOPSPAM" to reply]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:17:17 -0700, Sterling <ster...@sterling.invalid>

So, you're denying that those enhancements cannot also be used for legal
purposes?

Are you saying that I can't post a video of my friends, and that Agent
can't make it easier for them to find that video on usenet? Are you saying
that my friends shouldn't have the benefits of Agent because some people
may choose to use them for nefarious means?

That is a legitimate legal purpose.

If individual users decide to use the tools for illegal purposes, that is
neither Forte's fault nor their responsibility.

Your accusation that the beta testers are culpable in crimes is a baseless
and personal attack on them.

By your reasoning, every invention known to man should be stopped, because
ANY of them could be used for illegal purposes.


By the way, if you truly actually use Agent and use it for the purposes it
was meant for, it has a built-in spell-checker!



"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured,
the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us
all irrevocably." -Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
"The Drumhead", _Star Trek: The Next Generation_

[h...@h-gee.co.uk]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:43:42 -0700, Sterling <ster...@sterling.invalid>
wrote:

>Sharon pretended :
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:05:52 +0000, Jim Higgins
>> <this_...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I upgraded only to encourage Forte to continue developing Agent. I
>>> just wish forte would include some of the suggestions I've seen here
>>> from folks who say they also made those suggestions to Forte. Most
>>> seem much easier to implement than the improvements we just saw.
>>
>> I agree. I've been a happy Agent user since v. 99 and I
>> have paid for all upgrades since, as a way to support
>> development. Since I never use binaries and 98% of my use
>> is for email, I do wish they would focus on that side of
>> things now, but I'll hang in there as long as the email
>> portion works well.
>>
>> Sharon

>
>I am rather surprised and disappointed that Forte has decided to move
>all the way over to the dark side.
>

>The elephant in the room must be acknowledged. By far, the vast
>majority of multi-part binaries on Usenet are comprised of illegally

>shared, copyrighted material. Forte has now become fully culpabale in

>the supply chain of these illegal materials.
>

>No, they did not post the materials themselves, but they are providing
>enhancements in version 8 (and APN in general) which are obviously
>designed to facilitate the illegal aquisition of these illegal
>materials. In fact, all those who participated as beta-testers are
>also culpable.
>

>By logical extension, one can assume that Forte no longer objects to
>the illegal distribution of cracked versions of Agent. Without being
>hypocrites, how could they object? They are now facilitating the
>trafficking in every other piece of illegally distributed software,
>imagery, audio and video on Usenet.
>

>I apologize if my comments offend anyone. If there is an error in my
>thought process, I welcome correction.

Your logic is slightly flawed in as much as Smith and Wesson and Colt still
make hand guns and sell to the public and law enforcement operatives. Does
this mean that because S&W and Colt provide the means to kiss someone they
too are culpable in every killing that their equipment is used?

People kill people and people download illicit and ripped off software the
providers are innocent just as GM, FORD, Chrysler auto makers are when
someone is hit by a car.

Logic is often flawed by a person not thinking about the wider issues and
only their own viewpoint.


Hugh of Bognor

--
I used to be an Egotistical Megalomaniac - but now I'm just perfect!

Hugh Gundersen
h...@h-gee.co.uk

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

[h...@h-gee.co.uk]

Oops that should be KILL not KISS

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <jf5l4a5dncopvrhvl...@4ax.com>

char...@email.com wrote:
>
> Just checking in on this - is everyone updating from v7.2 to v8? For those
> upgraded - any issues to watch out for in Usenet or Emial? For Usenet, I am
> currently using Giganews.
>

> Thanks for any input.

I'm certainly not upgrading from Agent 6.00 for either version 7 or
8.

The idea that these versions include important upgrades doesn't
seem valid to me. Having a size limit of 16 GB/ng is nice, but an
8GB limit does not present me with real problems.

As for this new thing of "automating" the handling of binaries (and
there ARE perfectly legitimate binaries) I have no problem using
the utilities that already exist to deal with those. Agent D/Ls the
files I designate for D/Ling and puts them where I want them. Using
Par2 and often another utility to expand and reconstruct the files
is not at all difficult.

Years ago I'd posted here, and sent to Forte, a long list of the
improvements that would have been really good to have had. Instead
of addressing any of that they've implemented this redundant binary
file handling utility.

I suppose it's a great boon to some people, I do not need it at all.

As for E-mail, I have a good E-mail client, I do not need to use my
USENET software for general E-mail. The E-mail feature of Agent can
be convenient for replies on USENET, in rare instances, but that
feature is already fully implemented as adequately as I need it in
Agent 6.00.

The folks at Forte seem to be bleeding some new feature out for
each full upgrade. I think that these features should have been
included in maintenance releases. IMO we should really be at about
Agent 6.3 at this point, for all of the improvements offered. But
the Forte folks need the money, as do we all.

Your in USENET,
Morning Tea Drinker

[none@given]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:20:00 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>The folks at Forte seem to be bleeding some new feature out for
>each full upgrade. I think that these features should have been
>included in maintenance releases. IMO we should really be at about
>Agent 6.3 at this point, for all of the improvements offered. But
>the Forte folks need the money, as do we all.

I paid for the upgrade -- it was only $19 and for something I use
daily, I don't mind such a small sum.

I also have no need of their file automation, even less of their
primitive email client.

The only relevant improvement I see in v.8 is that it now lists items
that are split into extreme numbers of multipart files as one item.

That is useful in that it makes the busier groups less cluttered and
makes it much easier to scan for items of interest in amongst the spam
and clutter, also to find the NZB files. I use superior software for
the actual downloads of course -- Agent is best for text, poor for
binaries in my view.

[CRNG]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:21:04 +0100, none@given wrote in
<3b815ahjj2qodc210...@4ax.com>

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:20:00 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
><nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>The folks at Forte seem to be bleeding some new feature out for
>>each full upgrade. I think that these features should have been
>>included in maintenance releases. IMO we should really be at about
>>Agent 6.3 at this point, for all of the improvements offered. But
>>the Forte folks need the money, as do we all.
>
>I paid for the upgrade -- it was only $19 and for something I use
>daily, I don't mind such a small sum.
>
>I also have no need of their file automation, even less of their
>primitive email client.
>

+1

[Bart Dinnissen]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:11:00 +0100, in
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:50:10 -0500, CRNG <noe...@atthisdomain.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:21:04 +0100, none@given wrote in
>><3b815ahjj2qodc210...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:20:00 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>>><nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>>>The folks at Forte seem to be bleeding some new feature out for
>>>>each full upgrade. I think that these features should have been
>>>>included in maintenance releases. IMO we should really be at about
>>>>Agent 6.3 at this point, for all of the improvements offered. But
>>>>the Forte folks need the money, as do we all.
>>>
>>>I paid for the upgrade -- it was only $19 and for something I use
>>>daily, I don't mind such a small sum.
>>>
>>>I also have no need of their file automation, even less of their
>>>primitive email client.
>>>
>>+1
>

>It's hardly a primitive e-mail client. It's poor with HTML and forwarding
>attachments, but does have excellent filtering.

My thoughts exactly.

--
Bart Dinnissen

"I hate mysteries. They bug me. They need to be solved."
- Felicity Smoak

[none@given]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:11:00 +0100, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:50:10 -0500, CRNG <noe...@atthisdomain.gov> wrote:
>
> It's poor with HTML and forwarding attachments

Primitive, in other words.

[none@given]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:59:53 +0000, Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk>
wrote:

>I prefer "sparse". A lot of the emails I get (mostly from people trying
>to sell me something) pay *far* more attention to formatting than to
>content.
>
>It really doesn't impress me when it's all in pretty colours but they
>can't spell or punctuate, don't understand basic grammar and (more often
>than not) get my name wrong.

Back to mono.

[The Horny Goat]

Yup - kinda like saying because my steak knife can be used to commit
murder I should give up on cutting my steak.

I'll have mine medium rare with nary a trace of murder please!

As the kids would say ROFLMAOn

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:17:17 -0700, Sterling
<ster...@sterling.invalid> wrote:

>No matter how ardently you attempt to divert the discussion, you are
>unable to refute my assertion that "enhancements" in Agent V8 only
>serve to facilitate illegal trafficking in copyrighted material.
>
>Try to be less emotional and focus on the above statement. Explain how
>improving Agent's handling of large, multi-part binaries on Usenet has
>any purpose other than to facilitate the acquisition of copyrighted
>materials?

The changes in Agent 6 and 7 were primarily about facilitating the use
of e-mail. Since a fairly considerable proportion of e-mail is spam
that means Forte is promoting spamming which in this country (Canada)
is illegal.

How does this differ from your argument on Agent 8?

(Haven't upgraded yet, probably will do sometime before Christmas when
I get around to it...)

[No...@dev.null.org]

Might I ask which s/w you are using for your binary downloads? I am
thinking of ugprading to 8.0 but if there is a better tool, I should
support them..
Thanks