What should be at the top of Agents to do list
Terry
NZB gets my vote.
Who is keeping score?
Anssi "Affe" Ahonen
>You only get to pick once.
>
>NZB gets my vote.
IMAP support would be nice...
Anon
an improved address book are an ideal basis for integration.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<Tango...@CheckpointZero.invalid> wrote:
>In Message-ID:<A7UJWA1G3900...@twistycreek.com> posted on 11 Oct 2006
>09:45:44 -0000, Anon wrote:
>
>> PGP support is overdue. Agent's personas in combination with
>> an improved address book are an ideal basis for integration.
>
>But the thread is what should be at the TOP of the list. How many Agent users
>even know what PGP is? And certainly the number of people that want to use PGP
>in Agent is dwarfed by those that want to use NZBs with Agent.
>
>What newsreaders support PGP. What binary downloader, other than Agent, not
>support NZB?
I don't need PGP or NZB. When I think about it, I can't suggest
anything to go on the top of the list. I must be easy to please!
--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
Al Superczynski
>...I can't suggest anything to go on the top of the list. I must be easy to please!
I am too but I'd like to be able to edit the subjects of received
email and news messages without having to first export and then import
them.
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Nick Spalding
<1160513050.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on 10 Oct 2006 13:44:11 -0700:
>You only get to pick once.
>
>NZB gets my vote.
>
>Who is keeping score?
Some way of telling Agent to get the complete message for emails that
are bigger than whatever you specified in Servers and Accounts |
Inbound Email Accounts | Skip messages... or to delete it from the
server unread. Eudora had a very satisfactory way of doing that when
I used it back in 1995.
--
Nick Spalding
XPHomeSP2, Celeron, 1.2GHz, 256MB RAM, 625MB Page file, IE6.0, NTFS
Video adapter: Intel(R) 82845G Screen: LCD 1024x768x60Hz
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>Terry wrote, in
><1160513050.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> on 10 Oct 2006 13:44:11 -0700:
>
>>You only get to pick once.
>>
>>NZB gets my vote.
>>
>>Who is keeping score?
>
>Some way of telling Agent to get the complete message for emails that
>are bigger than whatever you specified in Servers and Accounts |
>Inbound Email Accounts | Skip messages... or to delete it from the
>server unread. Eudora had a very satisfactory way of doing that when
>I used it back in 1995.
Yes, I'll go for that.
Steve Urbach
A simple Right click "Not Junk", that moves the message back to the
incoming (to be filtered?) area, Add to white list...
Anon
>In Message-ID:<A7UJWA1G3900...@twistycreek.com> posted on 11 Oct 2006
>09:45:44 -0000, Anon wrote:
>
>> PGP support is overdue. Agent's personas in combination with
>> an improved address book are an ideal basis for integration.
>
>But the thread is what should be at the TOP of the list.
Then what's more important than our privacy?
> How many Agent users even know what PGP is?
So much the worse. But the main reason for not making use of it seems
to be convenience.
> And certainly the number of people that want to use PGP
>in Agent is dwarfed by those that want to use NZBs with Agent.
I doubt you'll get a higher name recognition rating with NZB compared
to PGP.
>What newsreaders support PGP. What binary downloader, other than Agent, not
>support NZB?
Binary downloader? IMHO a dense and moreover wrong view of what Agent
used to be and still represents, namely a text based client. Besides
the excellent news_reader_ Agent includes a mature mail client, which
is definitely used more often than there are binary downloads. I have
no problems with an extension to the binary side, but PGP integration
means doing basic homework.
jo
Terry wrote:
>You only get to pick once.
Improved usenet filtering.
MID, path, NNTP-Posting-Host, Organisation, etc.
Whatever the server might send, I would like to be able to filter on.
Nohbody
jo <ki...@lineone.net> made an infinite number of monkeys bang out the
following:
>
> Terry wrote:
>
> >You only get to pick once.
>
> Improved usenet filtering.
What he(?) said.
Dan Poore
--
About the only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the
[political] spectrum is *which* civil right(s) they think we can do
without. -- Rowan Hawthorn, in alt.callahans (2/28/05)
Terry
>
> That's pretty much what I have been doing. I am collecting foreign TV
>shows and depending on the posters mood it can be 300-400+GB/month. And I
>too use COX and free servers for binary, and I rarely need any help from
>premium server (some months ago I did need lot of fill from Astraweb).
>
An hour and a half of video would be how much if it were the highest
quality DVD? 4 Gigs
300 / 4 = 75 TV shows
400 / 4 = 100 TV shows
75 X Hour and a Half = 112.5 Hours
100 X Hour and a Half = 150 Hours
Go outside. :)
Phisherman
file download. I know this is possible because NewsBin has one.
jo
Phisherman wrote:
>A pause button. One that works in the middle of a single large binary
>file download. I know this is possible because NewsBin has one.
There is one.
It works as long as you don't close Agent. :-)
Explain.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<Tango...@CheckpointZero.invalid> wrote:
>
>He said he collects them. He didn't say he watched them!
I've never been able to understand that type of hobby. One of our
regular complainers admitted he just collects, it's weird.
>I sure hope my DVDs will be readable in the distant future.
Who knows? Will readers still be available? Access to fast near
infinite memory will be normal so other storage devices will be
pointless.
jo
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:
>I've never been able to understand that type of hobby. One of our
>regular complainers admitted he just collects, it's weird.
People collect stamps and never stick em on a letter; people collect
coins and never spend em.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
Yes but at least they look at stamps and coins them during the
collection process.
Terry
> That's pretty much what I have been doing. I am collecting foreign TV
> shows and depending on the posters mood it can be 300-400+GB/month. And I
> too use COX and free servers for binary, and I rarely need any help from
> premium server (some months ago I did need lot of fill from Astraweb).
>
How does Cox handle their free Usenet service?
Charter gives unlimited Usenet access, but the speed is capped at 128k
with two channels. (I am not sure if channel is the correct word)
Essentially you get 256K throughput.
I like the cap option better than a per month limit. That way you
don't ever have to worry about exceeding the monthly quota. My limited
math suggests that if you use 256K 24/7 that it works out to be about
80 Gigs per month. It sounds like you are getting a much better deal
with Cox.
How is Cox dealing with P2P? I have read that Cox is trying to block
ports to prevent P2P use.
Terry
>"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 5:17 pm, Joe <J...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That's pretty much what I have been doing. I am collecting foreign TV
>> > shows and depending on the posters mood it can be 300-400+GB/month. And I
>> > too use COX and free servers for binary, and I rarely need any help from
>> > premium server (some months ago I did need lot of fill from Astraweb).
>> >
>> How does Cox handle their free Usenet service?
>
> Do you mean their limitation? There is NO download limitation on their
>paid for servers. The other limitation's may depend on how each COX user
>uses his/her tool's and setting's.
>
When you say paid users, I assume that that is everyone. Right? Cox
is your ISP and not just your Usenet provider. Correct?
If Cox's retention is so low and the completeness is low, then it might
not be such a good deal if it were not included with your ISP.
Although Charter is slow, they really have a server I can live with.
They had problems in the past but now everything, except speed, works
fine.
The retention is at least 30 days and their completion is good, too. I
get my Gigabyte fixes mostly from P2P, but I don't remember trying to
get anything off Usenet that pars would not fix. I have subscribed to
Giganews a couple of times for just something that was over a month
old.
I would rather have a good slow connection than an unreliable faster
one. They are both "free" but I think Charter has a good one. Of
course I would love to have a fast and reliable connection, but that is
expecting a little too much for "free" service.
Al Superczynski
>People collect stamps and never stick em on a letter; people collect
>coins and never spend em.
And some people collect model kits and never build them. Don't
ask me how I know... ;-p
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Bill Maxwell
>You only get to pick once.
>
>NZB gets my vote.
>
>Who is keeping score?
How about "add what users request most"?
Did anybody request "desks"?
Did many people request RBI or Bayesian sorting of non-junk incoming
email messages?
--
Bill
hardriverror
"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:41:04 -0500, Joe <J...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Oct 11, 5:17 pm, Joe <J...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > That's pretty much what I have been doing. I am collecting foreign TV
>> >> > shows and depending on the posters mood it can be 300-400+GB/month.
>> >> >And I
>> >> > too use COX and free servers for binary, and I rarely need any help from
>> >> > premium server (some months ago I did need lot of fill from Astraweb).
>> >> >
>> >> How does Cox handle their free Usenet service?
>> >
>> > Do you mean their limitation? There is NO download limitation on their
>> >paid for servers. The other limitation's may depend on how each COX user
>> >uses his/her tool's and setting's.
>> >
>>
>> When you say paid users, I assume that that is everyone. Right? Cox
>> is your ISP and not just your Usenet provider. Correct?
>
>doesn't give them some free $$$. Or I mean that the server is part of the
>HSI package we pay for the service. We don't have to pay extra, but it
>isn't free (to non-COX user or public).
>
> Yes, COX is my ISP and Usenet is part of the internet package.
>> If Cox's retention is so low and the completeness is low, then it might
>> not be such a good deal if it were not included with your ISP.
>
>then 2-3 days retention to get the job done. Me, I usually don't need more
>than few hours, or most of the stuff I want usually be downloaded within
>20-30 minutes right after the posters done posting. But 4-5 days retention
>for the raining day can be useful.
>
> So, if you need something like 7-15 days or 30 days retention then you may
>want to develope a good method how to handle all the posts, and a right
>tool's for the job.
>
> But since I only download from one newsgroup, and I have everything setup
>99.9% automatically, so it's much easier for me than most others.
>> Although Charter is slow, they really have a server I can live with.
>> They had problems in the past but now everything, except speed, works
>> fine.
>>
>> The retention is at least 30 days and their completion is good, too. I
>> get my Gigabyte fixes mostly from P2P, but I don't remember trying to
>> get anything off Usenet that pars would not fix. I have subscribed to
>> Giganews a couple of times for just something that was over a month
>> old.
>
>are often behind the current and often doing catching up (catching up is not
>my style). Me, I usually even way ahead of the posters.
>
> Yup! you heard it right "..ahead of the posters .." because I always have
>my downloader setup to download thing before the poster(s) starts posting ..
>not just few hours but some even days/weeks.
>
> Sometime I make some joke like ".. I will even get complete newer posts
>days after my funeral .." but I ain't kidding. Cuz as a professional
>photographer (retired) in the warmer months I sometime photograph out of
>state in the weekends ... or sometime stay in hospital for few days <bg>
>then I usually get more than what I really need. Or if I am at home then I
>can stop before it downloads too many PAR2
>
>> I would rather have a good slow connection than an unreliable faster
>> one. They are both "free" but I think Charter has a good one. Of
>> course I would love to have a fast and reliable connection, but that is
>> expecting a little too much for "free" service.
>
>Server then even at slow speed it can be very useful depending on how you
>use it.
>
> Example, if you just use the slow free public server for FILL (I am
>talking about filling small segment not whole part) then slow will become
>fast, and it will give more complete part.
>
> *If* you mean *free* of the paid ISP, then I guess you may have to figure
>out how to get the max_out_of whatever the ISP has to offer, then using
>addional help from third party if needed. And I am pretty sure I can get
>lot more out of COX servers than many if not most COX users who pay the same
>amount, getting the exact same service, using the exact same servers... the
>only difference is learning the right tool and right technique.
I agree Cox has been great since the new Beta servers went up. Out of 65GB
downloaded in the past month, only 1GB came from my fill server...and even that
wasn't necessary if I had used more pars or turned off my fill server
completely. I've been averaging between 600-650KB/s lately, but it was up to
800KB/s a couple weeks ago.
Agent 4 only gives me about 180KB/s due to lack of server priority options.
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:22:27 -0500:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:56:31 GMT, jo <ki...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>People collect stamps and never stick em on a letter; people collect
>>coins and never spend em.
>
> And some people collect model kits and never build them. Don't
>ask me how I know... ;-p
There is some point in that, in twenty years or so they may be worth a
lot of money!
--
Nick Spalding
XPHomeSP2, Celeron, 1.2GHz, 256MB RAM, 625MB Page file, IE6.0, NTFS
Video adapter: Intel(R) 82845G Screen: LCD 1024x768x60Hz
Al Superczynski
wrote:
>>...some people collect model kits and never build them. Don't
>>ask me how I know... ;-p
>
>There is some point in that, in twenty years or so they may be worth a
>lot of money!
I wish! If that were true I'd be filthy rich by now... ;)
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:16:05 -0500:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:15:57 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>
>>>...some people collect model kits and never build them. Don't
>>>ask me how I know... ;-p
>>
>>There is some point in that, in twenty years or so they may be worth a
>>lot of money!
>
> I wish! If that were true I'd be filthy rich by now... ;)
They turn up now and again on the Antiques Road Show, maybe rather
more than 20 years old, and are valued at a great deal more than they
were sold for.
James L. Liles
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
:->On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:21:10 -0400, Bill Maxwell
:-><bill_maxwell_n...@notreal.net> wrote:
:->
:->>On 10 Oct 2006 13:44:11 -0700, "Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
:->>
:->>>You only get to pick once.
:->>>
:->>>NZB gets my vote.
:->>>
:->>>Who is keeping score?
:->>
:->>
:->>How about "add what users request most"?
:->>
:->>
:->>Did anybody request "desks"?
:->>
:->>Did many people request RBI or Bayesian sorting of non-junk incoming
:->>email messages?
:->
:->I don't know what users request most and if we consider the big
:->picture I don't think Forte knows either. They accept suggestions,
:->but I see absolutely no evidence that these suggestions are culled,
:->sorted, classified and prioritized. My best guess is that Forte has a
:->huge list of suggestions with many, many duplicates and has no clear
:->idea which ones are most wanted.
:->
:->I vote for nested folders implemented using the native
:->folder/subdirectory system of the Windows OS.
:->
:->Without that they can keep any email capability Agent has because I
:->have no use for it if I can't file and organize mail from multiple
:->mailing lists and on multiple ongoing topics in a folder system that
:->isn't a mile long and runs off the screen.
I'd settle for nested desks, or to keep the metaphor, hanging file
folders that could accept folders or hanging file folders.
In other words I could live with not having messages and folders in a
nested hanging file folder.
This should allow filing a folder in more than one place, like you can
with desks.
--
Christa
I expected everybody to jump to: NESTED FOLDERS
Since noone does, let me be the first to jump.
--
Christa
Al Superczynski
wrote:
>>>There is some point in that, in twenty years or so [old model kits] may be worth a
>>>lot of money!
>>
>> I wish! If that were true I'd be filthy rich by now... ;)
>
>They turn up now and again on the Antiques Road Show, maybe rather
>more than 20 years old, and are valued at a great deal more than they
>were sold for.
Yeah some are but unlike, say, stamps and coins, old model kits
can be and often are reissued. I've been building/collecting models
for over 50 years now - believe me when I say that there are very few
models worth more than a couple hundred dollars, and very few people
making any real money at this.
Bill Maxwell
wrote:
>I don't know what users request most and if we consider the big
>picture I don't think Forte knows either. They accept suggestions,
>but I see absolutely no evidence that these suggestions are culled,
>sorted, classified and prioritized. My best guess is that Forte has a
>huge list of suggestions with many, many duplicates and has no clear
>idea which ones are most wanted.
>
>I vote for nested folders implemented using the native
>folder/subdirectory system of the Windows OS.
>
>Without that they can keep any email capability Agent has because I
>have no use for it if I can't file and organize mail from multiple
>mailing lists and on multiple ongoing topics in a folder system that
>isn't a mile long and runs off the screen.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nested folders is the single most
needed (and I daresay most requested) feature in Agent. The point
behind my remarks, above, is that I think Forte would have been FAR
better off putting their efforts into implementing nested folders
instead of desks and RBI, and some other features.
And, I speak with some practical experience. In fact I felt so strongly
about it, that several weeks ago, I switched away from using Agent for
email, and started using Thunderbird instead. Before that, I had used
Agent for all my work and home email since somewhere around 1998.
After taking the time to learn the new features in Agent 4.0, and
realizing that they don't help me at all for my work email needs, and
finally coming to grips with the (for me) wrong direction Agent's email
features have headed, I started looking elsewhere.
Thunderbird is by no means perfect, but if for no other reason, in my
opinion, the single feature of having nested folders is sufficient
reason to switch to it.
From my view, Forte can take their desks and RBI and stuff them. I'm
sure they work for lots of people, but I don't need some system that
automatically sorts emails in a way that I can't use for my heavy-duty
work email needs. I simply need a better way to sort emails myself,
manually. And having nested folders now is WONDERFUL. I mean, it's
just GREAT.
When I switched away from Agent for email, I had about 220 email
folders, and it was becoming a real PAIN to switch between desks, and to
scroll up and down within each desk. And the way that Agent places new
folders at the bottom of the list was maddening. What the heck is so
hard about implementing a simple feature like inserting a new folder at
the currently selected location within the list? In fact, that was my
main gripe with Agent email, is that there were tons of little things
like that that made it an extra pain to deal with.
I must say, I have been VERY pleasantly surprised by what I've found in
Thunderbird. The most pleasant surprise has been discovering the world
of very useful extensions that are available for Thunderbird. Now I can
right-click on an email message and attach a yellow-sticky note to the
email where I can write notes about what needs to be done in response to
the email. Or, I can right-click a message and add a reminder that will
pop up at some time in the future, play an alarm sound, and remind me to
follow up on the email. I can now view multiple levels of quoted text
in different colors. The list goes on and on, and I am discovering new
extensions all the time. I've even glanced at what it would take to
write my own extensions.
The second most pleasant surprise has been the ability to use HTML in
the emails I write. For years, I was in the "plain text is all you need
and want" camp. But, I must say that being able to use auto-numbering,
indented paragraphs, bullet items, etc., has been very helpful in
authoring technical emails that are easier to read quickly and are more
useful for referring back to and finding information. And, despite what
others have said in this newsgroup, I find that the majority of the
people I correspond with for business purposes have HTML email
capabilities.
The third most pleasant surprise has been how useful it is to be able to
assign a "label" to each email message. For example, I can label my
top-priority emails as "Important". Then, when I need to remember what
I want to do right away, I simply search for all messages labeled
"Important", and there they all are. There are multiple levels of
labels, and I'm learning lots of new ways to take advantage of them.
I feel like I just finally woke up, and in this regard, I'm not going to
go back to sleep, either.
--
Bill
Xiggy
>You only get to pick once.
I vote for "read-only mode," so that Agent open up and read news saved
onto a CDR/DVDR.
No Body
>You only get to pick once.
Fixing Agent so that it doesn't lose already downloaded data in the event
of a crash or if you stop the download and close Agent.
Bill Maxwell
wrote:
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>So, what did you do to get those 220 folders and eMail addresses ported
>over to Thunderbird?
In my case, the best solution turned out to be: Don't port old emails
to Thunderbird -- simply leave them in Agent.
When I first contemplated switching to a different email program, I
thought it was important to transfer my old email messages. I tried to
find an easy solution. The closest I came was a product called
Aid4Mail, that imports Agent databases directly into Thunderbird. It's
not a free product, but they have a free evaluation version.
But, unfortunately, Aid4Mail has a bug where it doesn't properly
transfer the pointers to attachments that were saved and removed from
the message in Agent. Other than that, it's good. I used the
evaluation version to transfer all the Agent folders and message
contents just fine (well, only the first 50 in each folder, with those
having "markings" in the subject line, because of eval limits). The
transfer even works fine if the message contains an attachment -- the
attachment is still there in Thunderbird.
Unfortunately, losing the pointers to saved attachments greatly reduces
the value of the transferred emails for me. So, after thinking about it
a while, I decided to just forget about transferring the emails. When I
first tried Aid4Mail, just before switching to Thunderbird, I had found
a bug that took the Aid4Mail folks a while to fix (it wasn't
transferring all of the Agent email folder names correctly). By the
time the bug got fixed, I had already switched to Thunderbird for about
2 weeks, so I had already created a bunch of new folders and was working
comfortably with it. Then, when evaluating the new version of Aid4Mail
that fixed the first bug I had found, I discovered and reported a new
bug about attachments (the one I mentioned above, and which is still
present). This time, they didn't seem so anxious to fix it, and as I
describe below, I realized I really don't have to transfer the messages
anyway, so I just decided to forget about doing the work of
transferring.
After I had set up my new email folder tree structure in Thunderbird, I
realized that I had organized it much differently, and more simply, than
the folder "structure" I had in Agent ("structure" is in quotes here
because, of course, there really is no folder structure in Agent). It
would have been a chore to sort the old Agent emails into the new
structure anyway, and if I didn't do that, there was even less need to
transfer the messages.
So, now I simply leave my old emails in Agent, which is still right
there for ready use. I already know how to use Agent global search
capability, and that's the main reason I keep the old emails anyway --
so I can search for information and links to saved attachments.
Another benefit of not transferring the messages to Thunderbird is that
now I don't have to include all that old stuff in my daily backups of
the email database. And, after about 6 years of heavy email use for my
job, the old database is fairly sizable.
As far as porting the email addresses in my address book, I haven't done
that either. I have just been putting them in by hand into Thunderbird
as I need them. I don't bother to put most customer contacts into my
address book, and I just go get their email address out of previous
emails if I need to. So, it hasn't been that much of a chore to enter
email addresses manually, because at any given time, I'm only sending
emails to a limited group of people anyway.
--
Bill
jo
Adding nzb support before this would be a bit silly.
Bill Maxwell
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:53:49 -0400, Bill Maxwell
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Thanks.
>I thought with over 220 folders you'd have a giant address book too.
Yeah, evidently Forte probably would've thought the same thing. And,
that's part of why their new direction in implementing email features
doesn't fit my usage.
--
Bill
William Hughes
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jim Higgins
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>We need two components. I'll call them Drawers and Folders.
>
>Drawers may contain Folders or more Drawers. Folders may only contain
>either Usenet Articles or Email Messages, but not both.
>
>I'd like to see email filing and Usenet filing kept strictly separate,
>or with a config setting that determines if mixing is allowed if
>others want them mixed.
If someone sends me an email response to a newsgroup post, I'd like to
be able to file them together.
--
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas: cvp...@grandecom.net
The Carrier Project: http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/carrier.htm
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:32:07 -0500:
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:30:37 GMT, in
>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jim Higgins
><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>We need two components. I'll call them Drawers and Folders.
>>
>>Drawers may contain Folders or more Drawers. Folders may only contain
>>either Usenet Articles or Email Messages, but not both.
>>
>>I'd like to see email filing and Usenet filing kept strictly separate,
>>or with a config setting that determines if mixing is allowed if
>>others want them mixed.
>
>If someone sends me an email response to a newsgroup post, I'd like to
>be able to file them together.
Agreed. I certainly don't want Agent telling me where I can or cannot
put things. If I make a cock-up of it, so be it - it's my fault.
jo
>In Message-ID:<rInYg.70704$aE2....@fe04.news.easynews.com> posted on Sun, 15
>Not really.
Yes. Really. Adding nzb support before tidying up basic binary
inadequacies would be a bit, er, silly.
>That would only be true if all the files specified in the NZB were
>treated like a single multipart. That won't be the case so you won't be any
>worse of for data loss than you are now.
Sure. So still no incentive to use Agent as a bin client.
I use Grabit all the time as a dedicated nzb client. Agent won't begin
to compete with it just by nailing nzb support on somewhere or other.
> You just won't have to download so
>many headers.
I don't do much bin headers these days.
Mark Lloyd
<cvp...@grandecom.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:30:37 GMT, in
>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jim Higgins
><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>We need two components. I'll call them Drawers and Folders.
>>
>>Drawers may contain Folders or more Drawers. Folders may only contain
>>either Usenet Articles or Email Messages, but not both.
>>
>>I'd like to see email filing and Usenet filing kept strictly separate,
>>or with a config setting that determines if mixing is allowed if
>>others want them mixed.
>
>If someone sends me an email response to a newsgroup post, I'd like to
>be able to file them together.
Since when that happens, it's usually inappropriate, I always use
invalid email addresses when posting to usenet. I get very few of
those unwanted emails.
--
70 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."
William Hughes
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Mark Lloyd
<mll...@notmail.comnot.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:32:07 -0500, William Hughes
><cvp...@grandecom.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:30:37 GMT, in
>>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jim Higgins
>><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>We need two components. I'll call them Drawers and Folders.
>>>
>>>Drawers may contain Folders or more Drawers. Folders may only contain
>>>either Usenet Articles or Email Messages, but not both.
>>>
>>>I'd like to see email filing and Usenet filing kept strictly separate,
>>>or with a config setting that determines if mixing is allowed if
>>>others want them mixed.
>>
>>If someone sends me an email response to a newsgroup post, I'd like to
>>be able to file them together.
>
>Since when that happens, it's usually inappropriate, I always use
>invalid email addresses when posting to usenet. I get very few of
>those unwanted emails.
I hang out in the rec/sci.[military history] newsgroups (see sig). As
a result, I get valid emails on a regular basis.
Invalid emails (UCE/spam) have their IP or IP block placed in a
permanent killfile. I don't get many of those any more.
jo
>In Message-ID:<wtKYg.53125$p86....@fe05.news.easynews.com> posted on Mon, 16
>Of course it will, because it appears Grabit doesn't have advanced multiple
>server support. Does it?
It has multiple server support, with multiple connections and it is
*much* more aggressive than Agent in holding onto and maximising those
connections. And you can switch servers on the fly for individual
items in your d/l queue.
Dunno what you mean by 'advanced'.
> Then there is this, "GrabIt is not able to handle the
>headers of really large groups at this moment. The maximum amount of headers
>GrabIt can handle depends on your computer. When GrabIt hits its limit on your
>system, it will download all the headers, but will not show them. Or it will be
>stuck processing them for a really long time (days)" That was from
>http://www.binaries4all.com/grabit/headers.php Is this information still valid.
I use it as a nzb client. Not sure if I've ever downloaded a header.
I know it does not chuck data away like Agent does; it remembers task
arrangement; it has 'at a glance' task management where you see what
is going where at what speed on what server with a fairly reliable
timer.
>> > You just won't have to download so many headers.
>>
>> I don't do much bin headers these days.
>
>Right. And there are people that would like to have that same option with
>Agent. People that aren't bothered by, or perhaps didn't even notice, the
>binary bits that need "tidying up." Maybe the tidying up will come before the
>addition of search!? ;-)
Oh yes - I have downloaded a few headers; used the search function to
get just the headers I wanted.
Grabit displays number of posts in a group, and handles incompletes
better than Agent.
When you say: ' People that aren't bothered by, or perhaps didn't even
notice, the binary bits that need "tidying up"'... can you think of
another client with binary pretensions that chucks data away like
Agent does?
I know there won't be a serious one.
I don't know if any of Agent's binary inadequacies are fixed in 4.1 -
I started to have a look at it, uninstalled it one night in a huff,
and it would not let me reinstall.
Boris Mohar
unread mail. Right now it toggles back to carnation as soon as I open the
first mail. I have a long list of folders in which the mail gets routed and
it is easy to miss one unless I scroll through all of them. Actually a
really clever trick would be to sort the folders in order of unread mail
contents.
--
Boris Mohar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Carroll Robbins
<fs8bj214vg4gr7n10...@4ax.com> on Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:47:28
GMT:
>Further, if you want to remove an item from a
>batch without affecting other items in a batch, you can't. You have to stop
>the whole batch (hopefully picking the right one since you can't see what a
>given batch is made up of), then requeue it minus the unwanted item.
Of course you can. Simply select the item in a browser, right click, and
select Cancel Body Retrieval.
--
Carroll Robbins
Terry
>> From: Terry (10 Oct 2006 13:44:11 -0700)
>> MsgId: <1160513050.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> You only get to pick once.
>>
>> NZB gets my vote.
>>
>> Who is keeping score?
>
>A better Queue Management System.
>
>The current Agent queue works on a batch level. If you select 5 messages
>and ask to download them, that's one batch item in the queue. If you do
>this 5 times, you will know you have done it 5 times, but not which items
>are queued to which batches. Further, if you want to remove an item from a
>batch without affecting other items in a batch, you can't. You have to stop
>the whole batch (hopefully picking the right one since you can't see what a
>given batch is made up of), then requeue it minus the unwanted item.
>
>Increasing the granularity to at least the "multipart" level would help a
>lot for binary downloaders. Optimally, you'd be able to see down to the
>article (subject) level. A "+" could be displayed next to each item to
>allow digging down.
Yes. Another good suggestion. Put each item on the list separately.
Terry
wrote:
> data. You can cancel retrieval of multiparts Agent hasn't started working on,
> and then simply wait for the current multipart to complete before canceling the
> task. For a broadband user downloading 50 Meg multiparts this means those
> concerned about loosing data could have to wait about 2 minutes before canceling
> a task. I usually do this on broadband, and I would certainly do this on
> dial-up. But there are a lot of broadband users who would wonder why one would
>
A 50 Meg file takes me 25 min on my free server. 2 - 128k connections.
It is the only Usenet connection I have too. I don't have a fill
server.
BTW another thing for very low on the wish list would be a way to
display the size of an attachment instead of lines. They don't have to
be "balls on" accurate. Just a close guess.
jo
>In Message-ID:<pU3Zg.102732$aE2....@fe04.news.easynews.com> posted on Tue, 17
>Oct 2006 12:20:37 GMT, jo wrote:
>
>> Paul Hantom wrote:
>>
>> >In Message-ID:<wtKYg.53125$p86....@fe05.news.easynews.com> posted on Mon, 16
>> >Oct 2006 11:58:20 GMT, jo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Paul Hantom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In Message-ID:<rInYg.70704$aE2....@fe04.news.easynews.com> posted on Sun, 15
>> >> >Oct 2006 10:04:07 GMT, jo wrote:
>>
>> >> I use Grabit all the time as a dedicated nzb client. Agent won't begin
>> >> to compete with it just by nailing nzb support on somewhere or other.
>> >
>> >Of course it will, because it appears Grabit doesn't have advanced multiple
>> >server support. Does it?
>>
>> It has multiple server support, with multiple connections and it is
>> *much* more aggressive than Agent in holding onto and maximising those
>> connections. And you can switch servers on the fly for individual
>> items in your d/l queue.
>> Dunno what you mean by 'advanced'.
>
>By advanced multiple server support, I mean the ability to create virtual
>servers. In Grabit, how do you specify to first attempt body retrieval from
>server A and if that fails then attempt to get the body from server B?
You can't. Here, servers A & B are very reliable so it is never a
problem. If server A ever did fall over on a body, Grabit would leave
it in the queue and move on. I'd manually change server whan I noticed
the error.
>Or how do I configure Grabit to pull headers for group C
>from both server A and server B and present them to me as a single group on
>single, virtualized server?
I see that as being a moderately useful text function.
As I said: I rarely pull bin headers (partly because I have a slow
connection, partly because it is inefficient) Why would I want to pull
headers twice?
>> > Then there is this, "GrabIt is not able to handle the
>> >headers of really large groups at this moment. The maximum amount of headers
>> >GrabIt can handle depends on your computer. When GrabIt hits its limit on your
>> >system, it will download all the headers, but will not show them. Or it will be
>> >stuck processing them for a really long time (days)" That was from
>> >http://www.binaries4all.com/grabit/headers.php Is this information still valid.
>>
>> I use it as a nzb client. Not sure if I've ever downloaded a header.
>> I know it does not chuck data away like Agent does; it remembers task
>> arrangement; it has 'at a glance' task management where you see what
>> is going where at what speed on what server with a fairly reliable
>> timer.
>>
>> >> > You just won't have to download so many headers.
>> >>
>> >> I don't do much bin headers these days.
>> >
>> >Right. And there are people that would like to have that same option with
>> >Agent. People that aren't bothered by, or perhaps didn't even notice, the
>> >binary bits that need "tidying up." Maybe the tidying up will come before the
>> >addition of search!? ;-)
>>
>> Oh yes - I have downloaded a few headers; used the search function to
>> get just the headers I wanted.
>> Grabit displays number of posts in a group, and handles incompletes
>> better than Agent.
>>
>> When you say: ' People that aren't bothered by, or perhaps didn't even
>> notice,
>
>That is twisting what I said.
It was a direct quote, in context - hence the use of quote markers
>Of course there are (some) people that are
>bothered by that; mostly those on dial-up.
Mostly on dial up? And on slow BB connections like mine. And who like
'efficiency' in an app.
>> the binary bits that need "tidying up"'... can you think of
>> another client with binary pretensions that chucks data away like
>> Agent does?
>> I know there won't be a serious one.
>
>I don't know everything about every binary downloader but just because I can't
>name one that doesn't chuck data in certain circumstances doesn't make my
>statement any less true.
I'll stick my neck out and suggest that *no* serious binary app throws
data away a la Agent.
And I would be seriously interested if *any* of the minor players did
so.
>And all binary downloaders are going to lose data on a
>sudden power failure.
As you know - because this discussion has been had here for a while
now - we are discussing file loss rather than segment loss.
Every client will chuck segments if the app is closed for whatever
reason; only Agent chucks files.
> It is possible to operate Agent without having Agent
>chuck data.
By lots of user intervention and nannying.
> It only does that when you cancel a task while it is in the middle
>of downloading a multipart. It is possible to operate Agent without any loss of
>data. You can cancel retrieval of multiparts Agent hasn't started working on,
>and then simply wait for the current multipart to complete before canceling the
>task.
I am aware of these points.
>For a broadband user downloading 50 Meg multiparts this means those
>concerned about loosing data could have to wait about 2 minutes before canceling
>a task. I usually do this on broadband, and I would certainly do this on
>dial-up.
You're making a few assumptions here. About connection speed, queued
file size, and the desire of the downloader to find the correct file
in the correct group and watch it to a finish.
I recently saw a couple of files I wanted that were posted as single
700MB files. What am I to do with those on a 1MB connection in Agent?
Your '2 minutes' becomes about 100 mins here.
Please don't suggest splitting as a viable option.
>But there are a lot of broadband users who would wonder why one would
>bother them with such a detail.
Why do you so often feel the need to invent people to support your
position?
>They would laugh at you, as they would if you
>picked a penny from a pubic sidewalk.
Is that what they would do, Paul?
> (I'd divert their attention, and enjoy
>both finding the penny and the exercise from picking it up.)
You are too kind
> These same people
>are likely to be perplexed by Agent's lack of NZB support.
There they are again.
I could invent people of my own in support of my way of working - my
world view. And I could construct amusing theatre with these people as
you have done above.
It don't advance the discussion much, though.
I consider my point to be a valid one - nzb support with such a
useless task manager is cart before the horse.
>> I don't know if any of Agent's binary inadequacies are fixed in 4.1 -
>> I started to have a look at it, uninstalled it one night in a huff,
>> and it would not let me reinstall.
>
>Wouldn't let you reinstall!?
Nope. Told me my trial period had expired.
Wayne Garmil
>You only get to pick once.
watch subthread, the same way you can now ignore a subthread.
Wayne
--
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
jo
>In Message-ID:<aXtZg.81562$FU7....@fe01.news.easynews.com> posted on Wed, 18
>Oct 2006 17:58:30 GMT, jo wrote:
>> > It is possible to operate Agent without having Agent
>> >chuck data.
>>
>> By lots of user intervention and nannying.
>
>The kind of intervention and nannying that appear to be necessary to use
>multiple servers in Grabit?
In scenarios invented by you to score debating points.
Not in scenarios that operate here.
>> > It only does that when you cancel a task while it is in the middle
>> >of downloading a multipart. It is possible to operate Agent without any loss of
>> >data. You can cancel retrieval of multiparts Agent hasn't started working on,
>> >and then simply wait for the current multipart to complete before canceling the
>> >task.
>>
>> I am aware of these points.
>
>Then you need to be more specific when you say that Agent discards data because
>not everyone is aware of these points. Agent doesn't discard data by itself. It
>requires the user to interrupt a process. Thus, people that don't cancel tasks,
>won't discard any data.
I don't need to be more specific. You know precisely what I am talking
about.
>> >For a broadband user downloading 50 Meg multiparts this means those
>> >concerned about loosing data could have to wait about 2 minutes before canceling
>> >a task. I usually do this on broadband, and I would certainly do this on
>> >dial-up.
>>
>> You're making a few assumptions here. About connection speed, queued
>> file size, and the desire of the downloader to find the correct file
>> in the correct group and watch it to a finish.
>
>Probably because in my neck of the woods there is a legal definition for
>broadband! ;-)
There might be here - I've no idea what it is.
>The file size was stated.
The file size was chosen to fit your argument.
>> I recently saw a couple of files I wanted that were posted as single
>> 700MB files. What am I to do with those on a 1MB connection in Agent?
>
>1MB? You must mean something else.
I must, mustn't I?
We'll skip that bit then
>I don't invent these people. I actually know them, personally. I know one
>person that I cannot convince to split sections. He simply doesn't care about
>loosing a multipart if he cancels a task. I know another person that always
>downloads all par files for DVDs before checking to see if he needs any of them.
>And I learn a lot about what people actually do with various newsreaders by
>reading their accounts on the net. I am a keen observer of human behaviour.
>> >They would laugh at you, as they would if you
>> >picked a penny from a pubic sidewalk.
>>
>> Is that what they would do, Paul?
>
>Well, I know of broadband people that do what I have stated. And I know of
>people that do what I have stated about the money. However, I have not had to
>opportunity to see the behaviour linked in a single individual. That was an
>assumption, a quite reasonable one I think, on my part.
The nice thing about inventing these people - or 'knowing them
personally' and inventing their responses to stimuli - is that it puts
you at a remove from your statements.
>> > These same people
>> >are likely to be perplexed by Agent's lack of NZB support.
>>
>> There they are again.
>
>You don't believe that people are surprised that Agent doesn't support NZBs!?
>This is a simple reality you learn just by reading this newsgroup.
These people exist; they post here. Just as the data loss people post
here.
>> I could invent people of my own in support of my way of working - my
>> world view. And I could construct amusing theatre with these people as
>> you have done above.
>> It don't advance the discussion much, though.
>
>The people are amusing, but they are real.
Your imaginary friends are not real. That is a simple definition.
>What do you believe, that people are
>all monolithically, frugally Scottish! ;-)
'Monolithically'?
I'm not sure what to make of the above sentence. It looks like a bit
of cheap racism.
>You imply that you use Grabit over
>Agent because you are concerned about loosing sections of a multipart if you
>cancel a task.
That is one of the reasons
>But isn't that a actually a relatively trivial issue?
I don't think so. Nor, presumeably, does No Body who put it at the top
of his wish list.
>Aren't
>you really using it because it supports NZBs?
Supports them efficiently.
>And if my take on the habits of
>Usenet users are false, and if everyone shares your concerns, why isn't everyone
>using Grabit and no one using Agent for binaries?
There's not a lot of 'greys' in your world is there?
>> I consider my point to be a valid one - nzb support with such a
>> useless task manager is cart before the horse.
>
>Well, now you are talking about the task manager, before you were arguing about
>the need for binary tidying up first. These are two different things.
Not in my world. This was my original statement in this thread: "Yes.
Really. Adding nzb support before tidying up basic binary
inadequacies would be a bit, er, silly."
The task manager is a binary inadequacy.
>Yes, your point is a valid one, for a relatively small number of people.
Numbers, lad; numbers. You can conduct as many imaginary surveys as
you like amongst your imaginary friends in order to back up your take
on usenet and the world.
Don't work without the numbers.
>From a
>marketing point it is not valid because Agent will get more sales from adding
>NZB support than it will from tidying up a few binary issues.
Sure. nzb is the latest buzz word and Agent is going for the Outlook
market. Good, solid marketing stuff.
>There is now a
>category of user that only uses NZBs,
Yep. Me, as much as posible.
>and newsreaders that focus solely on
>processing NZBs, such as NZB-O-Matic.
Horrid little thing. A one function tool that needs .net support.
>From a pure logical point of few your point is penny wise and pound foolish.
Only when someone like you is determined to use circular arguments to
score points
>Agent resolved the major issue of data loss, which was loosing data when a
>connection dropped.
That was *a* major issue.
> This was annoying because it wasn't predictable, one had no
>control over this. Now the loss only occurs when a user cancels a task that is
>downloading a joined multipart. The loss is under a user's control and can be
>avoided. But the loss is minor.
In your world. Do you not think that a bit of respect for the world
view of others would be a good thing in a 'keen observer of human
behaviour'?
>And such losses pale in comparison to the
>amount of downloading that can be avoided by using NZBs. So no, if you are
>concerned about minimizing data download it makes no sense to tidy up the "basic
>binary inadequacies" before adding NZB support.
Agreed.
Another of your circular arguments.
> The tidying up only provides a
>minor saving once in awhile,
In your world.
>while NZBs offer huge savings, by avoiding header
>downloads every day.
Yes. nzb's are a good thing.
jo
>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (jo) wrote in
><UIJZg.3840$bL1...@fe04.news.easynews.com>::
>
>>
>>>> I recently saw a couple of files I wanted that were posted as single
>>>> 700MB files. What am I to do with those on a 1MB connection in Agent?
>>>
>>>1MB? You must mean something else.
>>
>>I must, mustn't I?
>>We'll skip that bit then
>
>I have a 1MB connection. Or 8Mb, if you prefer. :)
I think mine is 1Mbps. Or something.
>Oh, and for the record, I don't care about nzb one way or another, unless
>they waste time on it that would be better spent (IMO) on nested folders.
Paul knows a shedload of people who regard your minority views to be
frankly risible.
jo
>You have a poor idea of the reality of
>Usenet users.
What always surprises me when you wander off into one of these threads
with someone or other, is this absolute conviction you have that you
are in touch with some sort of usenet 'absolute truth'.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
>How about a simpler, faster Agent. . . .
In my experience it's simple and fast already.
Steve
--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
jo
>How about a simpler, faster Agent. . . .
1.93 is still laying about somewhere.