Is Turnpike "DEAD"?

[Julian Knight]

This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I would
see if we can tease some information from the developers - if they still
read the newsgroup.

Is TP Dead?

It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
might be expected from a modern email client:
- No IMAP support
- Poor HTML support
- Arcane filters with no direct way of testing them
- Tied in to Windows Explorer leading to:
- No colour highlighting
- ... add your own missing or poor features here...

So, I question whether we will EVER get a new release?

I would really like to know so that I can plan a move to another client
some time in the future if I need to.

Of course, on the positive side, it does handle multiple accounts pretty
well, it integrates newsgroups and email well, it will act as a local
mail distribution server and handles multiple users.

But I have to say that other mail clients seem to be catching up in the
few areas they are missing and are well ahead in other areas.

[Robert Hull]

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I would
see if we can tease some information from the developers - if they
still read the newsgroup.

If you did, you would know that they do

Post by Julian Knight
Is TP Dead?

Of course not

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.
It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
- No IMAP support

You might consider that essential, others might think that there were
better things to wish for

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and adequate
display of the important part of HTML email abominations - the text

Post by Julian Knight
- Arcane filters with no direct way of testing them

Powerful filters - made even more so by the MAPI syntax and that can be
tested with very few exceptions
That is a design decision that led to granting what most of the current
critics had been requesting but have now decided that they didn't want.

Post by Julian Knight
- No colour highlighting

Explain. Quoting levels are highlighted by colour in a way that was not
previously possible.

If you want to have colour in your emails, news postings I suggest that
you use one of the Mircosoft virus vectors such as OE or Lookout

Post by Julian Knight
So, I question whether we will EVER get a new release?

I would assume that a new release will be made available when the
developers think that there is something worth adding to the current
release.

Post by Julian Knight
I would really like to know so that I can plan a move to another client
some time in the future if I need to.

You could move to another client any time you chose, I do not think that
the presence or absence of a new release of Turnpike will have any
bearing on your true reasons for changing.

[Mark Browne]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, in demon.ip.support.turnpike, Robert Hull

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and adequate
display of the important part of HTML email abominations - the text

Or yet another way, perfect HTML support - you can see the text, and if
you need to see more, you can click on "Viewer" and get Internet
Exploder to display it in all its glory, while accessing any web bugs,
running scripts and other such stuff that you have *chosen* to run. I
like the choice.

[Robert Hull]

Post by Mark Browne
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, in demon.ip.support.turnpike, Robert Hull

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and adequate
display of the important part of HTML email abominations - the text

Or yet another way, perfect HTML support - you can see the text, and if
you need to see more, you can click on "Viewer" and get Internet
Exploder to display it in all its glory, while accessing any web bugs,
running scripts and other such stuff that you have *chosen* to run. I
like the choice.

Actually, another advantage of this option is that you don't even have
to allow Internet Destroyer anywhere near the email - even when you
choose Viewer

[Julian Knight]

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Mark Browne
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, in demon.ip.support.turnpike, Robert Hull

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and
adequate display of the important part of HTML email abominations -
the text

Or yet another way, perfect HTML support - you can see the text, and
if you need to see more, you can click on "Viewer" and get Internet
Exploder to display it in all its glory, while accessing any web bugs,
running scripts and other such stuff that you have *chosen* to run. I
like the choice.

Actually, another advantage of this option is that you don't even have
to allow Internet Destroyer anywhere near the email - even when you
choose Viewer

Urm, I don't anyway, that is another MS centric view of the world. My
default browser is Mozilla Firebird which allows me to avoid 90+% of the
bogging awful security disasters lurking in IE.

[Julian Knight]

Post by Mark Browne
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, in demon.ip.support.turnpike, Robert Hull

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and adequate
display of the important part of HTML email abominations - the text

Or yet another way, perfect HTML support - you can see the text, and if
you need to see more, you can click on "Viewer" and get Internet
Exploder to display it in all its glory, while accessing any web bugs,
running scripts and other such stuff that you have *chosen* to run. I
like the choice.

I'm afraid that I must disagree. Am I the only person receiving emails
that I do not want to have to view in an external program but in fact do
have to in order to make sense of the poor formatting?

Well, perhaps I am, in that case tough on me.

[Roy Collett]

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I would
see if we can tease some information from the developers - if they
still read the newsgroup.

That is a design decision that led to granting what most of the current
critics had been requesting but have now decided that they didn't want.

I thought so. I suppose that binding Turnpike to Windows Explorer is the
reason why the Turnpike developers are not keen to port their most
excellent software to Linux.

But... is it too late? Maybe WINE includes a WE API?

Roy Collett ***@rxs1.demon.co.uk
New Southgate, London, England.

[robert w hall]

Post by Roy Collett

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I would
see if we can tease some information from the developers - if they
still read the newsgroup.

That is a design decision that led to granting what most of the current
critics had been requesting but have now decided that they didn't want.

I thought so. I suppose that binding Turnpike to Windows Explorer is the
reason why the Turnpike developers are not keen to port their most
excellent software to Linux.
But... is it too late? Maybe WINE includes a WE API?
New Southgate, London, England.

There is a WE clone on *N*X I think ( last time I looked it wasn't yet
up to the job - but that was back in the early days of TP6)

TP4 & 5 worked fine with Wine, or with win4lin (as used here)
I'm fairly confident TP6 would work OK under win4lin/linux too (I tried
an early beta, which was OK - but decided I don't actually _like_ the
fussy Explorer format :-) )
Bob

[Julian Knight]

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I
would see if we can tease some information from the developers - if
they still read the newsgroup.

If you did, you would know that they do

Maybe, they certainly used to be active and now nothing which is why I
posed the question. If this is the case then your next response...

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
Is TP Dead?

Of course not

Is rather obtuse. I'm sure you know what I meant. If there are no
further updates then the software is indeed dead - or more accurately
dying. In IBM terms, it is "functionally stabilised"!

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.
It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
- No IMAP support

You might consider that essential, others might think that there were
better things to wish for

Just an example. Actually this is a feature that some people may well
want but certainly not everyone.

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and adequate
display of the important part of HTML email abominations - the text

There is NO reason why HTML support should make the client any less
secure. That is just an MS centric view. TP's HTML support is very poor
and mangles lots of html formatted emails to such a degree they are
unreadable without headed out to an external viewer. It is perfectly
possible to do a better job and still keep good security. Ref. other
email clients.

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Arcane filters with no direct way of testing them

Powerful filters - made even more so by the MAPI syntax and that can be
tested with very few exceptions

Powerful=hard to use? Make sure I don't get any software designed by
yourself. The Bat! and most other email packages retain at least as
powerful a set of filters without making life any more difficult than
necessary. In particular, the lack of readable help and not being able
to run filters against emails already in the database (makes testing
easy).

Post by Robert Hull
That is a design decision that led to granting what most of the current
critics had been requesting but have now decided that they didn't want.

I certainly never wanted it!

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- No colour highlighting

Explain. Quoting levels are highlighted by colour in a way that was not
previously possible.

The ability to highlight emails in the list/folder (e.g. high priority
in one colour, suspect spam in another, etc.)

Post by Robert Hull
If you want to have colour in your emails, news postings I suggest that
you use one of the Mircosoft virus vectors such as OE or Lookout

So, no one is allowed to put forward ideas now without your agreement is
that it?

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
So, I question whether we will EVER get a new release?

I would assume that a new release will be made available when the
developers think that there is something worth adding to the current
release.

In the past we regularly heard from the TP in this newsgroup and that is
no longer the case - implying that they no longer listen to the primary
discussion group.

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
I would really like to know so that I can plan a move to another
client some time in the future if I need to.

You could move to another client any time you chose, I do not think
that the presence or absence of a new release of Turnpike will have any
bearing on your true reasons for changing.

Thank you for your most helpful response. You now seem to be reading my
mind as well as designing future versions of TP.

In fact, the presence/absense of a new TP release WILL have a bearing on
my reasons for changing (or not) since lack of development will
eventually reach the point at which I want better stability and/or more
features more than I don't want to fork out for a new software package
(living in Yorkshire has that effect on one).

[Robert Hull]

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I
would see if we can tease some information from the developers - if
they still read the newsgroup.

If you did, you would know that they do

Maybe,

No maybe about it. In the time that it has taken you to get around to
posting your second article to this thread, there have been posts from
senior Turnpike developers.

Post by Julian Knight
they certainly used to be active and now

Still are

Post by Julian Knight
nothing

That "nothing" is more than you have posted in recent weeks so for some
value of "nothing" which in reality means "significantly" then you would
be right. As it is, you are only interested in complaining.

Post by Julian Knight
which is why I posed the question.

The *real* reason for your question is self evident

Post by Julian Knight
If this is the case then your next response...

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
Is TP Dead?

Of course not

Is rather obtuse.

You are not Humpty Dumpty, you do not have the right to use words to
mean the opposite of their definition.

My response - based on *fact* rather than your innuendo - is anything
but obtuse.

Post by Julian Knight
I'm sure you know what I meant.

I do and it is untrue

Post by Julian Knight
If there are no further updates then the software is indeed dead - or
more accurately dying. In IBM terms, it is "functionally stabilised"!

Define the timetable in terms accepted by anyone other than yourself.

Are you talking of daily updates ? If so the only non-dead software is
Internet Exploder.

Are you talking of weekly updates ? If so you can add Windoze Exploder
to the list.

Are you talking of quarterly updates ? If so, then by your definition of
"dead" Turnpike has been "dead" on a regular basis between versions. But
to paraphrase Mark Twain "reports of Turnpike's death have been grossly
exaggerated"

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

How long was it between 5.01 and 6.00 ? I remember something in the
order of a year of beta testing. Was Turnpike "dead" during that time ?

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
- No IMAP support

You might consider that essential, others might think that there were
better things to wish for

Just an example. Actually this is a feature that some people may well
want but certainly not everyone.

So no cause for complaint there

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Poor HTML support

Or to put it another way, no support for computer viruses and adequate
display of the important part of HTML email abominations - the text

There is NO reason why HTML support should make the client any less
secure.

And indeed in Turnpike it does not, but you qualify that as poor

Post by Julian Knight
That is just an MS centric view. TP's HTML support is very poor and
mangles lots of html formatted emails to such a degree they are
unreadable without headed out to an external viewer.

So you claim. Permit me to doubt your words.

[Snip]

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- Arcane filters with no direct way of testing them

Powerful filters - made even more so by the MAPI syntax and that can
be tested with very few exceptions

Powerful=hard to use?

Again you are twisting words to make them say the opposite of their
meaning. Turnpikes filters are *not* hard to use unless people are lazy
or - like you - unwilling to accept help.

Post by Julian Knight
Make sure I don't get any software designed by yourself.

You never would. My clients have to act in good faith, that rules you
out from being a client of mine.

[Snip]

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull
That is a design decision that led to granting what most of the
current critics had been requesting but have now decided that they
didn't want.

I certainly never wanted it!

So you say, but the choice was not yours. I suppose that you would have
had the Turnpike team waste time re-inventing the wheel so that you
could have claimed - even earlier - that Turnpike was "dead"

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
- No colour highlighting

Explain. Quoting levels are highlighted by colour in a way that was
not previously possible.

The ability to highlight emails in the list/folder (e.g. high priority
in one colour, suspect spam in another, etc.)

Useless froth.

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Robert Hull
If you want to have colour in your emails, news postings I suggest
that you use one of the Mircosoft virus vectors such as OE or Lookout

So, no one is allowed to put forward ideas now without your agreement
is that it?

That is the sort of bullshit that you have displayed in all if your
recent postings to demon.ip.support.turnpike a group that you claim to
have been using for nearly a decade (sic).
[Rest of bullshit snipped]

[Paul F]

Post by Robert Hull
Are you talking of quarterly updates ? If so, then by your definition
of "dead" Turnpike has been "dead" on a regular basis between versions.
But to paraphrase Mark Twain "reports of Turnpike's death have been
grossly exaggerated"

Well, I've got to admit that I'd be very surprised if any more
development took place on Turnpike. As much as I like it (and have no
plans to use anything else), the IT industry isn't exactly a growth area
anymore and I'm sure Thus are having as hard a time as everyone else
right now. I'm sure they have little money to spend on projects like TP,
sad but probably true.

[Snipped part about HTML mails]

Post by Robert Hull
So you claim. Permit me to doubt your words.

I have to agree that Turnpike does make a mess of a majority of the HTML
posts I receive, the text becomes completely mangled and I have to
resort to using an external viewer most of the time. Also, there are
issues with highlighting text in HTML mails that I've had for the past
couple of releases.

Post by Robert Hull
Turnpikes filters are *not* hard to use unless people are lazy or -
like you - unwilling to accept help.

They are hardly self-explanatory for beginners!!! Fine, I work as a
developer and find them okay to use, but I know a lot of people that are
completely baffled by them, even using the help. Please remember that
not everyone may have the same level of computer experience as yourself.

Post by Robert Hull
So you say, but the choice was not yours. I suppose that you would have
had the Turnpike team waste time re-inventing the wheel so that you
could have claimed - even earlier - that Turnpike was "dead"

Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy to
do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to do
with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when IE6
stopping the bold folder names from working...).


Paul.

[John Underwood]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 21:08:14, Paul F wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Paul F
They are hardly self-explanatory for beginners!!!

What is difficult with:

Add rule that - choose between Accepts or Rejects
then between:

Mail which
Is addressed to
Has reverse path (which is explained in the help for that
dialogue)

Or for mail rejection:

Add rule that - choose between Accepts or Rejects
the between:

Mail which
Was sent from
Has subject line containing
Is larger than ..... bytes
Has body text containing

?

And I don't know what self-explanatory means, I had to look it up in a
dictionary. Why should these dialogues, designed for beginners not also
need extra explanation?

Of course beginners might find a few problems if they start by trying to
create custom rules using regular expressions. But since the term
beginner is far from self-explanatory I have no idea what you think a
beginner is.

These additional features of the rejection and routeing rules and not
intended for beginners. If they were removed, I suggest that what is
left would probably meet your definition of sufficiently
self-explanatory for a beginner. Is that what you want?

[Paul F]

Post by John Underwood
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 21:08:14, Paul F wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Paul F
They are hardly self-explanatory for beginners!!!

<big snip>


John, clearly you have never tried talking beginners through this
process. It might seem simple to you, but not to others. In case you
hadn't noticed there aren't a lot of options available that don't
require custom rules - custom rules and beginners do not go hand in
hand. This is especially the case if you are talking ex-Outlook users
through the process, as Outlook has many more options available that
don't require "programming".

Paul.

[John Underwood]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 at 19:51:44, Paul F wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Paul F
John, clearly you have never tried talking beginners through this
process.

That is clear is it? It would not be to the beginners I have explained
it to and who have understood it. Perhaps the difference is that after
much of a lifetime explaining a number of subjects to beginners of all
ages, but usually in groups of about 30 I have developed some expertise.

Post by Paul F
It might seem simple to you, but not to others.

You may have difficulty expressing yourself, that is not the case with
everyone.

Post by Paul F
In case you hadn't noticed there aren't a lot of options available that
don't require custom rules

Since forward path, reverse path are all that is available for envelope
rejection and are both provided for it by TP without custom rules, there
are not a lot of options left.

Mail rejection is provided for with To, From, Subject, length and body
content. Not a lot?

Post by Paul F
- custom rules and beginners do not go hand in hand.

And beginners need to learn a lot before they can use them.

Post by Paul F
This is especially the case if you are talking ex-Outlook users through
the process, as Outlook has many more options available that don't
require "programming".

I seem to recall that they include running attachments without your
assistance, identifying spaces and PGP signatures as attachments and
similar. Beginners benefit from these?

If you are sincere in your expression, I suggest you encourage all the
beginners you know to use OE because TP will not incorporate what you
see as benefits - and if it does, I will be off somewhere else unless
they are options and turned off by default.

[Paul F]

Post by John Underwood
You may have difficulty expressing yourself, that is not the case with
everyone.

I don't thank you very much.

Post by John Underwood

Post by Paul F
This is especially the case if you are talking ex-Outlook users
through the process, as Outlook has many more options available that
don't require "programming".

I seem to recall that they include running attachments without your
assistance, identifying spaces and PGP signatures as attachments and
similar. Beginners benefit from these?

I said nothing of those features, and nether did I say that I would ever
recommend OE to anyone. I was just pointing out that somebody used to OE
may find the routing options offered there easier to use.

Post by John Underwood
If you are sincere in your expression, I suggest you encourage all the
beginners you know to use OE because TP will not incorporate what you
see as benefits - and if it does, I will be off somewhere else unless
they are options and turned off by default.

No offence John, but why are you trying to jump down my throat on this?
I have my views, you have yours, please accept that. There's not enough
users of Turnpike as it is, please let's not fall out over it.

[John Underwood]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 at 22:02:04, Paul F wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Paul F
No offence John, but why are you trying to jump down my throat on
this? I have my views, you have yours, please accept that. There's not
enough users of Turnpike as it is, please let's not fall out over it.

I have my views and I express them, you have yours and they differ.
Please would you accept that.

You stated that OE had features which TP lacked. You didn't say what
they were and I suggested some. You said that you had not mentioned
those features. That is true. Had you supported your argument I would
not have suggested something. You appear to be saying that there are
features in OE which are worthy of emulation by TP and you seem to be
unable to state what they are. I draw a conclusion from that but I am
sure you would be even more offended if I stated it.

[Mike Barnes]

Post by John Underwood
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 at 19:51:44, Paul F wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

[rules]
This is especially the case if you are talking ex-Outlook users
through the process, as Outlook has many more options available that
don't require "programming".

I seem to recall that they include running attachments without your
assistance, identifying spaces and PGP signatures as attachments and
similar. Beginners benefit from these?
If you are sincere in your expression, I suggest you encourage all the
beginners you know to use OE because TP will not incorporate what you
see as benefits - and if it does, I will be off somewhere else unless
they are options and turned off by default.

I wonder if you, John, have seen "Message Rules" in recent versions of
OE? Their ease of use beats Turnpike hands down IMO. Whether they allow
you to specify everything you might want and whether they actually work,
I couldn't say, but that's another matter - the user interface is first
rate.

[Roy Brown]

Post by Mike Barnes

Post by John Underwood
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 at 19:51:44, Paul F wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

[rules]
This is especially the case if you are talking ex-Outlook users
through the process, as Outlook has many more options available that
don't require "programming".

I seem to recall that they include running attachments without your
assistance, identifying spaces and PGP signatures as attachments and
similar. Beginners benefit from these?
If you are sincere in your expression, I suggest you encourage all the
beginners you know to use OE because TP will not incorporate what you
see as benefits - and if it does, I will be off somewhere else unless
they are options and turned off by default.

I wonder if you, John, have seen "Message Rules" in recent versions of
OE?

I have

Post by Mike Barnes
Their ease of use beats Turnpike hands down IMO.

I agree

Post by Mike Barnes
Whether they allow you to specify everything you might want

They don't

Post by Mike Barnes
and whether they actually work, I couldn't say,

They do what they claim to do, certainly

Post by Mike Barnes
but that's another matter - the user interface is first rate.

It is.

Mind you, there's none of the rule diagnostics quite a few of would like
to see in TP, though you do have the ability to try a particular rule on
a particular message at any time you like...

(For new denizens, it might be worth mentioning the 'Export/Delete/Empty
WPB/Import And Redeliver' trick cycle, where you can push a message out
of Turnpike, change the rules, re-import it, and see if it goes where
you want. It doesn't work for all of Email Routing - certainly not
Envelope, and I'm not sure where it kicks in after that - but it
certainly works for Folder Routing).

But to take a car analogy, OE's rules give it first, second and third
gear. Smooth, progressive, but limiting.
Turnpike has first gear and fifth gear. Big jump, but once you get into
fifth, you can go miles....

Having said that, the philosophy of 'whether they actually work, I
couldn't say, but that's another matter - the user interface is first
rate' sounds like you've done a mind-meld with Redmond. It will be
viewed somewhat askance even by TP6 users, and will send TP<=5 users
into apoplexy, I'd have thought :-)

[Mike Barnes]

Post by Roy Brown
Having said that, the philosophy of 'whether they actually work, I
couldn't say, but that's another matter - the user interface is first
rate' sounds like you've done a mind-meld with Redmond. It will be
viewed somewhat askance even by TP6 users, and will send TP<=5 users
into apoplexy, I'd have thought :-)

I was trying to stick to the subject in hand (whether rules are self-
explanatory or not). Sorry about that. I won't let it happen again.

[The Drone]

In article <qSr7Agn33bo$***@kelmscott.co.uk>, Roy Brown
<***@acanthus.demon.co.uk> writes

snip

Post by Roy Brown
But to take a car analogy, OE's rules give it first, second and third
gear. Smooth, progressive, but limiting.
Turnpike has first gear and fifth gear. Big jump, but once you get into
fifth, you can go miles....

I baulked at the car gearbox analogy initially but on reflection it
stands up better. To take it further, I usually only travel short
distances (simple address routing) but on the very rare occasions when I
would like to travel further, the effort of grinding up to speed in
fifth gear (the learning curve) is so great that I either don't bother
or forget the car and take the train (i.e. I do something else).

I'm actually quite glad that these rule mechanisms are there in TP. It's
nice to know I could use them if I wanted to. I understand they are
powerful and accurate and not very verbose to write. It's just that at
first glance to me, they're gibberish. I've never felt the compelling
need to master them. I am worried that if I do learn them enough to make
something work, by the time I use it again, I'll have forgotten
everything and have to learn all over again. So, I put up with the
problem or fix it some other way.

[Jim Crowther]

In message <c3JXO4OJcZo$***@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid>, Mike Barnes
<***@mikebarnes.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Mike Barnes
I wonder if you, John, have seen "Message Rules" in recent versions of
OE? Their ease of use beats Turnpike hands down IMO. Whether they allow
you to specify everything you might want and whether they actually work,
I couldn't say, but that's another matter - the user interface is first
rate.

That is my impression also - but they are exceedingly limited. They can
only operate on a few 'standard' headers, but within that silly
limitation they are very powerful, and very easy for new users to
comprehend and implement.

Perhaps the coders of OE don't even know other headers exist...

[Jim Crowther]

Post by John Underwood
Mail rejection is provided for with To, From, Subject, length and body
content. Not a lot?

But no combination of those headings, OR, XOR, AND etc, which are in
human readable form easily available to OE users. (I don't know about
Outlook, I looked once and recoiled.)

This may seem like a rules playground to OE users, in practice it is
extremely restricted, and most are better done with custom rules in TP.

TP custom rules go a long way to enabling those who can program them,
but I can think of many who use TP to whom custom rules are as Sanskrit
is to most of us.

It would be a huge SMOP, but if it could be done, a higher-level
interpreter of human wishes into regexps would be welcomed by many. Me?
I'm content as it is, but I know of many who aren't.

I don't know if Wishes are useful anymore (I suspect they are) but TP 7
could attempt a from-first-principles UI for making rules, and maybe
incorporate guidance into spam avoidance techniques as learnt since the
last release...

[Roy Brown]

Post by Paul F

Post by Robert Hull
Are you talking of quarterly updates ? If so, then by your definition
of "dead" Turnpike has been "dead" on a regular basis between
versions. But to paraphrase Mark Twain "reports of Turnpike's death
have been grossly exaggerated"

Well, I've got to admit that I'd be very surprised if any more
development took place on Turnpike. As much as I like it (and have no
plans to use anything else), the IT industry isn't exactly a growth
area anymore and I'm sure Thus are having as hard a time as everyone
else right now. I'm sure they have little money to spend on projects
like TP, sad but probably true.

And your inside track is.... ?

Post by Paul F
I have to agree that Turnpike does make a mess of a majority of the
HTML posts I receive, the text becomes completely mangled and I have to
resort to using an external viewer most of the time. Also, there are
issues with highlighting text in HTML mails that I've had for the past
couple of releases.

OK - have you posted these issues here? Even if soluble, they can't be
solved if unknown...

Post by Paul F

Post by Robert Hull
Turnpikes filters are *not* hard to use unless people are lazy or -
like you - unwilling to accept help.

They are hardly self-explanatory for beginners!!! Fine, I work as a
developer and find them okay to use, but I know a lot of people that
are completely baffled by them, even using the help. Please remember
that not everyone may have the same level of computer experience as
yourself.

I'd amplify that. Turnpike filters, once you get into RegExps, are
programming. Not everyone can program. And even most people who can
program don't expect that the only debugging and testing they can do
will be on their live production system. And without even a
single-stepper.

Great as a 'level-3' for code mavens, but with the basic non-RegExp
features being level-1 at best, there's a whole level-2 missing, quite
apart from more assistance in debugging at level-3.

<snip>

Post by Paul F
Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy
to do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to
do with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when
IE6 stopping the bold folder names from working...).

Well, TPs3-5 were made to look like the Win3.x Program Manager, while
being independent of it, but the downside was that it still looked like
that even under Win95, and in the end, TP's interface was fighting with
how Win95 wanted to present it.

Even with Explorer, you should look closely at how TP6 presents itself
on Win 9x and the NT/2000/XP family. The changes, so that it fits,
chameleon-like, into each OS, are subtle but tangible.

Possible, I suppose, if TP6 could take the same elements of Explorer,
whichever OS it was on, and use them to make itself look like that OS,
but not as easy as being an SNE, I'd think....

[Julian Knight]

From Roy Brown:

...

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Paul F
Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy
to do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to
do with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when
IE6 stopping the bold folder names from working...).

Well, TPs3-5 were made to look like the Win3.x Program Manager, while
being independent of it, but the downside was that it still looked like
that even under Win95, and in the end, TP's interface was fighting with
how Win95 wanted to present it.
Even with Explorer, you should look closely at how TP6 presents itself
on Win 9x and the NT/2000/XP family. The changes, so that it fits,
chameleon-like, into each OS, are subtle but tangible.

This is certainly a point; however under Windows XP you certainly do not
get an XP like interface but rather one that looks a bit like 3.1/95/98
combined. (IMO)

Post by Roy Brown
Possible, I suppose, if TP6 could take the same elements of Explorer,
whichever OS it was on, and use them to make itself look like that OS,
but not as easy as being an SNE, I'd think....

I would think that the basic 2/3 pane view is something that is used by
so many products that either something could be picked up or easily
developed using existing tools. Certainly many other applications
successfully do this without making that much fuss. In doing so they
avoid the problem of linking a product with another highly complex
product over which they have no control.

[Sean Legassick]

Post by Julian Knight
I would think that the basic 2/3 pane view is something that is used by
so many products that either something could be picked up or easily
developed using existing tools. Certainly many other applications
successfully do this without making that much fuss. In doing so they
avoid the problem of linking a product with another highly complex
product over which they have no control.

As I've been cited by Paul elsewhere in this thread, I'll step in and
offer some comments.

(Your required background information comprises the fact that I was the
lead GUI developer for most of the TP6 development period, and that I
haven't worked for Thus/Demon/Turnpike for over two years so have no
more inside knowledge than the rest of you, and perhaps less than some).

Firstly, it became evident to me after some time developing TP6 as a
shell namespace extension, that we were creating as many problems for
ourselves as we were solving. Yes, it's a nice gimmick, but as Julian
correctly points out the functionality we needed is easily available
outside Explorer and we embedded ourself rather too deeply into a moving
target API.

However by the time I realised this, we were already in too deep. In any
case our fragile position within the Thus colossus meant that we
couldn't afford to disappoint expectations, and marketing were *very*
happy about us being more integrated into Windows than Microsoft's own
email offerings.

Secondly, on the subject of the thread, I wouldn't be surprised if the
(extremely talented) TP development team has been redeployed or just
plain flown the roost. Even when I was there it was becoming
increasingly difficult to justify the cost of developing Turnpike, as
it's hard to see the value it offers the company above a little customer
goodwill.

Personally I would like to see the Turnpike codebase released under an
open source license, although I'm well aware of the myriad legal,
technical and political hurdles that would need to be overcome. If this
were to come to pass I would happily offer my detailed knowledge of the
code to an ongoing volunteer project to keep the application alive.

Cheers,
Sean

[Kevin Reilly]

Post by Sean Legassick
Secondly, on the subject of the thread, I wouldn't be surprised if the
(extremely talented) TP development team has been redeployed or just
plain flown the roost. Even when I was there it was becoming
increasingly difficult to justify the cost of developing Turnpike, as
it's hard to see the value it offers the company above a little
customer goodwill.

That's a tragedy. Like so many other innovative and useful products it
looks as though Turnpike may be doomed to obscurity by a criminal lack
of active marketing.

Hell, if Thus/Demon did nothing else they should have been following up
every printed, broadcast or web-based virus scare story of the last
couple of years with a response detailing Turnpike's lack of
vulnerability to a great many of these attacks. That feature alone might
have generated enough sales to keep the project ticking over. Did anyone
even try?

Granted many of Turnpike's powerful features are perhaps beyond the
knowledge of the OE-using target market, but a campaign along the lines
of "protect yourself AND your friends and colleagues from address-book
hijacking worms" would surely have generated *some* interest.

It now seems as though we may never know.

Whenever I mention Turnpike to friends and co-workers I'm still met with
blank stares and "What?"s, unless they happen to be Demon or ex-Demon
customers in which case some slight recognition might occur. Generally
it's the former. This is a product that has been around in one form or
another for a decade, and the vast majority of people who might benefit
from its features haven't even heard of it, let alone know what those
features are.

Sad. Very sad.

[Julian Knight]

From Sean Legassick:

...

Post by Sean Legassick
Firstly, it became evident to me after some time developing TP6 as a
shell namespace extension, that we were creating as many problems for
ourselves as we were solving. Yes, it's a nice gimmick, but as Julian
correctly points out the functionality we needed is easily available
outside Explorer and we embedded ourself rather too deeply into a
moving target API.
However by the time I realised this, we were already in too deep. In
any case our fragile position within the Thus colossus meant that we
couldn't afford to disappoint expectations, and marketing were *very*
happy about us being more integrated into Windows than Microsoft's own
email offerings.

Sean, many thanks for the info, it's always good to get an insight into
these things & I apologise if I seemed overly critical.

Post by Sean Legassick
Secondly, on the subject of the thread, I wouldn't be surprised if the
(extremely talented) TP development team has been redeployed or just
plain flown the roost. Even when I was there it was becoming
increasingly difficult to justify the cost of developing Turnpike, as
it's hard to see the value it offers the company above a little
customer goodwill.

This is kind of what I thought. As it happens I have done some work for
Thus and I know exactly what they are like as an organisation (or more
accurately what they were like a couple of years ago).

Post by Sean Legassick
Personally I would like to see the Turnpike codebase released under an
open source license, although I'm well aware of the myriad legal,
technical and political hurdles that would need to be overcome. If this
were to come to pass I would happily offer my detailed knowledge of the
code to an ongoing volunteer project to keep the application alive.

Nice thought but I won't hold my breath.

Well I guess I have my answer now and perhaps it's time to look round
alternative products again - whilst I'm not in any hurry as TP currently
does most of what I want and I am used to its foibles - I like to take
my time choosing new software. This is timely I suppose as a possible
change in job roles soon (ish) may mean that I only have access to a
locked-down laptop at work so TP will not be all that useful to me any
more.

Thanks again for the info and good luck on whatever you are working on
now.

[Sean Legassick]

Post by Julian Knight
Well I guess I have my answer now and perhaps it's time to look round
alternative products again

You are of course entitled to form your own conclusions.

You might care to peruse my headers and note that (a) I'm a long way
from the scene of the action, so take a liberal dose of salt with
anything I say and (b) I couldn't commend a course of action that I
myself am not taking.

(I might be forgiven for seeing a subtle rebuttal of my idle speculation
when examining the authors of today's postings).

Sean

[Julian Knight]

Post by Sean Legassick

Post by Julian Knight
Well I guess I have my answer now and perhaps it's time to look round
alternative products again

You are of course entitled to form your own conclusions.
You might care to peruse my headers and note that (a) I'm a long way
from the scene of the action, so take a liberal dose of salt with
anything I say and (b) I couldn't commend a course of action that I
myself am not taking.

No worries, I have taken that into account but the lack of any
alternative informed response of note is still telling to my mind.

Post by Sean Legassick
(I might be forgiven for seeing a subtle rebuttal of my idle
speculation when examining the authors of today's postings).

Perhaps implying that others have a more current association with the
development of TP? Well, even so there is still no clear steer from TP
and a notable lack of real information.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <njVsqLVV1Ao$EAS$@eucalyptus.datamage.net>, seen in news:demon.ip.support.turnpike, Sean Legassick <***@datamage.net>
posted at Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:56:21 :-

Post by Sean Legassick
Secondly, on the subject of the thread, I wouldn't be surprised if the
(extremely talented) TP development team has been redeployed or just
plain flown the roost. Even when I was there it was becoming
increasingly difficult to justify the cost of developing Turnpike, as
it's hard to see the value it offers the company above a little customer
goodwill.

Turnpike staff, or some of them, clearly retain an interest; they post
here.

But it is not clear what else they do.

In furtherance of customer goodwill, ISTM that it would be well for them
to indicate whether or not it is reasonable to hope for further releases
or new versions developed from either TP5 or TP6.

If it is not reasonable to hope for further Turnpike, then it could be
interesting to discuss what other software might suit typical Turnpike
users. Conclusions from that might reduce the number of directions in
which we go.

Microsoft operating systems are a shifting foundation, and there may be
a limit to how long software can remain well-balanced on it without
internal adjustment.

[James Follett]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by Dr John Stockton
Turnpike staff, or some of them, clearly retain an interest; they post
here.

Turnpike's great strength is that it holds many marriages together.

[Julian Knight]

From Dr John Stockton:

...

Post by Dr John Stockton
If it is not reasonable to hope for further Turnpike, then it could be
interesting to discuss what other software might suit typical Turnpike
users. Conclusions from that might reduce the number of directions in
which we go.

I have just started looking at this for myself. In the process I have
realised that the two key features I need (putting aside the many quite
common features) are:

- Integrated newsgroup handling

- Multiple email name handling (e.g. associating ***@fred.com with a TP
folder and ***@fred.com with a Microsoft folder, etc.)

Not many mail clients can cope with either of these let alone both.

[Mushroom]

Post by Julian Knight
- Integrated newsgroup handling

I have also been looking at alternatives to Turnpike should it "die".
Options so far:

Calypso
http://10xshooters.com/calypso-free/

Foxmail
http://www.allanc.dk/foxmail/

The Bat!
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/thebat/

Thunderbird
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/

Popcorn
http://www.ultrafunk.com/products/popcorn/

[Wm...]

Post by Mushroom

Post by Julian Knight
- Integrated newsgroup handling

I have also been looking at alternatives to Turnpike should it "die".

I've followed this thread but am bemused.

What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

TP versions from many, many years ago still work. The RFC's that TP was
based on haven't changed substantially (they've been added to rather
than subtracted from and in a number of cases people from TP are players
in the development of future standards).

If people want toys that TP doesn't provide then they should probably
move on and flounce in the latest bar wearing their pretty hats, best
frock and newest shoes but I don't see TP dying.

[Bernard Peek]

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched to
XP I might have to replace TP.

[Roy Brown]

In message <BtJobfEBsDq$***@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com>
writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched
to XP I might have to replace TP.

TP 6.02 runs perfectly well on XP Home for me, and in fact better than
any prior TP has ever run on any prior WinOS.

I believe that very many TP Users are running XP, both Home and Pro,
without issues.

If you were trying to run TP<6, or if you were talking about
compatibility with multi-CPU hardware (where there are a few issues), I
could understand it.

In what way do you find that TP has compatibility problems with the NT
family?

And even if you in particular do, does it seem appropriate to generalise
from these to the whole TP/NT universe?

[John Underwood]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 00:22:32, Roy Brown wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Roy Brown
If you were trying to run TP<6, or if you were talking about
compatibility with multi-CPU hardware (where there are a few issues), I
could understand it.

The worry, for me, is that if TP were not developed further, a future
Microsoft Operating System, with Microsoft's demonstrated cavalier
attitude to backward compatibility, might mean that TP was no longer
effective in that environment and it may not be possible to avoid
upgrading the OS (e.g. another essential application requires the later
version).

[robert w hall]

Post by John Underwood
The worry, for me, is that if TP were not developed further, a future
Microsoft Operating System, with Microsoft's demonstrated cavalier
attitude to backward compatibility, might mean that TP was no longer
effective in that environment and it may not be possible to avoid
upgrading the OS (e.g. another essential application requires the later
version).

If only they'd develop a Linux version, we could always run it - under
Cygwin...
Bob

[Craig Cockburn]

Post by John Underwood
The worry, for me, is that if TP were not developed further, a future
Microsoft Operating System,

Longhorn with IE7 is not due for release until 2006. Hopefully long
enough for any future TP release to be issued.

[Bernard Peek]

Post by Jim Crowther
writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched
to XP I might have to replace TP.

TP 6.02 runs perfectly well on XP Home for me, and in fact better than
any prior TP has ever run on any prior WinOS.
I believe that very many TP Users are running XP, both Home and Pro,
without issues.

That's true, but I also know that some people have been having problems
with TP under W2K and XP. The problem is in Turnpike's security system.
If I log off from one machine TP sometimes fails to acknowledge that,
and I can't then log in from elsewhere on the network. I've also seen
similar problems if I suspend a session rather than logging off. This
looks like an incompatibility between the security systems in TP and in
NT based systems.

Now that the Windows 9X family is going out of support it looks to me as
if Turnpike will not be supported on any current version of Windows.

Post by Jim Crowther
If you were trying to run TP<6, or if you were talking about
compatibility with multi-CPU hardware (where there are a few issues), I
could understand it.
In what way do you find that TP has compatibility problems with the NT
family?
And even if you in particular do, does it seem appropriate to
generalise from these to the whole TP/NT universe?

That's a decision made by Demon and continued by Thus. Turnpike is
unsupported under any NT based OS.

[Robert Hull]

Turnpike is unsupported under any NT based OS.

Please quote your source for this blatant untruth

[Bernard Peek]

Post by Robert Hull

Turnpike is unsupported under any NT based OS.

Please quote your source for this blatant untruth

Demon Internet. Demon have never supported Turnpike under Windows NT or
2000 and I haven't seen any announcements to the contrary for XP. I've
just taken a look at the Turnpike web site and there are no contrary
statements on the web site right now.

[Duncan Clark]

Post by Bernard Peek
Demon Internet. Demon have never supported Turnpike under Windows NT or
2000 and I haven't seen any announcements to the contrary for XP.

Then you should have a look in your Turnpike folder and open the Word
document entitled 'Readme'.

If they don't support then OSes then they have given an awful lot of
information about how to use TP under Win2000, NT and XP Home and Pro
for no reason whatsoever.

Duncan

[Paul Terry]

In message <KWG40hAqsPq$***@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com>
writes

Demon have never supported Turnpike under Windows NT or 2000

In that case I wonder what

http://www.demon.net/products/turnpike/support.shtml

means when it says "all users of Turnpike" ...

Helpdesk
Free support is available from the helpdesk for all Demon
customers and all users of Turnpike whether it is used in a
Universal or Multi-User role.

[Robert Hull]

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Robert Hull

Turnpike is unsupported under any NT based OS.

Please quote your source for this blatant untruth

Demon Internet. Demon have never supported Turnpike under Windows NT or
2000

That is a lie.

Post by Bernard Peek
and I haven't seen any announcements to the contrary for XP.

You will see them better if you open your eyes

Post by Bernard Peek
I've just taken a look at the Turnpike web site and there are no
contrary statements on the web site right now.

Obviously you didn't look hard enough.

http://www.demon.net/products/turnpike/upgrade.shtml#section2

includes the statement:

"You will need to be using Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me,
Windows NT4, Windows 2000 or Windows XP if you wish to run
Turnpike Six."

as well as much more support material for those who are using Windows
NT4, 2000 or XP

[Wm...]

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Roy Brown
In what way do you find that TP has compatibility problems with the NT
family?
And even if you in particular do, does it seem appropriate to
generalise from these to the whole TP/NT universe?

That's a decision made by Demon and continued by Thus. Turnpike is
unsupported under any NT based OS.

You're making it up as you go along aren't you? Personally I would have
chosen another forum to do so in.

http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/faq/turnpike/tp6.shtml
===
The latest version of Turnpike Six is 6.02 for Windows 95, 98, NT4, Me,
2000 and XP.
===

[Bernard Peek]

Post by Wm...

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Roy Brown
In what way do you find that TP has compatibility problems with the
NT family?
And even if you in particular do, does it seem appropriate to
generalise from these to the whole TP/NT universe?

That's a decision made by Demon and continued by Thus. Turnpike is
unsupported under any NT based OS.

You're making it up as you go along aren't you? Personally I would
have chosen another forum to do so in.
http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/faq/turnpike/tp6.shtml
===
The latest version of Turnpike Six is 6.02 for Windows 95, 98, NT4, Me,
2000 and XP.

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. This is contrary to statements that
have been made in this newsgroup over the years, and I don't recall any
other statements to this effect in either demon.announce or in this
newsgroup.

[Andy]

[

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/faq/turnpike/tp6.shtml
===
The latest version of Turnpike Six is 6.02 for Windows 95, 98, NT4,
Me, 2000 and XP.

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. This is contrary to statements that
have been made in this newsgroup over the years, and I don't recall any
other statements to this effect in either demon.announce or in this
newsgroup.

Check - if it's still around - the original announcement of TP6. I have
a vague recollection it was in this group, not in demon.announce - but
as Google won't speak with me at the moment I can't check.

[John Underwood]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 17:53:56, Andy wrote in demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Andy
Check - if it's still around - the original announcement of TP6. I have
a vague recollection it was in this group, not in demon.announce - but
as Google won't speak with me at the moment I can't check.

The Announcements for each version of TP6 are on the web site and what
have already been quoted. They support the fact that TP6 has always been
deigned with NT, Win2K and XP in mind (once XP was fully released).

What may be confusing the issue was a period when Demon (not Turnpike)
didn't provide help-desk support for some operating systems and that
situation may continue. Helpdesk support for on-line customers of Demon
(the ISP) on using their Demon connection with particular systems is one
thing, support for the use of Turnpike (an application, not a service)
with the Operating Systems for which it has been designed is quite
another. Of course the helpdesk may not see that distinction, after all,
at least one customer has made the same error.

[Roy Brown]

In message <W5APfYCxeQq$***@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com>
writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Roy Brown
In what way do you find that TP has compatibility problems with the
NT family?
And even if you in particular do, does it seem appropriate to
generalise from these to the whole TP/NT universe?

That's a decision made by Demon and continued by Thus. Turnpike is
unsupported under any NT based OS.

You're making it up as you go along aren't you? Personally I would
have chosen another forum to do so in.
http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/faq/turnpike/tp6.shtml
===
The latest version of Turnpike Six is 6.02 for Windows 95, 98, NT4,
Me, 2000 and XP.

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. This is contrary to statements that
have been made in this newsgroup over the years, and I don't recall any
other statements to this effect in either demon.announce or in this
newsgroup.

The Mids of one or more of these messages will be gratefully received.
However, for credence, the author should be expected to be an informed
member of this community, and preferably of the TP Team.

I am sure that d.i.s.t. contains its fair share of ill-informed
speculation and unsupported assertion on this topic, and the quoting of
the Mids of such articles (e.g. ) will be necessarily discounted
(e.g. Message-Id <9l6F4OCZwMq$***@shrdlu.com>, as quoted in
Message-ID: <+Q$5+ABgiNq$***@please.do-not-spam.me.uk>)

Also, messages purporting to say that TP6 is not supported under WinXP,
and dating from before the release date of either product, will be
deprecated.

[Mike Clayton]

Post by Roy Brown
TP 6.02 runs perfectly well on XP Home for me, and in fact better than
any prior TP has ever run on any prior WinOS.

TP 6.02 runs fine here with XP Pro

[news]

In article <BtJobfEBsDq$***@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com>
writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched
to XP I might have to replace TP.

I have run TP with W2k for a couple of years and for some reason have
failed to encounter 'compatibility problems'. What are they?

[Philip Stokes]

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched
to XP I might have to replace TP.

Why? TP works better and far more reliably for me on this XP Pro box
than it ever did on 95 and 98SE.

[David Floyd]

In message of Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Bernard Peek writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems

I use TP6.02 with W2K with no problems.

David

[Duncan Clark]

I'm now running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems
because Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family.

I've been running TPv 6 on Win2K since it was released. No problems at
all on a multiuser system from the Win2K through SP1 to the current SP4.
It gets seriously heavy usage.

If I switched to XP I might have to replace TP.

I am running it at home on XP Pro, again without any problems
whatsoever.

Think again.

Duncan

[hugh]

In message <BtJobfEBsDq$***@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com>
writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched
to XP I might have to replace TP.

Runs K on XP professional for me.

[Roy Brown]

Post by Jim Crowther
writes

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

Becoming incompatible with recent operating systems. I ran Turnpike
under Windows NT for several years with only a few problems. I'm now
running it under Windows 2000 and I've been hitting problems because
Turnpike has compatibility problems with the NT family. If I switched
to XP I might have to replace TP.

Runs K on XP professional for me.

It didn't drop that 'O' then? :-))

[Andy]

In message <hDIlLgSmOCq$***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>, Wm...
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote
[

Post by Wm...
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?
TP versions from many, many years ago still work.

Don't they wear out, like TCPIP stacks?

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <hDIlLgSmOCq$***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>, seen in news:demon.ip.support.turnpike, Wm... <***@blackhole.do-not-
spam.me.uk> posted at Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:09:42 :-

Post by Wm...

Post by Mushroom

Post by Julian Knight
- Integrated newsgroup handling

I have also been looking at alternatives to Turnpike should it "die".

I've followed this thread but am bemused.
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?
TP versions from many, many years ago still work. The RFC's that TP was
based on haven't changed substantially (they've been added to rather
than subtracted from and in a number of cases people from TP are players
in the development of future standards).

If it cannot be changed at need, it begins to die.


TP, as a matter of principle, should be compatible with all RFCs; but it
is possible that new RFCs may appear, and that existing TP will prove
incompatible. This might be a 2-stage process, one RFC introducing
something new and a later one making it compulsory.


Microsoft may introduce a new anti-spam mail feature, followed by other
software providers and implemented by ISPs; TP might need a change to
work with this; a service that is open to spam by more than the average
becomes unviable[1]. Similarly for other unilaterally-introduced
features; TP needs to be able to receive not only all RFC-compliant mail
but also [almost] all other E-mail. Such is more likely.


TP runs on Windows XP, a 32-bit OS. There is no guarantee that it will
run properly on a hypothetical Windows AAA, which might be released in a
year or two (AAA = Advanced American Architecture, 64-bit code).
Something like that, given the historical record, is quite probable.


TP runs on a MS OS. Capabilities which used to be available only on MS
OSs are now appearing, more cheaply, in Linux. It is conceivable that
Linux use may eventually be more important than Windows use, especially
if anti-monopoly action is taken - that may represent wishful thinking,
but is not impossible.


Software that cannot change may not remain viable for other reasons.
IIRC, ICBW, Turnpike's own address book, like that of MS, is in plain
text, and so vulnerable to malware scan. MS may introduce encrypting
into their own Book, which TP can use, and Turnpike would need to
respond for compatibility and encrypt its own Book for competitiveness.



[1] So Clive's Spam deleter needs to accept standard RegExps, in order
that those who choose can remove mail addresses to [part-] Message-IDs
can be slain at a distance. This would also allow a single shot to kill
mail addressed to fred|jim|des, for example. I can see that, while
parts of the programming would be trivial, the back-end might be a major
job; the adaptation may be infeasible, but remains needed.

[Richard Clayton]

Post by Dr John Stockton
TP, as a matter of principle, should be compatible with all RFCs;

ITYM that, Turnpike, as a matter of principle, should conform to all
mandatory requirements of the STDs that apply to the protocols it uses

Post by Dr John Stockton
a service that is open to spam by more than the average
becomes unviable[1].
[1] So Clive's Spam deleter needs to

... be discussed in demon.service and not here -- although there's no
guarantee of Clive responding even there, since he only makes the
program available "as is"

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <yon$M+qZhUq$***@highwayman.com>, seen in news:demon.i
p.support.turnpike, Richard Clayton <***@highwayman.com> posted at
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:58:33 :-

Post by Richard Clayton

Post by Dr John Stockton
a service that is open to spam by more than the average
becomes unviable[1].
[1] So Clive's Spam deleter needs to

... be discussed in demon.service and not here -- although there's no
guarantee of Clive responding even there, since he only makes the
program available "as is"

A better change would be for its functionality to be included within
future releases of Turnpike, and enhanced. It's a useful function; its
absence would noticeably increase the length time for which I am
connected.

[Roy Brown]

Post by Dr John Stockton
spam.me.uk> posted at Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:09:42 :-

Post by Wm...
I've followed this thread but am bemused.
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

If it cannot be changed at need, it begins to die.

<etc.; snip long list of fears as to why TP might become outmoded>

I was about to observe that we find ourselves using at least a couple of
products from about 1998 which, while they are beginning to show their
age (or lack of upkeep) are far from superseded or unusable. One is
Scanmail, the other Regtest.

However, the poster of the long list I snipped, despite all those
cogently expressed fears, is using a further product from 1998. Even
though a 2002 version is available.

I think this must be what the Merkins mean when they say 'You can talk
the talk, but can you walk the walk'?

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <qVqLRUO7qWq$***@kelmscott.co.uk>, seen in news:demon.
ip.support.turnpike, Roy Brown <***@acanthus.demon.co
.uk> posted at Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:25:15 :-

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Dr John Stockton
spam.me.uk> posted at Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:09:42 :-

Post by Wm...
I've followed this thread but am bemused.
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?

If it cannot be changed at need, it begins to die.

<etc.; snip long list of fears as to why TP might become outmoded>
I was about to observe that we find ourselves using at least a couple of
products from about 1998 which, while they are beginning to show their
age (or lack of upkeep) are far from superseded or unusable. One is
Scanmail, the other Regtest.
However, the poster of the long list I snipped, despite all those
cogently expressed fears, is using a further product from 1998. Even
though a 2002 version is available.
I think this must be what the Merkins mean when they say 'You can talk
the talk, but can you walk the walk'?

Well, you may think that you understand what the Merkins mean. I don't
presume to be able to tell either what the Merkins mean or what you may
be thinking.

But I was answering William's question about what people mean by a
specific term. For this, it is irrelevant that some software products,
although not young, remain perfectly usable and worthwhile. Indeed, the
most respected member of this newsgroup does not use TP6.

[Craig Cockburn]

Post by Dr John Stockton
spam.me.uk> posted at Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:09:42 :-

Post by Wm...

Post by Mushroom

Post by Julian Knight
- Integrated newsgroup handling

I have also been looking at alternatives to Turnpike should it "die".

I've followed this thread but am bemused.
What do people mean by TP "dying" ?
TP versions from many, many years ago still work. The RFC's that TP was
based on haven't changed substantially (they've been added to rather
than subtracted from and in a number of cases people from TP are players
in the development of future standards).

If it cannot be changed at need, it begins to die.
TP, as a matter of principle, should be compatible with all RFCs; but it
is possible that new RFCs may appear, and that existing TP will prove
incompatible. This might be a 2-stage process, one RFC introducing
something new and a later one making it compulsory.

Never mind the RFCs, how about being able to view more than one article
at a time?

[John Underwood]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 at 00:36:53, Craig Cockburn wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Craig Cockburn
Never mind the RFCs, how about being able to view more than one article
at a time?

How do you stop TP from letting you do that?

I have three on the screen in front of me and room for another.

[dave @ stejonda]

Post by John Underwood
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 at 00:36:53, Craig Cockburn wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Craig Cockburn
Never mind the RFCs, how about being able to view more than one
article at a time?

How do you stop TP from letting you do that?
I have three on the screen in front of me and room for another.

are they from three different newsgroups?

can you get more than one article from a newsgroup to display?

[John Underwood]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 at 13:14:38, dave @ stejonda wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by dave @ stejonda
are they from three different newsgroups?

They happened not to be, but there is no reason why they shouldn't be.

Post by dave @ stejonda
can you get more than one article from a newsgroup to display?

Yes.

And one could have been an email and another a web page and another a
WordPerfect Document.

[Jim Crowther]

Post by dave @ stejonda

Post by John Underwood
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 at 00:36:53, Craig Cockburn wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Craig Cockburn
Never mind the RFCs, how about being able to view more than one
article at a time?

How do you stop TP from letting you do that?
I have three on the screen in front of me and room for another.

are they from three different newsgroups?

They could be.

Post by dave @ stejonda
can you get more than one article from a newsgroup to display?

I can, what are you doing to prevent it?

[dave @ stejonda]

Post by Jim Crowther

Post by dave @ stejonda
can you get more than one article from a newsgroup to display?

I can, what are you doing to prevent it?

I don't know what I was doing before but it's not happening here now.
Before, when I double-clicked a second article it appeared in the window
containing the article already open.

[John Underwood]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 at 14:43:02, dave @ stejonda wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by dave @ stejonda
I don't know what I was doing before but it's not happening here now.
Before, when I double-clicked a second article it appeared in the
window containing the article already open.

I would expect it to be a Windows setting - Open an Explorer window and
select View, Options and on the General Tab, Settings.

What puzzles me is that I have the radio button for "Open each folder in
the same window" selected, but it doesn't do that, it opens each on in a
new window (which is what I want). I will try an experiment with the
other setting and see what happens then in TP and in Windows generally.

[Howard Fisher]

Post by Wm...
If people want toys that TP doesn't provide then they should probably
move on and flounce in the latest bar wearing their pretty hats, best
frock and newest shoes but I don't see TP dying.

I don't see wanting to use IMAP to be either wearing a pretty hat, best
frock or new shoes, but if I want to use Turnip for mail and news it's
got to be upgraded as my work email only comes by IMAP.

Regrettably the public answer to any question on new features is always
a deafening silence.

[Paul Terry]

Post by Howard Fisher
Regrettably the public answer to any question on new features is always
a deafening silence.

I find that questions on new features that puzzle people are usually
answered pretty promptly .

If you are referring to advance announcements of features that will
appear in future versions, you had better remind us of how many times
such announcements have ever been made in Turnpike's history.

[Leonard Will]

Post by Paul Terry
If you are referring to advance announcements of features that will
appear in future versions, you had better remind us of how many times
such announcements have ever been made in Turnpike's history.
Subject: Turnpike software policy
Newsgroups: demon.announce
Date: 1999/04/09
Customers often ask for a "road map" of Turnpike development. Since a
major junction has now been reached it is appropriate to describe the
changes which are about to be made, and to explain how the product will
be made available in the future.
Changes in Versions
===================

<snip>

Post by Paul Terry
The Turnpike Development Team
9th April 1999

Leonard Will

[Paul Terry]

Post by Paul Terry
If you are referring to advance announcements of features that will
appear in future versions, you had better remind us of how many times
such announcements have ever been made in Turnpike's history.

Indeed. But "one" was the point I was making.

I cannot speak for Turnpike, but if any of my customers asked me about
the future plans for my business I would tell them to get lost. Well,
I'd do it in the nicest possible way, I guess, but it would certainly be
along the lines of no comment.

[Wm...]

Post by Howard Fisher

Post by Wm...
If people want toys that TP doesn't provide then they should probably
move on and flounce in the latest bar wearing their pretty hats, best
frock and newest shoes but I don't see TP dying.

I don't see wanting to use IMAP to be either wearing a pretty hat, best
frock or new shoes,

Neither do I. I think it would be a very powerful and sensible addition
to TP and a (relatively) SMOP as TP talks to itself in IMAP much of the
time anyway.

Post by Howard Fisher
but if I want to use Turnip for mail and news it's got to be upgraded

^^^^^^ <-- typo or not? Tell! Tell!

Post by Howard Fisher
as my work email only comes by IMAP.

I wasn't suggesting in my original posting to this thread that TP
shouldn't or wasn't being developed further but commenting on people
saying that it may be dead because it didn't have the feature they
wanted today. If I had no other way of talking to the bulk of my mail
except by IMAP I might be forced to use something else but I wouldn't
conclude that TP was dead or dying because it didn't have "my feature
today" and would be surprised if you did.

Post by Howard Fisher
Regrettably the public answer to any question on new features is always
a deafening silence.

TP wishes have always been like that.

I do think it would be an excellent idea for TP to publish (and keep up
to date on, say, a quarterly basis) a broad but well caveated "roadmap"
as people who use open source software and even MS after a fashion [1]
are getting used to and expect such things.

[1] For some reason I don't expect MS style [2] roadmaps from TP

[2] Open 10MB e-mail from TP that immediately starts running a video
presentation
<voice off camera> "Folks, here is Paul Overell"
<canned applause>
<loud Bhangra Beat music starts up>
<PaulO leaps on stage dancing (sort of) and shouting> "IMAP HTML, HTML
IMAP, IMAPers HTML, HTMLers, IMAP, GIVE IT UP FOR ME, WOOOO! I LOVE
THIS PRODUCT"
<PaulO sweats and breathes heavily for a bit>
etc.

P.S. Hello Howard, long time no see.

[Paul Overell]

Post by Howard Fisher

Post by Wm...
If people want toys that TP doesn't provide then they should probably
move on and flounce in the latest bar wearing their pretty hats, best
frock and newest shoes but I don't see TP dying.

I don't see wanting to use IMAP to be either wearing a pretty hat, best
frock or new shoes, but if I want to use Turnip for mail and news it's
got to be upgraded as my work email only comes by IMAP.
Regrettably the public answer to any question on new features is always
a deafening silence.

Silence? I responded in this very thread:

mid:AA$B2OxNPnp$***@pillar.turnpike.com

Regards

[Wm...]

Post by Howard Fisher
Regrettably the public answer to any question on new features is
always a deafening silence.

I quote from that:
===
And before you ask, no I can't give any information on future Turnpike
development, sorry.
===
"can't" being the interesting word.

Surely you mean "may not" or "will not" ? I am sure you do not mean
"can not" ... but we have done this before. I *do* (as I said in
response to Howard's posting) think a TP "roadmap" would be a good idea.
Chances are you do too :)

[Paul F]

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Paul F
Well, I've got to admit that I'd be very surprised if any more
development took place on Turnpike. As much as I like it (and have no
plans to use anything else), the IT industry isn't exactly a growth
area anymore and I'm sure Thus are having as hard a time as everyone
else right now. I'm sure they have little money to spend on projects
like TP, sad but probably true.

And your inside track is.... ?

Simply that I'm a developer myself, just look at the state of the IT
industry in the UK, I'm sure Thus are in a similar position to the rest
of us! Sadly companies cannot afford to give out niceties such as TP,
especially when M$ have a freebie alternative out there.

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Paul F
I have to agree that Turnpike does make a mess of a majority of the
HTML posts I receive, the text becomes completely mangled and I have
to resort to using an external viewer most of the time. Also, there
are issues with highlighting text in HTML mails that I've had for the
past couple of releases.

OK - have you posted these issues here? Even if soluble, they can't be
solved if unknown...

Sure have, check out message id <jo34lCM+***@kissinuk.com> , Ian
Bell replied saying that there were known problems with HTML mails.

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Paul F
Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy
to do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to
do with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when
IE6 stopping the bold folder names from working...).

Well, TPs3-5 were made to look like the Win3.x Program Manager, while
being independent of it, but the downside was that it still looked like
that even under Win95, and in the end, TP's interface was fighting with
how Win95 wanted to present it.
Even with Explorer, you should look closely at how TP6 presents itself
on Win 9x and the NT/2000/XP family. The changes, so that it fits,
chameleon-like, into each OS, are subtle but tangible.
Possible, I suppose, if TP6 could take the same elements of Explorer,
whichever OS it was on, and use them to make itself look like that OS,
but not as easy as being an SNE, I'd think....

Point taken!

Regards,

Paul.

[Julian Knight]

From Paul F:

...

Post by Paul F

Post by Robert Hull
So you claim. Permit me to doubt your words.

I have to agree that Turnpike does make a mess of a majority of the
HTML posts I receive, the text becomes completely mangled and I have to
resort to using an external viewer most of the time. Also, there are
issues with highlighting text in HTML mails that I've had for the past
couple of releases.

Phew, I was beginning to think I was the only one! :)

Post by Paul F

Post by Robert Hull
Turnpikes filters are *not* hard to use unless people are lazy or -
like you - unwilling to accept help.

They are hardly self-explanatory for beginners!!! Fine, I work as a
developer and find them okay to use, but I know a lot of people that
are completely baffled by them, even using the help. Please remember
that not everyone may have the same level of computer experience as
yourself.

Post by Robert Hull
So you say, but the choice was not yours. I suppose that you would
have had the Turnpike team waste time re-inventing the wheel so that
you could have claimed - even earlier - that Turnpike was "dead"

Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy
to do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to
do with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when
IE6 stopping the bold folder names from working...).

Indeed, ever wondered why MS have NEVER used the facility themselves?
For example in Outlook?

[Paul Terry]

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Paul F
Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy
to do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to
do with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when
IE6 stopping the bold folder names from working...).

Indeed, ever wondered why MS have NEVER used the facility themselves?

What, not even in their famous Internet Explorer program? :)

As I type this, the title bar of the underlying window reads ...

demon.ip.support.turnpike - Microsoft Internet Explorer

[Julian Knight]

Post by Paul Terry

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Paul F
Actually, having a Windows Explorer type interface is incredibly easy
to do without using Explorer itself, it also gives you the freedom to
do with it what you please without anything else breaking it (eg when
IE6 stopping the bold folder names from working...).

Indeed, ever wondered why MS have NEVER used the facility themselves?

What, not even in their famous Internet Explorer program? :)
As I type this, the title bar of the underlying window reads ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike - Microsoft Internet Explorer

Thats odd Paul, mine doesn't, doesn't add anything at all. Furthermore
TP isn't integrated with Internet Explorer but Windows Explorer which is
different and no, Internet Explorer is not integrated with Windows
Explorer the way TP is, in fact I can only think of 3 products that I've
come across that do integrate in this way: TP, PixVue and an LDAP
browser tool who's name escapes me.

[Paul Terry]

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Paul Terry

Post by Julian Knight
Indeed, ever wondered why MS have NEVER used the facility themselves?

(re: Shell Namespace Extensions)

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Paul Terry
What, not even in their famous Internet Explorer program? :)
As I type this, the title bar of the underlying window reads ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike - Microsoft Internet Explorer

Thats odd Paul, mine doesn't, doesn't add anything at all.

Try starting Turnpike from Internet Explorer and you will see what I
mean.

Post by Julian Knight
Furthermore TP isn't integrated with Internet Explorer but Windows
Explorer which is different

Not really. As Sean Legassick pointed out quite some time ago, it is
nowadays almost impossible to distinguish Internet Explorer and Windows
Explorer (or My Computer, Network Neighbourhood, Recycle Bin, and so on)
as separate applications:

http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=981560831.26488.0.nnrp-07.9e989907%40news.demon.co.uk

Post by Julian Knight
and no, Internet Explorer is not integrated with Windows Explorer the
way TP is,

Try typing C:\ into the address bar of IE, switch on the folders bar and
watch it transform itself into Windows Explorer :)

You can even have Turnpike in the right-panel and your IE History list
in the left panel, should you so desire.

Post by Julian Knight
in fact I can only think of 3 products that I've come across that do
integrate in this way: TP, PixVue and an LDAP browser tool who's name
escapes me.

You don't use WinZip? Macromedia HomeSite also implemented a namespace
Extension last time I looked.

In all seriousness, the key bits of what you might call "Windows
Explorer" that are used by Turnpike (shell32.dll and shdocvw.dll) are
widely used by a huge range of programs. To what extent you call this
"integration" I don't know - but remove either of these files or replace
them with faulty versions and you will see many different applications
fail.

[Julian Knight]

From Paul Terry:

...

Post by Paul Terry
(re: Shell Namespace Extensions)

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Paul Terry
What, not even in their famous Internet Explorer program? :)
As I type this, the title bar of the underlying window reads ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike - Microsoft Internet Explorer

Thats odd Paul, mine doesn't, doesn't add anything at all.

Try starting Turnpike from Internet Explorer and you will see what I
mean.

Post by Julian Knight
Furthermore TP isn't integrated with Internet Explorer but Windows
Explorer which is different

Not really. As Sean Legassick pointed out quite some time ago, it is
nowadays almost impossible to distinguish Internet Explorer and Windows
Explorer (or My Computer, Network Neighbourhood, Recycle Bin, and so
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=981560831.26488.0.nnrp-07.9e989907%4
0news.demon.co.uk

Hmm, point taken. Actually I rarely use IE/WE that way. Especially as I
no longer use IE day-to-day ;)

Post by Paul Terry

Post by Julian Knight
and no, Internet Explorer is not integrated with Windows Explorer the
way TP is,

Try typing C:\ into the address bar of IE, switch on the folders bar
and watch it transform itself into Windows Explorer :)
You can even have Turnpike in the right-panel and your IE History list
in the left panel, should you so desire.

OK.

Post by Paul Terry

Post by Julian Knight
in fact I can only think of 3 products that I've come across that do
integrate in this way: TP, PixVue and an LDAP browser tool who's name
escapes me.

You don't use WinZip?

I use WinZip but not integrated into WE as TP is, it always comes up as
a separate app which is how I like it, I didn't even know you could - is
that in a new version, I use 8.2 I think.

Post by Paul Terry
Macromedia HomeSite also implemented a namespace Extension last time I
looked.

Right, I knew there would be a few more but still very rare beasts.

Post by Paul Terry
In all seriousness, the key bits of what you might call "Windows
Explorer" that are used by Turnpike (shell32.dll and shdocvw.dll) are
widely used by a huge range of programs. To what extent you call this
"integration" I don't know - but remove either of these files or
replace them with faulty versions and you will see many different
applications fail.

True enough, it is the integration as a "pseudo folder" into WE that
seems to be the issue here.

Thanks for the insite.

[Andrew Brydon]

Post by Paul Terry

Post by Julian Knight
in fact I can only think of 3 products that I've come across that do
integrate in this way: TP, PixVue and an LDAP browser tool who's name
escapes me.

You don't use WinZip? Macromedia HomeSite also implemented a namespace
Extension last time I looked.

Bitware answer-phone/fax software is certainly integrated, which is
handy for checking for phone messages by opening Turnpike... ;)

I think WS_FTP from Ipswitch (as previously supplied by Demon/Thus)
also has a shell extension version?

[Jim Crowther]

Post by Andrew Brydon
Bitware answer-phone/fax software is certainly integrated, which is
handy for checking for phone messages by opening Turnpike... ;)

Yes, I've seen it.

Post by Andrew Brydon
I think WS_FTP from Ipswitch (as previously supplied by Demon/Thus)
also has a shell extension version?

Yes, works well here.

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Jim Crowther

Post by Andrew Brydon
Bitware answer-phone/fax software is certainly integrated, which is
handy for checking for phone messages by opening Turnpike... ;)

Yes, I've seen it.

Post by Andrew Brydon
I think WS_FTP from Ipswitch (as previously supplied by Demon/Thus)
also has a shell extension version?

Yes, works well here.

[OT] But it bloody well wouldn't work with BatchFTP at present for many
demon users! <dlxWxfBbYso$***@easton.demon.co.uk>

[John Underwood]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 at 14:12:43, Neale D. Hind wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Neale D. Hind
[OT] But it bloody well wouldn't work with BatchFTP at present for many

I am a bit puzzled why that should be relevant to citing WS-FTP as an
example of a WE Name Space extension.

Moreover, I am puzzled why it is WS-FTP which should be blamed for the
problem reported in the citation. That refers to problems with login to
the Demon FTP process, it would affect any FTP client. Does WS-FTP work
with other FTP servers?

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by John Underwood
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 at 14:12:43, Neale D. Hind wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Neale D. Hind
[OT] But it bloody well wouldn't work with BatchFTP at present for

I am a bit puzzled why that should be relevant to citing WS-FTP as an
example of a WE Name Space extension.
Moreover, I am puzzled why it is WS-FTP which should be blamed for the
problem reported in the citation. That refers to problems with login to
the Demon FTP process, it would affect any FTP client. Does WS-FTP work
with other FTP servers?

It was sarcasm. *No* FTP Client will be of any use with the Batch FTP
service for myself and other users affected by the authentication
problem affecting Batch FTP.

[John Underwood]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 at 11:39:30, Neale D. Hind wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Post by Neale D. Hind
It was sarcasm. *No* FTP Client will be of any use with the Batch FTP
service for myself and other users affected by the authentication
problem affecting Batch FTP.

My apologies for not picking that up. I am no friend of WS-FTP since it
started showing the common trend to bloat. Now I use a little package
which gives secure login and has a matching SSH client with it.

For those interested in pursuing alternatives, I have found these items
(free for private use)and used them with varying degrees of success
(they all have good features, but the mix has not always a good match
for my needs at the time):

LeechFTP - http://stud.fh-heilbronn.de/~jdebis/leechftp/
No longer being developed, but its maker is producing a
replacement. It is quite good but doesn't store addresses.

FTPExplorer - http://www.ftpx.com/

And my current favourite, particularly for secure connection and a
server with a Unix shell:

http://www.ssh.com/support/downloads/secureshellwks/non-commercial.html

[Martin Armstrong]

I am no friend of WS-FTP since it started showing the common trend to
bloat. Now I use a little package which gives secure login and has a
matching SSH client with it.
For those interested in pursuing alternatives, I have found these items
(free for private use)and used them with varying degrees of success

[snip suggestions of FTP clients]


May I add the opensource Filezilla:

http://filezilla.sourceforge.net/
http://filezilla.sourceforge.net/documentation

which has proved to be reliable and flexible for me.

[Roy Brown]

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

How long was it between 5.01 and 6.00 ? I remember something in the
order of a year of beta testing. Was Turnpike "dead" during that time ?

Googling for :
Message-ID: <f8ySJyDEWEM$***@acanthus.demon.co.uk>
in d.i.s.t. in Google Groups (the thread title is not one you might
associate with the above) will lead to a table that could illuminate
this discussion....

[Robert Hull]

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

How long was it between 5.01 and 6.00 ? I remember something in the
order of a year of beta testing. Was Turnpike "dead" during that time ?

in d.i.s.t. in Google Groups (the thread title is not one you might
associate with the above) will lead to a table that could illuminate
this discussion....

Does your table prove "Julian" right when he claims that Turnpike is
dead because of the interval since the last full version was released?

And to forestall the question abut the quotes around "Julian" - he
claims that one cannot know someone by their postings, but only by
meeting them in the flesh and that their identity must otherwise be in
doubt. Hence the doubt about his identity.

[Roy Brown]

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Robert Hull

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

How long was it between 5.01 and 6.00 ? I remember something in the
order of a year of beta testing. Was Turnpike "dead" during that time ?

in d.i.s.t. in Google Groups (the thread title is not one you might
associate with the above) will lead to a table that could illuminate
this discussion....

Does your table prove "Julian" right when he claims that Turnpike is
dead because of the interval since the last full version was released?

Indeed not; it is a series of observations, not a theory. It can throw
light on the accuracy of any claim that the interval is 'long', or at
least 'long compared with previous such lacunae', but can say nothing
about any extrapolations that may be made from such observations.

This is a question of philosophy, and more specifically the philosophy
of science, which deals with such matters as theory, observation,
testability and refutation. And also proof, but only in the
impossibility of such.

Post by Robert Hull
And to forestall the question abut the quotes around "Julian" - he
claims that one cannot know someone by their postings, but only by
meeting them in the flesh and that their identity must otherwise be in
doubt. Hence the doubt about his identity.

This is also a question of philosophy, this time of ontology. This also
holds, rather uncomfortably, the impossibility of knowing someone even
if you meet them in the flesh. Such matters are hotly debated by
solipsists, or would be, if I thought there was any point in it.

[John Underwood]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 at 18:46:53, Roy Brown wrote in
demon.ip.support.turnpike

Such matters are hotly debated by solipsists, or would be, if I thought
there was any point in it.

From which the logical conclusion has to be drawn that the person who
wrote this is a solipsist :-) (And probably thinks he is the only one.)

[Andy]

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I would
see if we can tease some information from the developers - if they
still read the newsgroup.

Past practice was that we cannot, and they do.

Post by Julian Knight
Is TP Dead?
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.
It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
- No IMAP support
- Poor HTML support

I vote against any expansion of HTML support.

[robert w hall]

Post by Andy

Post by Julian Knight
It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
- No IMAP support
- Poor HTML support

I vote against any expansion of HTML support.

It's rather fun going back to 3.05 for quite a lot of my e-mail (*) -

I find to my pleasure that no-one _I_ want to hear from posts html :-)

Bob
(*so I can read it in living-room comfort on an old 486-75 running
NT3.51,... or linux) -

[Julian Knight]

Post by Andy

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I
would see if we can tease some information from the developers - if
they still read the newsgroup.

Past practice was that we cannot, and they do.

We used to get fairly regular official information coming through.
You know for sure they are still reading?

Post by Andy

Post by Julian Knight
Is TP Dead?
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.
It seems to me that it is falling further and further behind in what
- No IMAP support
- Poor HTML support

I vote against any expansion of HTML support.

Fair enough - though see one of my other responses. There is no reason
why better HTML support (in the sense of better formatting of HTML based
email so that it is readable) should in any way reduce the security of
TP.

[Paul Overell]

Post by Julian Knight

Post by Andy

Post by Julian Knight
This question does not seem to have come up lately so I thought I
would see if we can tease some information from the developers - if
they still read the newsgroup.

Past practice was that we cannot, and they do.

We used to get fairly regular official information coming through.
You know for sure they are still reading?

Still reading (well, I've been on holiday for a week - so I'm catching
up). But everything gets read.

And before you ask, no I can't give any information on future Turnpike
development, sorry.

Regards

[Mike]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 10:23:47, Julian Knight (Julian Knight

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

The last major release was probably released around May 2002 then.

Since from the history pages on turnpike.com the previous major release
was March 2000, then expect something new in H1 2004 perhaps

[Julian Knight]

Post by Mike
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 10:23:47, Julian Knight (Julian Knight

Post by Julian Knight
It has now been well over a year (June 2002) since the last MINOR
release and I can't remember when the last major release was.

The last major release was probably released around May 2002 then.
Since from the history pages on turnpike.com the previous major release
was March 2000, then expect something new in H1 2004 perhaps

Seems unlikely as we have heard nothing about a Beta.