You are here

Home » Forums » Development Forums » Beta Testing

LWBlat GUI Portable

19 posts / 0 new
Log in or register to post comments
Last post
January 9, 2011 - 6:47pm
#1
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
LWBlat GUI Portable

Application: LWBlat GUI
Category: Utilities
Description: A portable GUI front-end for (the also portable) Blat (a console utility e-mail sender).

Download [1.00MB download / 1.97MB installed]
(MD5: a72972e43932a3df4397a3f8b856d112)

Release Notes:

Development 1.3.5 Test 11 (2021-12-16)

  • Small internal upgrades

Development 1.3.4 Test 10 (2020-08-22)

  • Small internal upgrades

Development 1.3.3 Test 9 (2018-05-25)

  • Updated both the launched program and the PortableApps Application Template
  • Moved to PortableApps.com Format Specification (3.5)

Development 1.3.3 Test 8 (2017-05-26)

  • Support by default for Blat being used in a subfolder

Development 1.3.3 Test 7 (2017-05-24)

  • Internal enhancements

Development 1.3.3 Test 6 (2014-07-19)

  • Updated both the launched program and the launched GUI front-end, and also upgraded the Portable Installer and Launcher

Development 1.3.2 Test 5 (2013-06-08)

  • Updated both the launched program and the launched GUI front-end

Development 1.3.1 Test 4 (2010-02-09)

  • Updated the program (GUI front-end) itself

Development 1.3 Test 3 (2010-01-26)

  • Prepared help.html

Development 1.3 Test 2 (2010-01-13)

  • Updated the program (GUI) itself
  • Reverted to HKCU

Development 1.2 Test 1 (2010-01-10)

  • Initial release
  • Migrating INI settings (while not modifying them as the GUI uses relative folders)
  • Migrating Blat's own registry settings (if used)
  • Uses HLKM (in end cases) - will revert to HKCU it in the next release
  • 64-bit version not included

Top
January 25, 2011 - 9:46am
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
Can anyone help testing it?

It seems fully working for me.

Top
January 25, 2011 - 2:55pm
Jacob Mastel
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-06-13 19:36
A report
  • I'm not sure what you have going on in you launcher.ini file. When the app is run I never see the associated registry entry files before, during or after the program is ran
  • Where is "LWBlat GUI.ini" file that you refer to in launcher.ini (also shouldn't have spaces)
  • You need to update the help.html file so it's relevent to this app (just fill in the spaces usually)

Good luck with the next release Smile

Release Team Member

Top
January 25, 2011 - 7:08pm
(Reply to #3)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
Answers to the report
  • The registry settings are opt-in. That is, they're only created if you decide to create them from within the GUI. If you do, the launcher makes sure to do what's needed.
  • Again, it's only created if you create it via the GUI. If you do, the launcher will take care of it.
  • Done. You can download the new version to see it.

[<li> tags need to come inside a <ul> tag - mod Chris]

Top
February 9, 2011 - 9:59am
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
Again, can anyone test it?

Anyone at all.

Top
June 8, 2013 - 10:04am
(Reply to #5)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
Anyone?

Anyone willing to test?

Top
June 18, 2013 - 8:28pm
(Reply to #6)
marcdw
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2008-01-25 02:51
Works fine so far

I've known about Blat for a long time but never tried it until this
week after building a custom MinGW version of Lynx and needing a
mailer.
Didn't know about LWBlat 'til today.
Quick test and it worked fine. A simple mail was sent and received.

The GUI is chock full of options which is nice.
I'll be keeping this one around as it's nice to not bring up
a full-fledged email program just to send out a quick note.

I'll do more testing later, trying out each of the options.
Nice work.

Top
July 19, 2014 - 10:11am
(Reply to #7)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
Thanks, just released a new update

You're welcome to use the new version to finish your testing.

Top
September 28, 2014 - 6:38pm
(Reply to #8)
m0d
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2009-11-10 19:49
The naming scheme for

The naming scheme for portableapp format is confusing as the direct link for the format points to LWBlatGUIPortable_0.2.4_English.paf, which installs version 1.3.1
I don't see why it doesn't follow same scheme, as in LWBlatGUIPortable_1.3.1, just my opinion.

Top
October 10, 2014 - 1:58pm
(Reply to #9)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
It's Portable Installer vs. Actual app

"Development Test X"s are supposed to start from 1.
I wanted the installer's version to match the tests, regardless of the actual program's version.

Am I wrong about this?

Top
October 14, 2014 - 4:08am
(Reply to #10)
marcdw
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2008-01-25 02:51
Naming scheme

No I don't think there's anything wrong about it IMO. Once testing is done and the installer is ready for release you can feel free to match the installer with the program's version.
Right now it's not something I feel is an issue.

Top
October 14, 2014 - 5:12am
(Reply to #11)
Ken Herbert
Ken Herbert's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
DeveloperModerator
Joined: 2010-05-25 18:19
Yeah, a little wrong

For starters dev test number is supposed to reset to 1 each time you update the base app, and should only ever increment by whole numbers.

Also having the app version in the installer's filename will tell your users exactly what they are installing. Using some iteration of the package version doesn't mean much to end users.

Thus we use the format AppNamePortable_AppVersion_Development_Test_DevTestNumber_Language/Multilingual.exe because it carries meaningful information about the app itself, not meta-information that they have to take extra steps to decipher.

Regardless, if you've got no aspirations to having it released officially you are welcome to call it what you want, but for the sake of existing PortableApps users, and the PortableApps spec, that is the format we use.

Top
October 22, 2014 - 4:53am
(Reply to #12)
marcdw
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2008-01-25 02:51
Thanks for the clarification

Okay, I see. Shows how much I know. Disregard my "it doesn't matter" comment.
I will admit the version numbers did kind of throw me off at first. Smile

Top
October 22, 2014 - 6:48am
(Reply to #13)
Ken Herbert
Ken Herbert's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
DeveloperModerator
Joined: 2010-05-25 18:19
Don't worry about it

It's easy enough to not realize.

The spec only goes into the format of version numbering, and the meaning behind the relationship isn't exactly obvious until someone explains it.

Pretty sure I had a few confusing moments when I was starting to develop, until I found a thread somewhere around here that explained it.

Top
May 24, 2017 - 6:20pm
John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 39 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Version?

On the website, it's 1.3.2. Why the discrepancy?

Think this is ready to be official?

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Top
May 26, 2017 - 5:44am
(Reply to #15)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
It was ready for years

I referred to it as a test because I assumed I have to wait for you to make it official.
That also explains the discrepancy - I saw in other listings here that test versions' numbers always look different than real versions' numbers.

So if you're ready, tell me how to proceed and I'll call it after the real version (which already got updated, BTW).

Top
May 26, 2017 - 9:00am
(Reply to #16)
John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 39 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Same Version

We use the same versioning for Dev Tests as for stable. They follow a specific pattern to ensure that when we switch from dev test to stable, users get the update. So, for LWBlat Portable 1.3.3, it would have a PackageVersion of 1.3.2.99 and a name of 1.3.3 Dev Test 1. That way when it's official, it would be 1.3.3.0 and platform users get the update.

One question... what do you think the rate of abuse would be for Blat? If it's high, releasing it may be counterproductive as it may make our apps more likely to be blocked by institutions. If it's low and people mostly use Blat for testing mail configurations and the like, it shouldn't be an issue.

Side question... why is the icon ClamWin's? Does LWBlat GUI not have an icon? If not, we can use one from the Oxygen set. I can handle that for release.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Top
May 26, 2017 - 10:58am
(Reply to #17)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
"and a name of"

By "name of" do you mean "DisplayVersion"? Or do you just mean what I write in the forum when I post a new test version?
Whatever your reply is, I think these helpful tips should be documented.

Clamwin's icon is probably the launcher's default. Please show me what do you prefer. Can I also use it for the non PortableApps version?

As for Blat, its license forbids it to be used for spam. But license aside, it has been around since the late 1990s. Its latest update is from earlier this year. It has its own website and little community. It's not a secret buried in the dark web waiting for people like you and I to expose it to the world for what it is.
Plus just like my program is a front-end for Blat, the program Blat itself is a front-end for handling server communications.
Just like https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/putty_portable Smile

Top
May 5, 2018 - 4:13am
(Reply to #18)
lwc
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Translator
Joined: 2006-04-26 06:35
Never got your replies, looking forward for your input

I've fixed the versioning, BTW.

Top
Log in or register to post comments