Messages

I think I figured it out... I am pretty sure that it was a startup item associated with another program (Things) that was somehow tripping up the Espionage startup.  The Things item wasn't starting up correctly either... when I disabled that, suddenly Espionage seems to have started working.  So I am all set, thanks!

Just checking to see if there is any update on this issue? Espionage still fails to launch at startup, 100% of the time.  I can manually start it so no huge deal, but it would be nice to get it fixed eventually.

Hi - Thank you for the help.  

1. Checked "open at login" box, then did launchctl list.  It showed the following:
-       0       com.taoeffect.Espionage3Helper
318     -       [0x0-0x24024].com.taoeffect.Espionage3

2. Rebooted, then did launchctl list.  The above lines were both gone, no mention of Espionage.

3. Manually started Espionage, then did launchctl list (without re-checking the box first).  It showed:
307     -       [0x0-0x2a02a].com.taoeffect.Espionage3

4. Checked the "open at login" box again (which was now unchecked as always when I start up), then did launchctl list.  It showed:
-       0       com.taoeffect.Espionage3Helper
307     -       [0x0-0x2a02a].com.taoeffect.Espionage3

Does this provide any clues?

Rich

I finally got around to installing E3 and I am having this issue as well.  When I was installing, I did choose to automatically start at login.  It even worked once, the first time I restarted after install.  But after that it has never worked.  

Every time I restart, when I manually start up Espionage to view the preferences, the "open automatically at login" checkbox is unchecked.  I check it again, but when I restart, Espionage doesn't start up and when I view preferences that box is unchecked again.

Per one of your suggestions, I even tried checking it, quitting, unchecking it, restarting, and re-checking it -- but upon the next restart, it again failed to start up and when I went into preferences the box was unchecked again.

Zsolt, it sounds like you've dealt with this problem from a few people... what do you recommend?

Thanks,
Rich

Thanks Greg...

Greg, thanks for answering our questions here.  My needs are a little different from the security architect guy above.  I just want certain data encrypted in case my laptop is stolen.  I don't want to encrypt the whole drive because it's just overkill -- all I care about is my Mail/Mail Downloads folders, and a single encrypted standalone (non-application associated) folder where I keep sensitive data.  And I don't need it locked when I'm logged in -- I just want the data encrypted on my drive in case someone gets a hold of it.

As such, the new approach actually sounds fine to me, and if you add in the fact that I don't have to be constantly re-locking Espionage folders to make sure they are backed up correctly, it is a huge improvement.

I just want to verify that it works the way I think it will work:

1. I would add the Mail and Mail Downloads folders to Espionage, as well as my one standalone secure folder
2. I can set Espionage to automatically unlock these folders at login (with no password needed)
3. Then I can open Mail with no problem
4. The encrypted data can be backed up directly to Time Machine just like any other data (no need to lock the folders so that Espionage's backups run, then back up Espionage's backup files to Time Machine, like in v2)

Do I have that all right?  I think so but just wanted to make sure before I go through the trouble of migrating.  Thanks!

[edit:]

It's not possible to safely encrypt just one mailbox, however, with respect to backups, if you're using Espionage's built-in backups, there should be little difference in speed between backing up a 6GB sparsebundle and a 1GB sparsebundle (once the initial backup is done) as only the changes are backed up. We're working on enhancing Espionage's compatibility with other backup software as well, so stay tuned. ;)

Hi Greg - After having gotten some experience backing up to both Time Machine and Backblaze, I wanted to come back and revisit this thread.  In reading through it, I see that I misunderstood something something in your response.  It seems you were suggesting that only 1GB of a changed sparsebundle would have to be backed up.  That's been exactly what I observed -- that when I back up my mail, Backblaze soon tells me that there is 1GB of new data to download.  (Sorry about the misunderstanding).

That's definitely better than the 6GB I originally was worried about!  

Still, I am in a constant state of doing backups because Backblaze often hasn't finished up backing up the last chunk of data from Espionage's mail backup, before the next one starts.  So, I was just curious if you had an idea as to when you might be making those improvements you mentioned, wherein compatibility with backup programs will be enhanced (presumably so that incremental backups are more efficient?)

Thank you!

Rich

edit: PS Don't mean to stress you out here on the feature request, I'm just curious.  No big rush.   ;)

The problem isn't in the backups completing; it's that the backups that complete do not actually include the Espionage-encrypted data.  At least that was the case when I used it.  I would definitely recommend doing a test restore of some encrypted data to ensure that what you think is being backed up is actually backed up.

Well that's a pleasant surprise... thanks Greg!

Oh, I didn't realize that (I am pretty clueless about this stuff, just learning as much as I need to in order to get my backup system in place!)

So, maybe I actually don't have to worry about the max file size limit at all?

Awesome, thanks Greg... I really appreciate the responsiveness.  You have a nice weekend as well...

I wanted post an update, in case it helps anyone:

Carbonite confirmed that they do not back up sparse bundles, so I am bailing on them.  I am switching to Backblaze, who have confirmed that they DO back up sparse bundles.  

A note of caution, though: Backblaze supports a max file size of 9GB (in fact, by default it's 4GB -- you have to change it to 9 manually if you want the higher limit).  This could be a problem for Espionage backups as each encrypted folder is backed up in the form of one big sparse bundle file.  It's not actually an issue for me (not yet anyway), but I wanted to mention it as this could definitely trip up some Espionage users.

If the 9GB limit is an issue for you and you need a mixed Mac/PC solution, try looking into Crashplan, which has no file size limit.  I passed on them as their business plan is 50% more expensive than Backblaze's.  Note that I did not verify whether Crashplan backs up sparse bundles, because I Backblaze was good enough for me so I had no need to... but if you want to back up >9GB Espionage backup files, Crashplan would be a good place to start researching.

If you are Mac-only, I would go with Arq... this seems like a pretty sweet backup system, and if memory serves, I am pretty certain they do sparse bundles too (you'd best verify this as memory doesn't always serve).  Their attitude is that they will back up whatever you want backed up (it helps that you pay for the storage, which is at Amazon S3).  I passed on this because I wanted to back up both Macs and PCs for my business on a single account... but if I were Mac-only, Arq definitely would have been the winner.

Hope info this helps somebody.

Rich

Thanks for the answer Greg.  I realize that Espionage does incremental backups; the problem comes when I back up my Espionage backup files to Time Machine and my online backup service.  Every time I do an (admittedly quick) Espionage backup of my email, that's a 6GB file that has to go to Time Machine and my online service.  That's what I'm trying to avoid here.  

It's not a huge deal but it would really be nice if I could speed things up by targeting that small minority of mailboxes that actually have sensitive data.  Sounds like that's not an option though... perhaps it's a feature you guys could consider for future versions if it's not too difficult to add.

Thanks!
Rich

Hi - I am wondering if it is possible to encrypt individual mailboxes, rather than encrypting my entire Library/Mail folder.  The reason is that I really only have a need to encrypt client-related email, and if I could just do that, backing up my mail would be a lot leaner/faster because it wouldn't involve a giant 6GB sparse bundle.

Would I do this by just creating an application association from Mail.app to those individual mailbox files?  Is that the intended use of application associations?  I just want to double check this question because I am kind of paranoid about getting it wrong and somehow messing up backups...

Thanks!

I didn't get much of a satisfactory answer from carbonite, but as far as I can tell, they don't support the sparebundle format.  I'll have to switch providers...