Little Snitch (network traffic monitor) is reporting that QRecall is trying to connect to secure.qrecall.com BUT

A matching rule exists that requires a code signature by James Bucanek, US (D24CNGWU22), but the process is now signed by W5U957H54U. This could mean that the application was replaced by another one from a different developer.

I think I remember updating QRecall to a newer version recently, so this sort of makes sense. On the other hand, I've updated many other applications to newer versions, some of which I'm sure "phone home", but have not received this report.

Any background? Suggestions?

Thanks for the quick reply. You can look forward to my registration of QRecall and I'll look forward to v 2.2.

I'm evaluating QRecall for my backup strategy. So far (14 hours!) I am VERY impressed. The description of the underlying technology is compelling and the interface is pretty incredible.

That said, I'm really surprised there's no way to omit classes of files that don't need to be backed up. I'm a Scala/Java developer and so my drive is littered with *.class files that don't need to be backed up. The Scala compiler apparently does not set the "do not backup" flag on it's output. Setting it manually doesn't seem practical given these files could be many places on my disk.

This is related to the post by John C. Beatty on 13-Jul-16. He suggests a full regular expression for excluding files. That would be the best solution, but as an interim I'd be satisfied with being able to exclude "*.ext" where the user fills in the extension. Don't even need a UI to get started; I'd be happy to use the defaults command.

I'm hoping you can bump this higher on your to-do list.

Thanks!