Re: Failed Mail
On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 02:00 AM, PowerMail discussions wrote: >> I have received occasional mail returned under the title "Returned >> mail: >> see transcript for details." Can anyone tell me how to access the >> transcript? > > It follows immediately in the same returned mail. > > -- > Raúl Vera > Director > Orbit 3 Pty Ltd > 8 Coneill Place > NSW 2037 > Australia > Sorry, I should have mentioned this. Nothing follows. The returned mail is blank. I have several examples of this.
Re: search
Michael, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >At any rate, I don't want to get deeper into this because I feel >animosity crops up on this list whenever this topic comes up, and I'm not >trying to be that way. If I revisit it too much, I fear I'll be painted >one way or the other,and, honestly, when it comes to the search engine >I'll adapt to whatever comes up. you're welcome, Michael.
Re(2): search: Let's cool it!
On 5/28/03 11:41 AM Michael Lewis wrote: >Michael Lewis sez: > >>At any rate, I don't want to get deeper into this because I feel >>animosity crops up on this list whenever this topic comes up, and I'm not >>trying to be that way. When people get this worked up about something annoying like this, which is more annoying than serious, we can understand why the Balkans and Middle East are always in turmoil. Let's cool it. Len - Leonard Morgenstern [EMAIL PROTECTED] The doers are in charge, and the thinkers are more needed than welcome. Andrew G. Anderson, Age 94.
Re: search
Michael Lewis sez: >At any rate, I don't want to get deeper into this because I feel >animosity crops up on this list whenever this topic comes up, and I'm not >trying to be that way. By the way, I'm not trying to imply others are like this now, either. :) This topic has just gotten a little snippy in the past is all, and I've got a dental problem that might make me lose perspective, too. It's more important to me to call the dentist and scream in pain than worry about my search engine much today! :) Enjoy, and here's hoping everyone else's teeth are happy, -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: search
Mikael Byström sez: >Yes, but your implicit message was that the interface couldn't be >improved to give better expectations. I disagree. > I don't think I said that, either. I don't like it when people take my "implicit" meaning instead of what I write, and only what I write. My later email to another person clearly says I agree that improvements are likely needed. >Feel free to prove me wrong here. I'm not trying to. Never was. Just making suggestions and I've never searched for characters like yours so don't know the full extent of the issue. As I said before, and in a second email to another person, if this ö - o thing is an issue then it likely needs addressing. Where I disagree is that whether the current search engine can do it or can be tweaked without a major overhaul to another search engine. You may be right about all the object programming stuff you said. I don't know enough about programming to say. >I suppose their biggest problem is >that they'd have to acknowledge there was a problem to begin with. Definitely true, since even the users can't agree there is a problem -- or at least agree on the magnitude of the problem. At any rate, I don't want to get deeper into this because I feel animosity crops up on this list whenever this topic comes up, and I'm not trying to be that way. If I revisit it too much, I fear I'll be painted one way or the other,and, honestly, when it comes to the search engine I'll adapt to whatever comes up. HTML mail is another story for me, though. But that's another email thread. :) -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: search
Michael, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >This discussion is going to come up repeatedly since this mail list is >not archived and I don't see CTM making the change any time soon. I don't >think it is a simple thing to change search engines woven into a program. If the codebase is ObjectOriented in structure, which I suspect it is at least partially, then it's not a lot harder than replacing calls to the search engine interface object and having another kind of index build process. As Applescript support is so well developed in Powermail it is at least theoretically viable to build a separate search engine, if you'd have the time and the motivation. Not that I actually suggest that as a solution. It's much better if PowerMail solves this problem as elegant as they removed the search bugs in 4.1.x. I certainly have belief that they can, if they want.While that is not without cost, it is within reach of an interested developer group. I guess I'm questioning CTMs dedication to the problem issues with PowerMail. Letting them know that you want improvements in the searching area, can only help everybody. If you have another problems you'd like to see solved first, may I suggest you put that forward instead, first to the list and then to CTM? >Again, you make an example of something and provide no information on >where these show up in the RANKINGS. Did you search for "bon" and the >"bön" listings showed up first? If so, then it's wrong. If not, then it >is just a function of an engine that locates all the possibilities and >ranks the best ones first in a list. This would only be the case if it would ALSO list "bin", "ban", "ben", "bun", "bån" and "bän" further down the list, because in most languages "ö" is a totally different wovel than "o". And as I said before, if it isn't in a language, the behavior should be influenceable by the user. I haven't found that this response pattern is what PM is producing. Feel free to prove me wrong here. >Bob Parks and I were clear >that our experiences with search engines allows us to make use of >PowerMail's search engine better than many others. Yes, but your implicit message was that the interface couldn't be improved to give better expectations. I disagree. >Even if all of this was explained in a manual as you seem to wish, I >doubt it would change much. The majority of people don't read manuals, >nor do they understand the subtle differences among search engines. Agreed, it's the interface that have to explain why it gives the results it gives. There may be a multitude of ways of doing that. I could suggest a few approaches, but not before CTM have expressed any interest in exploring a solution to the problem. I suppose their biggest problem is that they'd have to acknowledge there was a problem to begin with.
Re: Hurray! (was: search)
Max Gossell sez: >I've felt one or two inklings here like "if that guy Mikael Byström is so >mad about everything, why doesn't he just leave PM and go look for >something that suits him better some other place?". > You quoted me in this message, probably because it was part of Mykael's, and my message said nothing of the kind. I do wish people wouldn't put words into my stuff. It makes it difficult to participate. Now, having said that, while your "hurray hurray!" speech is good and I agree with 95% of everything you praise, there is a time when people need to really take stock of what is important to them and consider moving on to another mail client. I do it with software all the time. Sometimes it DOES come down to just one feature, and, unlike some applications, changing email clients generally isn't that much of a problem. (One can always archive their old mail if it won't come into a new client.) At least, it's much less of a problem than cursing software you use every minute of your workday and more. :) CTM is a business. They'll understand. (They'll also change things if it comes to it.) >No BS about getting used to stuff, or to say "wouldn't it be better if.." This assumes all of us who like things the way they are are just used to it, and I disagree. Some of us -- perhaps the majority of us, since a lot of PM users probably aren't even on this mail list -- don't really want a lot of the changes that are often mentioned here. (Now don't read into that that I think the search engine is one of those. :) It may need tweaks; it may even need to be eventually changed entirely to accommodate the majority who are use to boolean searching.) At any rate, this is the last I'll be saying on anything close to this issue for a while. Anything more will only likely be misinterpreted and deconstructed. :) -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: search
Mikael Byström sez: >so I'm surprised you're thinking those were selfexplanatory. You're putting words in my mouth (or in my typing). I wrote nothing of the kind. It is far from self-explanatory. Bob Parks and I were clear that our experiences with search engines allows us to make use of PowerMail's search engine better than many others. Even if all of this was explained in a manual as you seem to wish, I doubt it would change much. The majority of people don't read manuals, nor do they understand the subtle differences among search engines. This is an issue going back to card catalogs and before. Even with all this technology, there is still a need for professional librarians and archivists. Go figure. This discussion is going to come up repeatedly since this mail list is not archived and I don't see CTM making the change any time soon. I don't think it is a simple thing to change search engines woven into a program. >And showing hits for "bön" when the search word is "bon" is just wrong. Again, you make an example of something and provide no information on where these show up in the RANKINGS. Did you search for "bon" and the "bön" listings showed up first? If so, then it's wrong. If not, then it is just a function of an engine that locates all the possibilities and ranks the best ones first in a list. -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: Real warning if send mail failes
I just realized why I had turned off the "Display alert" error notification earlier: I have several accounts checked like every 5-10 minutes, and with some of these free/10-dollars-a-year-services like HotPOP there are POP connection problems ever so often. Which means I'm called to attention each time that happens if I've "Display alert" checked. When"Display alert" is unchecked, it seems PowerMail just forgets about the POP connection problem and try again next time the schedule tells it to = perfect setup for me. So I've had to turn off the "Display alert" error notification and am back to square one, wondering if anybody has a smart workaround for this particular problem. (= I do want to be noticed if a send error occurs, I do not want to be noticed when POP login error occurs.) Max Gossell -- OSX v10.2.6 PowerMail v4.1.3 Dual G4 1.2 GHz / 1GB RAM --- At 2003-05-27, 13.05 CET, Max Gossell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 2003-05-27, 06.53 CET, C. A. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>What about a real popup window and a sound to get a REAL warning when >>>this happens. We shouldn't need to check out Out Tray each time we push >>>the send button !! >> >>Preferences... > Notifications -- will that do it? or does it cover other >>errors? >> >>Chris > >Hopefully it will -- I hadn't checked "Display alert", just the sound option. > >Thanks! :-) > >Max G > > > > > > >
Re(2): search
I cannot reproduce this. In my Powermail folder (this discussion group) are 5769 messages (OK, I have to do some cleaning up here...). View only (subject=applescript) returns 122 messages. 'Find by content' in selected folder returns 1000 messages (case insensitive) Search time about 3 seconds So it's working here as expected my configuration: G4 cube/450OS 10.2.6PowerMail 4.1.3 1024 MB RAM 120 GB HD Karel Op dinsdag, 27 mei 2003 schreef Tim Lapin: >The issue, for me at any rate, is not that the "fuzzy" search of PM finds >too many hits. The problem is that it finds too few. As a test, I ran a >sample search, comparing the "View only..." option with the "Find" search >using the same criteria. > >The test was to find all messages in the "PowerMail discussion" folder >with the word "Applescript". As I'm not sure if either search is case >sensitive, I spelled it identically in both cases. > >The "View only..." search found 122 instances while searching on >"subject". I keep my folders trimmed down so that made sense. The >"Find" search found only 10. Given how both searches work, I would have >expected the opposite result, with "Find" returning far more hits than >the more restrictive "View only..." > >For good measure, I repeated the tests after updating from 4.1.2 to 4.1.3 >and following the recommendations for rebuilding the indexes. The >results were the same. > >Go figure. > >-- >Tim Lapin >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >G4/AGP/400OS 10.2.6PowerMail 4.1.3 384 MB RAM 40+10 GB HDs > > >
Re: search
>The "View only..." search found 122 instances while searching on >"subject". I keep my folders trimmed down so that made sense. The >"Find" search found only 10. Given how both searches work, I would have >expected the opposite result, with "Find" returning far more hits than >the more restrictive "View only..." Perhaps this is affected by that "Max number of results" slider at the bottom right of the search results window. --- Scott T. Hards President HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)
Re: Trouble with Cisco routers?
Victor Orly wrote (27/05/2003): > Does anyone here have trouble sending mail out with Cisco routers? A >client of mine is having trouble from one location but not others. Their >mail server is Communigate Pro using SMTP AUTH - no trouble on incoming >POP messages but more often than not, outgoing SMTP traffic doesn't work >(the firewall in the router is set to allow SMTP traffic) Could be that PORTFAST is set wrong for the port that the one machine is using: >A "PORTFAST" option speeds up the spanning tree protocol, which operating >systems can have problems with. Spanning tree should be enabled only on >ports that other switches may be plugged into. For more info see > Charles Maurer - 5 Grandview Court Dundas, Ontario Canada L9H 5C8 Telephone: 905.627.7035 - This message originates from a Microsoft-free zone. -
Trouble with Cisco routers?
Hey Folks; Does anyone here have trouble sending mail out with Cisco routers? A client of mine is having trouble from one location but not others. Their mail server is Communigate Pro using SMTP AUTH - no trouble on incoming POP messages but more often than not, outgoing SMTP traffic doesn't work (the firewall in the router is set to allow SMTP traffic) At the office where they were having trouble, they advised him to use plain SMTP instead of ESMTP within their mail client. Victor -- Victor Orly E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.orly.com
Re: search
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 5:28 PM, Michael Lewis sent forth: >Thank you, Bob, for hitting the nail on its head. I, too, don't have an >issue with the PM searching because it does tend to rank its hits fairly >well and put the important ones at the top of the list. That it finds a >whole lot of other ones isn't an issue for me, because I understand the >kind of searching being done. > >-- >Michael Lewis > The issue, for me at any rate, is not that the "fuzzy" search of PM finds too many hits. The problem is that it finds too few. As a test, I ran a sample search, comparing the "View only..." option with the "Find" search using the same criteria. The test was to find all messages in the "PowerMail discussion" folder with the word "Applescript". As I'm not sure if either search is case sensitive, I spelled it identically in both cases. The "View only..." search found 122 instances while searching on "subject". I keep my folders trimmed down so that made sense. The "Find" search found only 10. Given how both searches work, I would have expected the opposite result, with "Find" returning far more hits than the more restrictive "View only..." For good measure, I repeated the tests after updating from 4.1.2 to 4.1.3 and following the recommendations for rebuilding the indexes. The results were the same. Go figure. -- Tim Lapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] G4/AGP/400OS 10.2.6PowerMail 4.1.3 384 MB RAM 40+10 GB HDs
Re: Failed Mail
>I have received occasional mail returned under the title "Returned mail: >see transcript for details." Can anyone tell me how to access the transcript? It follows immediately in the same returned mail. -- Raúl Vera Director Orbit 3 Pty Ltd 8 Coneill Place NSW 2037 Australia
Failed Mail
I have received occasional mail returned under the title "Returned mail: see transcript for details." Can anyone tell me how to access the transcript? Thanks, Dan -- Using OS X 10.2.6 on a G4 Tower 733 PowerMail is version 4.1.3 OS 9.2.2 is installed
Hurray! (was: search)
I've felt one or two inklings here like "if that guy Mikael Byström is so mad about everything, why doesn't he just leave PM and go look for something that suits him better some other place?". I must admit I've had thoughts like that myself, but now I'm really starting to become a fan. Until the day comes, which it never will with any software, when everything is perfect we do need guys like him. With a lot of stamina and stubborn energy to never give up, and energy enough to *care*. I myself often feel too uncertain about my technical knowledge to never let go of a technical issue, even though my instincts or human/ logical perception tells me I'm right (at least from a user's point of view, if not from a technical ditto). But this guy seems to know what he talks about as well, and I just love to read like the phrase below: "...is just wrong". No BS about getting used to stuff, or to say "wouldn't it be better if.." -- just plain and simple "wrong". Love it. We all use PowerMail for a reason, and I for one do feel any other email client would be a step down for the specific need I have. But this shouldn't mean we are forever to be silent and bow to the rarely speaking Higher Force (CTM) in Cyberspace. Strong, accurate and focused critic makes better software. So, Mikael, for as long as you have the strength to run this eternal uphill race -- I'll stand there. Looking. Cheering. Hurray, hurray. Max G At 2003-05-28, 00.45 CET, Mikael Byström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Michael, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > >>Having worked in a library at one time and being subjected to all sorts >>of online search engines, each one proprietary in its own way, I'm >>probably more used to changing my search tactics to suit software more >>than most. I think you've described the difference well, as well as why >>we'll continue to have demands for a "fix" when things are generally >>working quite well if you use the search engine the way it is intended. > >Well, before now, with the new manual, getting the intentions was pretty >difficult, so I'm surprised you're thinking those were selfexplanatory. >Also, the issues as I understood them was that if you search for one >single word and the results show hits *without* that word, then something >is wrong with the search algorithm. And showing hits for "bön" when the >search word is "bon" is just wrong. And even it isn't in some languages, >that setting should be able to influence for the user. >
Re(3): Powermail 4.1.2
Marlyse, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >did you ever test drive? I've been testing on and off for 2 years. Unfortunately, testing for real is only when you migrate and then you must have a license. At the moment I run 3.1.3 and occasionally open up 4.1.x too see if things are different there. >you appear to be quite unhappy, complaining about this and that since >almost 2 weeks (?) - makes me wonder if you ever did use it in demo mode >or dropped the money and only now find out how it works. I haven't paid anything yet, but I was planning to. I have a version 3 license. With my large database I couldn't find out earlier that what I took for granted, that one could check mail and write at the same time and that if I could import messages, char sets in the imported file would be regarded. Other smaller problems I can live with I think, Though I'm hoping for an improvement in searching and mail filtering. I guess a lot of people think that CTM will live up to the name of the app. After all it's *Power*mail, not *so-and-so*mail. If things is said to be changed for the better, then I have some hope. Why do CTM do the quiet style all the time? It's so counterproductive.
Re: search
Michael, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >Having worked in a library at one time and being subjected to all sorts >of online search engines, each one proprietary in its own way, I'm >probably more used to changing my search tactics to suit software more >than most. I think you've described the difference well, as well as why >we'll continue to have demands for a "fix" when things are generally >working quite well if you use the search engine the way it is intended. Well, before now, with the new manual, getting the intentions was pretty difficult, so I'm surprised you're thinking those were selfexplanatory. Also, the issues as I understood them was that if you search for one single word and the results show hits *without* that word, then something is wrong with the search algorithm. And showing hits for "bön" when the search word is "bon" is just wrong. And even it isn't in some languages, that setting should be able to influence for the user.
