On 28/09/2011 15:04, Jerry wrote:
> MS Outlook's calender is the best available. I find Outlook's interface
> easy to use. Then again, I am quite familiar with it so that would only
> be natural.
I have been waiting for what is likely to be TB 8 + the subsequent
release of SoGo. I have some hope
On 28/09/2011 21:00, Kui Zhang wrote:
> TB hangs on start up, for extent period of time. cpu at 100%, ram at 1
> - 1.2 GB used. CPU usage almost always at 100%. And it hangs from time
> to time. The client side disk usage for TB is around 200MB… why would
> it need 500MB of ram? This is something I
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 4:50 PM, Kui Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then it
>>> should start running fairly decently?
>>
>> I had indexing disabled... that did not help much.
>>
>> TB work better after
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:03:18 -0400
Charles Marcus articulated:
> On 2011-09-27 6:42 PM, Jerry wrote:
> > I have always found Outlook to be much faster than TB. In any case,
> > Outlook 2007 is an old version. I am using the 2010 version at work
> > and it is a much more polished application than
On 2011-09-27 6:42 PM, Jerry wrote:
I have always found Outlook to be much faster than TB. In any case,
Outlook 2007 is an old version. I am using the 2010 version at work and
it is a much more polished application than the 2010 version and far
superior to TB.
That's funny - I find Outlooks em
On 9/27/2011 4:50 PM, Kui Zhang wrote:
I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then it
should start running fairly decently?
I had indexing disabled... that did not help much.
TB work better after I have these settings...
mail.imap.expunge_after_delete true
mail.imap.expu
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:50:39 -0700
Kui Zhang articulated:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Marcus
> wrote:
> > On 2011-09-27 2:06 PM, Ed W wrote:
> >>
> >> On 20/09/2011 03:10, Kui Zhang wrote:
> >>>
> >>> thunderbird does not really work for us, due to amount of emails
> >>> per mail
> I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then it
> should start running fairly decently?
I had indexing disabled... that did not help much.
TB work better after I have these settings...
mail.imap.expunge_after_delete true
mail.imap.expunge_option 2
mail.server.default.autos
On 2011-09-27 2:06 PM, Ed W wrote:
On 20/09/2011 03:10, Kui Zhang wrote:
thunderbird does not really work for us, due to amount of emails per
mailbox. It was hogging all the memory + cpu.
I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then it
should start running fairly decentl
On 20/09/2011 03:10, Kui Zhang wrote:
> thunderbird does not really work for us, due to amount of emails per
> mailbox. It was hogging all the memory + cpu.
I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then it
should start running fairly decently?
I don't have mega large inboxes,
On 20/09/11 11:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> and is even better in 2010
>
>> Do they support ACL in 2010? They don't in 2007, which is really
>> frustrating. What is better about 2010 IMAP support compared to 2007?
>> I'm genuinely interested to know...
>
> What do you mean by 'ACL support'? Do
On 2011-09-20 6:30 AM, dove...@lists.grepular.com
wrote:
On 20/09/11 11:21, Charles Marcus wrote:
IMAP support got much better in 2007,
How did it get better? They removed NAMESPACE support when moving from
2003 to 2007, which was a complete ball ache for us.
2003 was basically unusable on
On 20/09/11 11:21, Charles Marcus wrote:
> IMAP support got much better in 2007,
How did it get better? They removed NAMESPACE support when moving from
2003 to 2007, which was a complete ball ache for us.
> and is even better in 2010
Do they support ACL in 2010? They don't in 2007, which is re
On 2011-09-19 7:03 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Another problem -- AFAIK, outlook is only 32bit. My mom gets
harassed, constantly to move things out of her primary .pst file and
into 'archives', (where she can't easily access them and they don't
have to be indexed...) because, the internal format beca
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
>
> ` Kui Zhang wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I have a user with 2500+ sub folders. Total mailboxes size is around
>> 6G. (mdbox, dovecot 2:2.0.14)
>>
>> Syncing/Receiving appears to be slow, with outlook 2007. He does not
>> want to switch to an
` Kui Zhang wrote:
Hello
I have a user with 2500+ sub folders. Total mailboxes size is around
6G. (mdbox, dovecot 2:2.0.14)
Syncing/Receiving appears to be slow, with outlook 2007. He does not
want to switch to an alternative, due to various reasons.
Any one else having similar issue?
Anyth
Hello
I have a user with 2500+ sub folders. Total mailboxes size is around
6G. (mdbox, dovecot 2:2.0.14)
Syncing/Receiving appears to be slow, with outlook 2007. He does not
want to switch to an alternative, due to various reasons.
I did not find any error logs indicate issues.
during idle, ima
17 matches
Mail list logo
