Re: A Tad More Feedback

On or about 13:51 Ben Kennedy said - >While backups are always a good idea, your reasoning sounds a little fishy. > > > >;) > >-ben nyuck, nyuck, nyuck ! Graham

Re: A Tad More Feedback

Lyle D. Gunderson wrote at 7:39 PM (-0700) on 11/21/08: >1. I am happy to pay for an upgrade. I could care less if it is 6.0 >or 5.6.5.001. I want CTM Development to continue seeing PowerMail >as something worth putting time into (and for them to stay in the >black). The upgrade cost is about

A Tad More Feedback

I'm sort of the opposite of some of the opinions expressed here. 1. I am happy to pay for an upgrade. I could care less if it is 6.0 or 5.6.5.001. I want CTM Development to continue seeing PowerMail as something worth putting time into (and for them to stay in the black). The upgrade co

Re: Help! Erased account-how to avoid massive re-download?

Am/On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:22:01 -0500 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann: >I had two versions of the account information for my main email account >in Mail Accounts. The older one was set up for receiving mail, the newer >one for sending. Yesterday I deleted the older account and now have set >the new

Help! Erased account-how to avoid massive re-download?

I had two versions of the account information for my main email account in Mail Accounts. The older one was set up for receiving mail, the newer one for sending. Yesterday I deleted the older account and now have set the newer one to check for mail. Now PowerMail wants to re-download all previousl

powermail-discuss Digest #2903 - 11/21/08

powermail-discuss Digest #2903 - Friday, November 21, 2008 test? by "Dave N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Feedback on PM 6 beta (4574) by "Ben Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PM 6 beta (4574) by "Bill Schjelderup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Feedback on PM 6 beta (4574)

Re: Feedback on PM 6 beta (4574)

Ben Kennedy wrote: >Yeah, I might have to rescind this; I moved locations again later in the >evening, and had no such hang/crash. However, PM did give the usual >"connection error" messages immediately, rather than wait until I was re- >established on the new network (I thought that was supposed

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Am/On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:16:46 -0500 schrieb/wrote George Henne: >While it's great there is new update (finally!), it really should be a >point release. > >I'd love to give PowerMail money for an upgrade. I think it should have >more features in it: A major new release should have features that m

Re(2): PM 6 beta (4574)

While it's great there is new update (finally!), it really should be a point release. I'd love to give PowerMail money for an upgrade. I think it should have more features in it: A major new release should have features that make you go wow!. George Henne

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Jeremy Hughes at [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:43:56 + >I tried that a while back, and it wasn't a good solution. Ahh. Ok. > >In any case, I don't want bigger and bigger databases. I want separate >databases for each email folder (like in Apple Mail). It's fine if these >have

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Matthias Schmidt at [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:32:59 +0900 >No I didn't miss that one, but we could do that before. Ah, but I wasn't replying to you :). >What they added is just a "Macro" for doing so automatically. Yes, I agree, like I said "It's not idea", but it does m

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Derry Thompson (21/11/08, 15:17) said: >>That is a major disappointment to me :( >> >>I currently have to compact the database twice a week to avoid this limit. >> >>Not sure how long I can continue using PowerMail... > >You might be missing this feature. > >Instead of multiplying risks with bigge

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Am/On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:17:16 + schrieb/wrote Derry Thompson: >Jeremy Hughes at [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:50:19 + > >> >>That is a major disappointment to me :( >> >>I currently have to compact the database twice a week to avoid this limit. >> >>Not sure how long I ca

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Jeremy Hughes at [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:50:19 + > >That is a major disappointment to me :( > >I currently have to compact the database twice a week to avoid this limit. > >Not sure how long I can continue using PowerMail... You might be missing this feature. Instead of

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Matthias Schmidt (21/11/08, 12:29) said: >well, I forgot to mention one thing, >I'm wondering, why the database format was not changed. >A one-file-monolythic database is really not up-to-date together with >technologies like Time Machine. >And the most often asked feature request in the past was

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Hello, well, I forgot to mention one thing, I'm wondering, why the database format was not changed. A one-file-monolythic database is really not up-to-date together with technologies like Time Machine. And the most often asked feature request in the past was to lift the 2GB limit of the database a

Re: PM 6 beta (4574)

Hello, I've just taken a short look on the new version. I can't run pm5 in the same time as v6. I miss a settings for sorting according threads. I receive most mails from different lists and sorting by thread is for me the most missing feature in pm5 and styled text the last thing I really miss.

Re: Feedback on PM 6 beta (4574)

Karsten Liere wrote at 10:04 AM (+0100) on 11/21/08: >Works fine on my machine though - no problem here: >>- sleeping the computer in one location (wireless network) then awaking >>in another causes PM to hang (stack trace on request). Yeah, I might have to rescind this; I moved locations again l

Re: Feedback on PM 6 beta (4574)

Hi there, I'd like to second and comment on couple of points made by Ben and Bill. Especially these ;-): This is really distracting and made me check PM couple of times just finding no new email: >- after every mail check PM is now bouncing the dock icon, regardless of whether there was actually