Re: I like the threading

At 18:44 [GMT+0100] on Wednesday February 23 (actual time - 1:44am on Thursday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: >> I like the threading of the alpha. >> I'm threading by references, but when a message is lacking >> In-Reply-To and References but has a subject like Re same subject >>

Re: Quiet?

AC Martin wrote: > Hi David, > On 23/02/2005 01:28 PM, you wrote: > >> I'm working on that... I'm pretty new to Thunderbird and I haven't >> figured out how to do that yet. :) > > Other than compatibility, I struggle to think of a meaningful reason for > using inline PGP signatures. If you send

Re: Quiet?

Hi David, On 23/02/2005 01:28 PM, you wrote: > I'm working on that... I'm pretty new to Thunderbird and I haven't > figured out how to do that yet. :) Other than compatibility, I struggle to think of a meaningful reason for using inline PGP signatures. If you send PGP/MIME signatures to this li

Re: Quiet?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Hello David Calvarese & everyone else, > > on 23-Feb-2005 at 19:05 you (David Calvarese) wrote: > >> There is 'Inline HTML'. It's what Outlook Express uses by default. :) > > You know what I meant. > > Btw. now I kn

Re: Quiet?

Hello David Calvarese & everyone else, on 23-Feb-2005 at 19:05 you (David Calvarese) wrote: > There is 'Inline HTML'. It's what Outlook Express uses by default. :) You know what I meant. Btw. now I know whats so ugly about your messages and why it jumped in my face so much - you have no sig de

Alpha Column changing

If you change a column view I like the way you are asked if you want to keep the column change when moving to another folder. That way you don't have to worry about resetting all the time. A very nice feature. Actually there are lots of nice things about this Alpha (well, I think so!!). It's just a

Re: I like the threading

Hello Roelof, On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 you wrote in RO> Yep, though it's somewhat of a double edged sword. RO> Just was looking for a message and couldn't find it even though I RO> could find the first message of the thread. RO> Turned out that my contact had been using a thing

Re: Quiet?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Hello David Calvarese & everyone else, > > on 23-Feb-2005 at 18:35 you (David Calvarese) wrote: > >>> Then why's your message signed inline and not PGP/MIME? :-) > >> Because I prefer inline signing over PGP/MIME. :)

Re: Priority of IMAP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Michael Schneider wrote: > Any words for this? > > RITlabs just prefers to code a new GUI but stabalize their product. > > > Sorry, but I'm just mad about RITlabs and their behavior regarding IMAP :-( I'm a tad upset with them too. I've used

Re: Quiet?

Hello David Calvarese & everyone else, on 23-Feb-2005 at 18:35 you (David Calvarese) wrote: >> Then why's your message signed inline and not PGP/MIME? :-) > Because I prefer inline signing over PGP/MIME. :) Enigmail can do > PGP/MIME as well. Its the year 2005. I find that PGP gibberish is tot

Re: I like the threading

Hello Roelof, > I like the threading of the alpha. > I'm threading by references, but when a message is lacking > In-Reply-To and References but has a subject like Re same subject > then the message is added to the thread anyhow. I can't take the risk of installing the Alpha, at least not

Re[2]: Quiet?

Het was op woensdag 23 februari 2005 om 18:17 uur dat jij iets schreef over 'Quiet?' : Hallo Alexander, >> and the GnuPG support via Enigmail is better than the PGP support in TB! >> as well ASK> Then why's your message signed inline and not PGP/MIME? :-) that's because it's kinda diffi

Re: Quiet?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Hello David Calvarese & everyone else, > > on 23-Feb-2005 at 00:33 you (David Calvarese) wrote: > >> and the GnuPG support via Enigmail is better than the PGP support in TB! >> as well > > Then why's your message sign

Re: Quiet?

Hello David Calvarese & everyone else, on 23-Feb-2005 at 00:33 you (David Calvarese) wrote: > and the GnuPG support via Enigmail is better than the PGP support in TB! > as well Then why's your message signed inline and not PGP/MIME? :-) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - IC

IMAP Search...

Hi, Seems IMAP searching is still flaky at best. It also seems to have an issue with timeouts. If the connection timesout while requesting the search data, it never reconnects. You have to manually force a connection, at which point it starts the search again. After a predetermined time, TB di

Re: Priority of IMAP

Hi Michael, On 23/02/2005 07:07 AM, you wrote: > But it seems that RITlabs want to sit the problems with IMAP out. Hoping > that no one cares or notices... I doubt this very much. >From my observation and experience, it would seem that they're very motivated to have IMAP working, but it's provi

Re: Priority of IMAP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Markus Gloede schrieb: |>from what I've heard, IMAP is lacking somewhat. As I am entirely |>IMAP based, I'm in no great hurry to test in this case. | | ACK(*). New GUI(+) or no new GUI, working IMAP(#) is what I want. DITO. But it seems that RITlabs wan

Re: Quiet?

David, On 22-02-2005 23:52, you [DE] wrote in : DE>>> I am sorry but it was released a alpha release. DE> Yea and ?? I did not write what you answering. You cut out my reply to that message. >> That being said, I don't mind Ritlabs releasing an Alpha to the general >> pub

Re: Quiet?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > IMHO, this level of Alpha version should never go public, not > even to this list. By releasing a program in this embryonic state, > there is a chance that it will disappoint a lot of people. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. - --

Re: Alpha Account Tree

Hello Richard, A reminder of what Richard Wakeford on TBBETA typed on: 23 February 2005 at 01:24:50 GMT +0100 RW> They seem so far away butted up against the message window. I noticed that, it messed all the appearance up. The one thing I did like is the dividing line separating the accounts

Re: Quiet?

Hello Peter, A reminder of what Peter Fjelsten on TBBETA typed on: 22 February 2005 at 23:39:04 GMT +0100 PF> Which apparently has a problem with sig delimiters... We know about that, and I've been in contact with Poco support a long while ago about it. I just had a post from them telling

Re: Connection Center and "Details"

Hello Jonathan, On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 you wrote in JA> I normally run with my connection center open, with full details being JA> displayed. Today out of curiousity I turned of the details, and was JA> left with a dark grey box, with no information in it at all. JA> Shouldn

Re: IMAP and Mail Fetching Quirks

On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 @ 9:18:50 PM [-0700], Jonathan Angliss wrote: > quirks Ah yes...quirks. That's a much better word than my earlier post on "quarks". I meant to say quirks. Nothing subatomic about TB. :) Back on topic, I have that same issue from time to time. Mostly when I come back

Re: IMAP and Mail Fetching Quirks

Hello tbbeta, just now (on 02/23/2005 at 09:16) Peter Fjelsten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I get this problem with all versions past 3.0.1.33 (I have not tried the > alpha). The v3.0.2.8 works well for me, but in the Alpha TB hangs up on the IMAP-Account after 1/2 hour, so that I had to re

Priority of IMAP (was: Quiet?)

Hi, Chris Weaven wrote: > from what I've heard, IMAP is lacking somewhat. As I am entirely > IMAP based, I'm in no great hurry to test in this case. ACK(*). New GUI(+) or no new GUI, working IMAP(#) is what I want. Regards, Markus * Acknowledge[d] (antonym: NACK (not acknowledged)) + Graphical

Re: IMAP and Mail Fetching Quirks

Jonathan, On 23-02-2005 06:18, you [JA] wrote in : JA> This email is concerning IMAP and message fetching quirks. It'd JA> appear randomly TB wants to "hang" on fetching emails. I have sat JA> here for an hour with 2 emails (yes only 2 emails) sitting in the JA> queue to be

Re: IMAP and Mail Fetching Quirks

Hi tbbeta, just now (on 02/23/2005 at 06:18) Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Okay, I'm kind of liking this new look, there are some odd quirks, > like the envelope icons in the message list half appearing randomly, > but I'm sure they'll get sorted (along with the other things). >