Re: "received by server" timestamp

Hello Maxim, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:08:05 +0300 GMT (23/08/2007, 21:08 +0700 GMT), Maxim Masiutin wrote: MM> I like the idea of sorting message by "received by server" more MM> than "received into the database" or "sent by the MM> correspondent". But the current implementation of The Bat! index M

Re: "received by server" timestamp

Hello Indie_Dev On Friday, August 24, 2007 you wrote: > So, my apologies if I > came off as lumping > everyone in that category. Though I did say "some > of you" Of course that wasn't the point :) I knew how you meant it But this place is like soup - it is a nice blend of all kinds of human ingre

Re[4]: "received by server" timestamp

Friday, August 24, 2007, 9:33:01 AM, you wrote: > 8/24/2007 9:31 AM > Hi Indie_Dev, > On 8/24/2007 Indie_Dev wrote: I>> Look, I know that some of you are classic cases of anti-social I>> misfits, degenerative school yard bullies and thrive on harassing I>> people on-line, taking things persona

Re[2]: "received by server" timestamp

Friday, August 24, 2007, 9:31:13 AM, you wrote: > Hello Indie_Dev > On Friday, August 24, 2007 you wrote: >> Look, I know that some of you are classic cases of anti-social >> misfits, degenerative school yard bullies and thrive on harassing >> people on-line, taking things personal for _no_ reaso

Re[3]: "received by server" timestamp

8/24/2007 9:31 AM Hi Indie_Dev, On 8/24/2007 Indie_Dev wrote: I> Look, I know that some of you are classic cases of anti-social I> misfits, degenerative school yard bullies and thrive on harassing I> people on-line, taking things personal for _no_ reason whatsoever I> and putting people down so

Re: "received by server" timestamp

Hello Indie_Dev On Friday, August 24, 2007 you wrote: > Look, I know that some of you are classic cases of anti-social > misfits, degenerative school yard bullies and thrive on harassing > people on-line, taking things personal for _no_ reason whatsoever > and putting people down so you can feel g

Re[2]: "received by server" timestamp

Thursday, August 23, 2007, 11:08:13 PM, you wrote: > *snip* > Well, I was _right_ all along. The handling of the imported email is due > to an internal functionality of the TB! and nothing to do with > compliance. The format of the index file is what necessitates setting > the 'received'

Re: "received by server" timestamp

"Indie_Dev" wrote on 24/08/2007 at 01:45:21 +1100 subject ""received by server" timestamp" : > Thursday, August 23, 2007, 10:11:02 AM, you wrote: >> Hello all, >> Thursday, August 23, 2007, Maxim Masiutin wrote: >>>>>In my previo

Re[3]: "received by server" timestamp

Thursday, August 23, 2007, 10:50:16 AM, you wrote: > Hello Indie_dev, > Thursday, August 23, 2007, 17:42:41, you wrote: >>>Thats good to know. But my question is, whats so hard about just >>>leaving the emails alone and importing them as-is? This is not about >>>sorting per se. >>>During import

Re[2]: "received by server" timestamp

Hello Indie_dev, Thursday, August 23, 2007, 17:42:41, you wrote: >>Thats good to know. But my question is, whats so hard about just >>leaving the emails alone and importing them as-is? This is not about >>sorting per se. >>During import, if for some reason TB! needs to know when an email was >>i

Re[2]: "received by server" timestamp

Thursday, August 23, 2007, 10:11:02 AM, you wrote: > Hello all, > Thursday, August 23, 2007, Maxim Masiutin wrote: In my previous mail I wrote that I found your points valid but there are also counter points that are also valid! From The Bat's! behalf, the mail is RECEIVED as lon

Re: "received by server" timestamp

Thursday, August 23, 2007, 10:08:05 AM, you wrote: > Hello George, > Thursday, August 23, 2007, 16:55:24, you wrote: >>>In my previous mail I wrote that I found your points valid but there are also >>>counter points that are also valid! From The Bat's! behalf, the mail is >>>RECEIVED as long as

Re: "received by server" timestamp

Hello Maxim, > In the V4 we are changing the message index file format... - Dangerous :) - Please run a full beta cycle just for the new index format before release. - Will it be backwards compatible so that one can safely revert to a previous version if needed? -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urec

Re: "received by server" timestamp

Hello all, Thursday, August 23, 2007, Maxim Masiutin wrote: >>>In my previous mail I wrote that I found your points valid but there are also >>>counter points that are also valid! From The Bat's! behalf, the mail is >>>RECEIVED as long as it got into its database. Technically this is correct. > I

"received by server" timestamp

Hello George, Thursday, August 23, 2007, 16:55:24, you wrote: >>In my previous mail I wrote that I found your points valid but there are also >>counter points that are also valid! From The Bat's! behalf, the mail is >>RECEIVED as long as it got into its database. Technically this is correct. I l