On Wednesday, November 03, 2004 at 11:11:39 PM [GMT -0500], Keith
Russell wrote:
>> That's your server side outbox doing that.
> So is the solution to just uncheck "Outbox:" under Mail
> Management/IMAP Options?
Yes. That's the setting.
Tell me how it goes with DUMeter.
--
-= Allie =-
. F
On Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 4:42:26 PM [GMT -0500], Martin
Webster wrote:
> My IMAP server is on a home network and TB! was configured to
> disconnect from the server when idle for 5 seconds. I only retrieve
> message headers.
I've never really used this setting except for at work where my
Allie Martin [AM], wrote:
>> Following Allie's lead I have played around with the various settings
>> and come up with optimum settings for my server. Perhaps we should
>> start sharing this information, get confirmations etc. so Ritlabs can
>> have an IMAP wizard based on server/connection type
By the way, I also have Gmail accounts to give away. :-)
--
Keith
Current beta is 3.0.2.4 Rush | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http
Clive Taylor wrote:
I'm concerned about running into bandwidth problems, at least with
Fastmail.
You shouldn't be. A full account with FastMail gives you 600Mb of
storage while an enhanced a/c gives 2Gb.
I was referring to bandwidth, not storage space. Even an enhanced
membership allows just 1 GB
Hello Clive,
A reminder of what Clive Taylor typed on:
04 November 2004 at 08:37:45 GMT +0100
CT> I can give you an invite if you, and anyone else, wants one, (I have
CT> four left to give away). First come, first served! PM to my address.
I'd love to have a g mail account to play with if y
> I'm concerned about running into bandwidth problems, at least with
> Fastmail.
You shouldn't be. A full account with FastMail gives you 600Mb of
storage while an enhanced a/c gives 2Gb. If space is an issue why not
use a Gmail a/c (1Gb storage) and forward old mail there?
I can give you an invi
Allie Martin wrote:
the same
thing happened as a couple of days ago: 30 copies of the message in
the Outbox, all created one minute apart! So I'm back to using
Thunderbird
That's your server side outbox doing that.
So is the solution to just uncheck "Outbox:" under Mail
Management/IMAP Options
Clive Taylor wrote:
Keith, My two IMAP servers are FastMail and MailSnare, and there's no
doubt that Mailsnare is the slower of the two here using TB but that
might be because its message base is bigger than FastMail's.
However, I don't notice the difference between the two accessing them
via Mulbe
Wednesday, November 3, 2004, 10:49:47 AM, (Internet Time - @742) you wrote:
Hello Clive,
CT> Keith, My two IMAP servers are FastMail and MailSnare, and there's no
CT> doubt that Mailsnare is the slower of the two here using TB but that
CT> might be because its message base is bigger than FastMail
> Some of my problems might be on MailSnare's end, or might have to
> do with the route between here and there, considering that other
> users don't seem to have the number of problems that I have with
> both Mulberry and TB!
Keith, My two IMAP servers are FastMail and MailSnare, and there's no
On Wednesday, November 03, 2004 at 1:19:28 AM [GMT -0500], Keith
Russell wrote:
> I tried to send this using TB! several hours ago. In trying to
> determine why it hadn't showed up on the list, I found that the same
> thing happened as a couple of days ago: 30 copies of the message in
> the Outbox
Hello, Allie.
I tried to send this using TB! several hours ago. In trying to
determine why it hadn't showed up on the list, I found that the
same thing happened as a couple of days ago: 30 copies of the
message in the Outbox, all created one minute apart! So I'm back
to using Thunderbird
O
On Monday, November 01, 2004 at 10:27:00 PM [GMT -0500], Keith Russell
wrote:
> Actually, under Mail management in Account Properties, I have Outbox
> set to INBOX.Drafts, which of course is on the server. Of course, I
> also have Sent mail set to INBOX.Sent Items, and it does nothing. TB!
> doesn
Martin Webster wrote:
Keith Russell [KR], wrote:
KR> Now, however, I can confirm others' reports of random long pauses
KR> when downloading message bodies. Like Clive, this has
KR> always been a problem for me. As I reported previously, I see
KR> similar, but even longer pauses (sometimes) when mov
Clive Taylor wrote:
Rather than echo all of what Allie has said in his reply I can confirm
that (unlike Allie) I can't rely on TB for everyday, real-world IMAP
use. It's just so frustrating to wait for a couple of minutes for
messages to display while TB churns away. I can see my router working
so
Raymund Thomas Tump wrote:
This is normally connected to moving messages from one folder
to another. If you delete the cache everything is fine again. I move
message from my Inbox to a common folder and if I then copy/move a
message from another folder to my Inbox it doesn't show up at all or
it is
Allie Martin wrote:
On Monday, November 01, 2004, at 02:32 PM, Martin Webster
wrote:
Following Allie's lead I have played around with the various settings
and come up with optimum settings for my server. Perhaps we should
start sharing this information, get confirmations etc. so Ritlabs can
have a
Allie Martin wrote:
On Monday, November 01, 2004, at 02:41 AM, Keith Russell
wrote:
I thought I had sent this off an hour ago, and I just discovered
SEVENTEEN copies in my Outbox! How did that happen?!!!
Seems that you have your Outbox server side. I'd make that local, unless
you depend a lot on
Hi, Raymund.
Raymund Thomas Tump wrote:
Looking at the messy quoting I'm glad staying with TB! :-)
:-) Yes, that is one thing TB! does do better.
Of course. I meant to mention that, but forgot. I understand that
performance will not be as good with IMAP as with POP3.
I can't see why it should be a
On Monday, November 01, 2004, at 02:32 PM, Martin Webster
wrote:
> Following Allie's lead I have played around with the various settings
> and come up with optimum settings for my server. Perhaps we should
> start sharing this information, get confirmations etc. so Ritlabs can
> have an IMAP wizar
Allie Martin [AM], wrote:
AM> For some time, my experience was that with the synchronisation options
AM> for TB! set to work like ThunderBird's sync routines, their performance
AM> is about the same. Where ThunderBird get's the better of TB! is when
AM> you're forcing it to fulfil multiple reque
Raymund Tump [RTT], wrote:
>>> Worse yet, I sometimes click on a message and get the wrong body! I
>>> just displayed five unread messages in a folder. Of the five, I was
>>> only able to read one. The other three all linked to the wrong
>>> message.
>> Now that's really odd. I don't really ha
On Monday, November 01, 2004, at 02:41 AM, Keith Russell
wrote:
> I thought I had sent this off an hour ago, and I just discovered
> SEVENTEEN copies in my Outbox! How did that happen?!!!
Seems that you have your Outbox server side. I'd make that local, unless
you depend a lot on keeping drafts a
On Monday, November 01, 2004, at 02:14 AM, Clive Taylor
wrote:
> Allie has the opposite experience, so resolving IMAP problems is
> probably going to be a compromise.
I wouldn't say opposite. It isn't that bad. My experience is that both
clients have their problems when I use them. I'm more willi
Keith Russell [KR], wrote:
KR> Now, however, I can confirm others' reports of random long pauses
KR> when downloading message bodies. Like Clive, this has
KR> always been a problem for me. As I reported previously, I see
KR> similar, but even longer pauses (sometimes) when moving between
KR> fol
Hi Keith,
> (What is that, anyway?) As a result, this reply will be sent
> using Mulberry.
Looking at the messy quoting I'm glad staying with TB! :-)
> Of course. I meant to mention that, but forgot. I understand that
> performance will not be as good with IMAP as with POP3.
I can't see why it
Hi TBBeta,
>> Worse yet, I sometimes click on a message and get the wrong body! I
>> just displayed five unread messages in a folder. Of the five, I was
>> only able to read one. The other three all linked to the wrong
>> message.
> Now that's really odd. I don't really have an explanation for su
Hello, Allie.
I thought I had sent this off an hour ago, and I just discovered
SEVENTEEN copies in my Outbox! How did that happen?!!!
And after trying again to post using TB!, I now have two more.
:-( One has an icon in the second column; the second doesn't.
(What is that, anyway?) As a result, t
Rather than echo all of what Allie has said in his reply I can confirm
that (unlike Allie) I can't rely on TB for everyday, real-world IMAP
use. It's just so frustrating to wait for a couple of minutes for
messages to display while TB churns away. I can see my router working
so it's not a matter of
On Sunday, October 31, 2004 at 11:49:01 PM [GMT -0500], Keith Russell
wrote:
> I haven't posted for a while because it seemed that no one was having
> the long pauses that I was experiencing with IMAP. Someone (Allie, I
> think) suggested that they might be due to the large number of
> messages I
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
I haven't posted for a while because it seemed that no one was
having the long pauses that I was experiencing with IMAP. Someone
(Allie, I think) suggested that they might be due to the large
number of messages I have on the server. This seemed strange to
me, since, with
32 matches
Mail list logo
