Hi Dwight,
> On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:03:10 AM, RS (FEDARA) wrote:
>
>> Another matter is that you need a server to store so much data and it
>> likely to increase a cost (my e-mail box is about plus 1-1.2GB each
>> year).
>
> I just priced a few 2T drives, and the cost per gigabite
Hi Vilius,
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
DC>>> that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
DC>>> whole point.
>> This also goes into another philosophy: Do we want to keep our own
>> data or do we w
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 10:34:39 AM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> This also goes into another philosophy: Do we want to keep our own
> data or do we want to put all our eggs in one cloud whose keepers we
> have to trust.
To me, this depends on whether I ever leave the house.
--
Dwight A
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:03:10 AM, RS (FEDARA) wrote:
> Another matter is that you need a server to store so much data and it
> likely to increase a cost (my e-mail box is about plus 1-1.2GB each
> year).
I just priced a few 2T drives, and the cost per gigabite runs in the
neighborho
Sveiki,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:34:39 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Dwight,
> Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:03:22 PM, you wrote:
>>> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
>>> kept on the server.
DC>> that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
Sveiki,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:32:12 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Vilius,
> Saturday, June 16, 2012, 1:26:23 PM, you wrote:
>>> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
>>> kept on the server. I keep 14 days worth of mail on the server, older
>>> mails are on my laptop a
>> Thank you for your support! I thought I was the only one who is happy
>> with POP.
> I like POP too! :)
I dont want to be the moderator here, but the topis does not reflect
the subject.
--
Vili
The Bat 4.1.11.13 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 3
___
> Thank you for your support! I thought I was the only one who is happy
> with POP.
I like POP too! :)
--
Rick
"There is no snooze button for a cat that wants breakfast."
-Anonymous
v5.1.6.4 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 3
Using all POP accounts
I download all images
_
Hello RS,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:03:10 PM, you wrote:
>>> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
>>> kept on the server.
>> that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
>> whole point.
RF> Up to the moment your e-mail box is equal
Hello Vilius,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 1:26:23 PM, you wrote:
>> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
>> kept on the server. I keep 14 days worth of mail on the server, older
>> mails are on my laptop and my PC. If I keep more than say, 2,000 or
>> 3,000 messages on
Hello Dwight,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:03:22 PM, you wrote:
>> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
>> kept on the server.
DC> that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
DC> whole point.
This also goes into another philosophy: Do w
Hello Stuart,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:40:37 PM, you wrote:
>> Then I would have IMAP emulating POP...
S> The main reason I use IMAP is the ability to have two computers with the same
S> messages on both, all sent messages on both, all messages I have read marked
as
S> read, etc. If you only
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 12:05:18 AM, you wrote:
> Then I would have IMAP emulating POP...
The main reason I use IMAP is the ability to have two computers with the same
messages on both, all sent messages on both, all messages I have read marked as
read, etc. If you only use one
Hi Dwight,
>> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
>> kept on the server.
> that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
> whole point.
Up to the moment your e-mail box is equal to about 8GB and something
happens so you need to reinst
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 12:05:18 AM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
> kept on the server.
that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
whole point.
--
Dwight A. Corrin
316.303.9385 phone ahead
Sveiki,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 8:05:18 AM, you wrote:
> Hello Scuddy,
> Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:49:07 PM, you wrote:
TF>>> With IMAP I have only the headers on the computer. I want to open a
TF>>> mail and the attachments, it takes ages which I have to spend in front
TF>>> of the computer.
Hello Scuddy,
Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:49:07 PM, you wrote:
TF>> With IMAP I have only the headers on the computer. I want to open a
TF>> mail and the attachments, it takes ages which I have to spend in front
TF>> of the computer.
smn> Why not set it to download everything and then you have the
6/15/2012 8:24 PM
Hi Thomas,
On 6/15/2012 Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF> For actaul working, POP is best.
Yup!
- --
Paul
The Bat! v.4.2.44.2 on Windows 7 Pro 64 bit 6.1.7601
No IMAP No OTFE
Current beta is 5.1.6.4 | 'Using TBBETA'
Hello Thomas,
A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez typed on:
Friday, June 15, 2012 at 21:24:20 GMT +0700
TF> With IMAP I have only the headers on the computer. I want to open a
TF> mail and the attachments, it takes ages which I have to spend in front
TF> of the computer.
Why not set it to dow
Hello Dwight,
Thursday, May 3, 2012, 8:15:48 PM, you wrote:
>> Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
>> may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
DC> so is it faster when you download same data with POP than with IMAP?
DC> And will you be switching to POP
Hi,
> With IMAP, only the headers would be downloaded. For each message and
> especially their attachments, I would have to download while waiting
> in front of the computer.
Theoretically, no: There is the option to have TheBat download
everything at once.
Granted, the option hasn't worked li
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 9:28:57 PM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
>
>
> > Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
> > may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
>
> so is it faster when you download same data with POP than with IMAP?
> And will you be switching
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 9:28:57 PM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
> may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
so is it faster when you download same data with POP than with IMAP?
And will you be switching to POP for yo
Hello Paul,
Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 10:57:05 PM, you wrote:
>>> The message base is not local.
R>> Is that not the nature of the beast? If you want security, us POP
PVN> Yup!
Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
Hello Rick,
Monday, April 30, 2012, 7:50:41 AM, you wrote:
>> (Delayed sending already exists in v4).
R> Yes but it was finally FIXED by v5.
No problem, I am not using this feature.
R> As for lesser bugs, ONE irritant is that when exiting templates (I
R> use a couple of folder templates) AUTOW
5/2/2012 3:53 PM
Hi RS,
On 5/2/2012 RS (FEDARA) wrote:
RF> Last thing is that I do not have much trust in IMAP and leaving your
RF> data on some server ; even big companies lost customers data due to
RF> mistakes - you can call me old fashioned here but if it's lost I can
RF> only blame
Hi Tony,
TO> Luckily, most of us don't live in China and have to worry about
TO> security to that extent. Do you have TrueCrypt set up for hidden
TO> volumes and plausible deniability?
Only a small one for most important files (ex: passwords and user
names file) but I made it rath
Hello RS,
> Rest of the info was correct. It's about 2am here now and it's
> probably a high time for me to get to bed.
Luckily, most of us don't live in China and have to worry about
security to that extent. Do you have TrueCrypt set up for hidden
volumes and plausible deniability?
If y
5/1/2012 9:43 PM
Hi Raymund,
On 5/1/2012 Raymund Tump wrote:
RT> I can't see what's more to it.
RT> Any mail send can be read by someone along the way as long as it is
RT> not encrypted. If it is at rest at a server it might be easier to
RT> access for an attacker.
RT> if your mail is that in
5/1/2012 9:41 PM
Hi Vilius,
On 5/1/2012 Vilius Šumskas wrote:
VŠ> If an attacker is in possesion of mail server it doesn't matter if
VŠ> it's IMAP or POP. He will still be able to read your new email. IMAP
VŠ> is just a protocol to get email from the server. It is no more or less
VŠ> secu
Hi All,
> 1. True Crypt Encrypted HDD (Serpent-Twofish-AES with SHA512 hash)
> and encrypted not with a password but SHA-512 keyfile,
Mistyped here ; I wrote OS but meant other containers.
OS is AES encrypted with a password and containers are
Serpent-Twofish-AES encrypted (
Sveiki,
Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 6:37:48 PM, you wrote:
> 5/1/2012 11:36 AM
> Hi Tony,
> On 5/1/2012 Tony Hoare wrote:
>>> IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
>>> future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
TH>> What security issues do you s
Hi Raymund,
RA> if your mail is that interesting to an attacker he/she/it will
RA> find a way to get it from your computer as well...
You're right in your statement but cost vs value is a question here :)
In my case no one will try to get my data ; way too much work to do :)
1. True Crypt
5/1/2012 11:56 AM
Hi Rick,
On 5/1/2012 Rick wrote:
>> The message base is not local.
R> Is that not the nature of the beast? If you want security, us POP
Yup!
- --
Paul
The Bat! v.4.2.44.2 on Windows 7 Pro 64 bit 6.1.7601
No IMAP No OTFE
_
5/1/2012 11:56 AM
Hi Raymund,
On 5/1/2012 Raymund Tump wrote:
RT> Hi Paul,
TH>>> What security issues do you see in IMAP?
>> The message base is not local.
RT> That is a security issue only if you think your mails aren't save as
RT> long as they are on a server. This is also true for POP3
>>> IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
>>> future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
TH>> What security issues do you see in IMAP?
> The message base is not local.
Is that not the nature of the beast? If you want security, us POP
--
5/1/2012 11:36 AM
Hi Tony,
On 5/1/2012 Tony Hoare wrote:
>> IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
>> future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
TH> What security issues do you see in IMAP?
The message base is not local.
- --
Paul
The
Hello Paul,
> IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
> future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
What security issues do you see in IMAP?
--
Best regards,
Tonymailto:t...@parkinch.co.uk
The Bat! 5.0.36.2
4/30/2012 8:21 AM
Hi Rick,
On 4/29/2012 Rick wrote:
R> Filters work well
R> Delayed sending is AWESOME
R> Less bugs
R> Drag and drop images in HTML emails
R> I could go on - what specifically concerns you?
Filters in V4 work perfectly for me.
After 14 years of use the interface changes do noth
> What concerns me are bugs. Which one of the "less bugs" are your pet
> peeves?
> Anyway, thanks for the feature of drag&drop images. Can anybody else
> have a new feature they find useful?
Paste as plain text?
> (Delayed sending already exists in v4).
Yes but it was finally FIXED by v5.
As f
Hello Rick,
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 11:00:45 PM, you wrote:
>> 4/29/2012 10:19 AM
>> Hi Thomas,
>> On 4/29/2012 Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF>>> Over 100 filters though, that's why I am reluctant: If it ain't broke,
TF>>> don't fix it.
>> Precisely!
TF>>> Maybe it's time for a little prep-talk
> 4/29/2012 10:19 AM
> Hi Thomas,
> On 4/29/2012 Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF>> Over 100 filters though, that's why I am reluctant: If it ain't broke,
TF>> don't fix it.
> Precisely!
TF>> Maybe it's time for a little prep-talk again. In a nut-shell, why
TF>> should I (POP-user) upgrade to v5? I
4/29/2012 10:19 AM
Hi Thomas,
On 4/29/2012 Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF> Over 100 filters though, that's why I am reluctant: If it ain't broke,
TF> don't fix it.
Precisely!
TF> Maybe it's time for a little prep-talk again. In a nut-shell, why
TF> should I (POP-user) upgrade to v5? I am not only
Hello MAU,
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 2:40:53 PM, you wrote:
>> Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
>> whether you are using POP or IMAP.
M> I use a number of Incoming, Outgoing, Read and Replied filters (account
M> filters, not common) and they are all working fin
Raymund,
On 29-04-2012 09:04, you wrote in :
> I have a filter that moves a received message from an IMAP account to
> a common folder and afterwards set it to read.
> Move works fine. Changing the status doesn't.
Moving on IMAP works for me 40-60% of the time. Marking as read or assigning
colou
Hello Thomas,
> Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
> whether you are using POP or IMAP.
I use a number of Incoming, Outgoing, Read and Replied filters (account
filters, not common) and they are all working fine in my POP accounts.
--
Best regards,
Migue
Hallo Raymund,
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:04:13 +0200GMT (29-4-2012, 9:04 , where I
live), you wrote:
>> Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
>> whether you are using POP or IMAP.
RT> I have a filter that moves a received message from an IMAP account to
RT> a common
Hello Tbbeta,
There were some reports about filters not working correctly. I never
saw any fixes in the changelogs. Filters are crucial for me and the
reported problems are the main reason why I haven't upgraded to v5
yet.
Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
whet
48 matches
Mail list logo
