In reply to :
DAC> On Sunday, October 2, 2005, 8:45:02 AM, Stuart Cuddy wrote:
>> 3) The counts that show are odd and inconsistent. Sometimes the
[..]
Shouldn't we be talking about the latest beta?
--
Best regards,
Goncalo Farias
The eyes of wolves are flowers fertilized in evil brains.
__
Hi Curtis,
Am Sunday, October 2, 2005, 4:02:19 AM, schriebst du:
> I've been running v3.61.09 beta all day without interruption. Things
> have been quite fine. No hiccups at all really. The main good point is
> that I haven't had to restart because the connection has flaked out on
> me.
Connecti
Hello Curtis,
A reminder of what Curtis typed on:
Sunday, October 02, 2005 at 09:42:32 GMT -0500
C> This problem is easily avoided by avoiding a double action as you do.
C> For instance, for TBBETA:
C> Filter one - Header contains 'reply-to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
C> AND Header does
Hello Curtis,
A reminder of what Curtis typed on:
Sunday, October 02, 2005 at 08:25:56 GMT -0500
>> Are you referring here to TB! or Mulberry?
C> TB! of course. :)
The problems I still have with IMAP are:
1) Filtering still only works on the first level. In other words if I
have a filter th
Hello Curtis,
A reminder of what Curtis typed on:
Sunday, October 02, 2005 at 06:49:37 GMT -0500
C> It's now running a full 24 hours uninterrupted and IMAP remains well
C> behaved.
C> mem usage 24 MB
C> Peak mem usage 28MB
C> VM usage 35MB
Are you referring here to TB! or Mulberry?
--
B
Hello Curtis,
Saturday, October 1, 2005, 9:02:19 PM, you wrote:
> On 9/24/2005 at 2:55:32 PM [GMT -0500], Kevin Amazon wrote:
>> BTW, IMAP IS NOT hard stuff. The RFC is clear and concise and that is
>> the reason clients such as Thunderbird and Mulberry (and even Outlook)
>> are pretty flawless
Hello Clive,
> This was my feeling until I returned from holiday this morning to find
> that Cyrusoft and Mulberry have gone into receivership. No more
> Mulberry by the look of it. Details here: http://www.cyrusoft.com
How the heck a small, one-product software company can go bankrupt? I
mean, i
Hello Curtis,
Monday, September 26, 2005, 7:47:54 AM, you wrote:
C> Using a FastMail account. Plain IMAP from work and IMAPs from home.
I am also using Fastmail and also have a Smarter Mail account through
Gearhost to compare.
C> I don't really note any difference in IMAP of recently. Things
C>
Hello Keith,
Sunday, September 25, 2005, 10:09:15 PM, you wrote:
KR> Unfortunately, following the advice to downgrade to 3.60.1 didn't
KR> help me. It appears as though one of the later betas may have
KR> made some kind of a configuration change that resulted in this
KR> behavior.
I wonder i
Hello Greg,
A reminder of what Greg Strong typed on:
Saturday, September 24, 2005 at 09:56:04 GMT -0500
GS> Hello Stuart,
GS> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:20:16 -0500 GMT(9/24/2005, 7:20 AM -0500 GMT),
GS> per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stuart Cuddy wrote:
>> I think I will try to download 3.60.1 if it
Hello Clive,
A reminder of what Clive Taylor typed on:
Saturday, September 24, 2005 at 08:39:18 GMT +0100
CT> It's a shame, really. There was just one version (3.60.1) which
CT> performed perfectly here under IMAP, all the others have been dogs for
CT> me!
I knew that one of the past versions
11 matches
Mail list logo
