Hello Curtis,
Thursday, September 1, 2005, 7:51:43 AM, you wrote:
C> Hmmm. Did you run the filters again?
C> What happens if you manually assign the colour?
The saga continues. They have all gone back to the red color group.
I must be missing something, either that or IMAP has something against
On Thursday, September 01, 2005, at 07:42 AM, Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> Hmm, I made this change and when my reply arrived it was colored
> correctly so I thought the problem was solved. So I tried refiltering
> this whole conversation and it goes like this. All message colors are
> changed to the corr
On Thursday, September 01, 2005, at 07:26 AM, Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> Yes it all depends on how you do things. I always read my messages
> from tbbeta by viewing "Unread Messages Only" so I don't have any
> big jumps from message to message and can usually see when a green
> color group is in the qu
Hello Curtis,
Thursday, September 1, 2005, 4:59:21 AM, you wrote:
C> Though it's a tad less useful than when I used to use the ticker. I
C> landed on this your message and the colouring didn't show since the
C> message is selected. I could have jumped to the next unread somewhere
C> further down t
Hello Stuart,
A reminder of what Stuart Cuddy typed on:
Thursday, September 01, 2005 at 07:26:09 GMT -0500
C>> For first filter:
C>> reply-to header contains 'tbudl@'
C>> and header does not match 'in-reply-to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
SC> I will give this a try, although it is partially my intent
On Wednesday, August 31, 2005 at 7:59:12 AM [GMT -0500], Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> Welcome to the world of color. :)
Hey, hey, hey. :)
Though it's a tad less useful than when I used to use the ticker. I
landed on this your message and the colouring didn't show since the
message is selected. I could
Hello Curtis,
A reminder of what Curtis typed on:
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 21:34:56 GMT -0500
C> Yes. This is what I'm doing and it's working.
Welcome to the world of color. :)
Now that you have it working I wonder if you have the time to run a
little test. My filters automatically set th
On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 8:57:34 PM [GMT -0500], Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> As I mentioned in my previous message I believe that regex is enabled
> by using the condition "Match". I do not however understand regex very
> well.
And there lies one of the reasons I need the colour grouping. I tend
Hello Curtis,
Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 8:24:23 PM, you wrote:
> I had mentioned two issues. I need a regex to catch the correct string
> in the 'in-reply-to' header. I no longer see an option to enable regular
> expression matching for strings. I don't know if regular expressions are
> always us
On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 10:45:11 AM [GMT -0500], Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> Do you have an update yet on your attempts. I have had no luck yet in
> getting my color group for "to and from me" to stick. I can get my
> tbbeta and tbudl color groups to stick.
Nothing so far.
I've set up the filte
Hello Curtis,
Friday, August 26, 2005, 9:16:45 AM, you wrote:
C> I've decided to give this a try. However, two things I'm not sure of
C> and I've checked the documentation for what it's worth.
Do you have an update yet on your attempts. I have had no luck yet in
getting my color group for "to and
Hello Curtis,
Friday, August 26, 2005, 9:16:45 AM, you wrote:
C> - In the filter setup dialog what's the 'Tag:' field for? What does
C> one put there?
I believe 9Val said it was so you could add a tag to a message that
could then be used to filter on later, but I have no idea how to use
it.
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:37 AM, Stuart Cuddy wrote:
> Finally got a chance to give this a try and it works quite well. (that
> is after my slow Win98 machine finished syncing all the messages in my
> TB folder). So now all my TB mail is sent to my TB folder by the
> server and then its co
Hello Curtis,
Thursday, August 25, 2005, 2:54:00 PM, you wrote:
> Odd. Could it be that you haven't similarly assigned the colours to
> when the messages are read as opposed to when they are unread?
No I have been trying to catch 9Val's attention on this, and at one
point I thought he had said
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 08:33 AM, Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> Yes and no. I filter firstly by tbbeta (red)or tbudl (blue) and then
> whether or not it was TO or From me (green). My colors for the lists
> stick while the green color gets set and then changes, more or less
> once I start viewing
Hello Curtis,
A reminder of what Curtis typed on:
Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 07:54:05 GMT -0500
C> That much? I find the performance hit using synchronisation is
C> greater. Here, loading a message body typically takes about 1 second
C> if that much. The larger bodies (HTML etc.) take under
On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 04:17 PM, Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> OK, new theory. I had turned off synchronization completely and
> everything seemed to run a bit more smoothly. Only problem was every
> time I clicked on a message it had to be downloaded before I could
> read it. Even with high sp
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 06:06 AM, Paul Van Noord
wrote:
> It seems to me that server-side filtering should be the primary method
> of filtering and only client-side sub-filtering when truly necessary.
Correct! This is what I do and I've been without performance issues
for a long time. On
On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 01:53 PM, Stuart Cuddy
wrote:
> If you look under this you will see "Manage IMAP Folders". This is
> where I have turned off all Syncronization. I'm not sure what this
> will do with the server software you are connected to, but here it
> seems to speed things up
Hello Clive,
Thursday, August 25, 2005, 1:31:15 AM, you wrote:
>> Any validity to this theory or is it completely out to lunch?
CT> I can't confirm Stuart. I use the same servers and mail service that
CT> Curtis does but I don't filter all my mail from my Inbox and, at the
CT> moment, it contains
> Your approach to this seems the most logical to me.
And to me! The real advantage is that whether I choose to view my mail
using TB, another client or the server's web interface, all the
folders are identical, all achieved without putting strain on my
computer.
--
Regards,
Clive Taylor
TheBat!
8/25/2005 6:57 AM
Hi Clive,
On 8/25/2005 Clive Taylor wrote:
CT> I can't confirm Stuart. I use the same servers and mail service that
CT> Curtis does but I don't filter all my mail from my Inbox and, at the
CT> moment, it contains over 2,000 messages. I do use FastMail's serverside
CT> filterin
> Any validity to this theory or is it completely out to lunch?
I can't confirm Stuart. I use the same servers and mail service that
Curtis does but I don't filter all my mail from my Inbox and, at the
moment, it contains over 2,000 messages. I do use FastMail's serverside
filtering as much as pos
Hello Keith et al,
A reminder of what Keith Russell typed on:
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 19:28:58 GMT -0600
KR> How about others who saw a reduction in performance with 3.60.02?
KR> Is this still a problem for some?
OK, new theory. I had turned off synchronization completely and
everything
Hello Greg,
A reminder of what Greg Strong typed on:
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 12:53:13 GMT -0500
GS> What do you mean by 'RMB'?
Right Mouse Button
GS> From the main windows menu 'Account' | 'IMAP Commands'
If you look under this you will see "Manage IMAP Folders". This is
where I have
Hello all,
Wednesday, August 24, 2005, Greg Strong wrote:
> Hello Stuart,
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:18:10 -0500 GMT(8/24/2005, 11:18 AM -0600 GMT),
> per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stuart Cuddy wrote:
GS>>> Do you mean in Account Properties | Options | Mailbox checking?
>> Actually no. I mean RMB on
Hello Greg,
A reminder of what Greg Strong typed on:
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 11:01:03 GMT -0500
GS> per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stuart Cuddy wrote:
>> I think I just figured out my problem. I had turned Synchronize on for
>> all folders to do a test for Vili and I think it was causing my
Hello Keith,
> So how's TB! working for you now, with 3.60.02?
My main gripe with TB all along has been it's core performance and
speed with IMAP making it unusable in the real world. Until this
particular beta it's not been unusual to have to wait for a full
minute for the message base to sort i
Hello, Stuart.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 12:17:44 PM, you wrote:
> I am not sure what has happened here, but my IMAP is
> actually slower than it was. I keep getting the "no message loaded"
> message and it sits and waits until I get it to do something else and
> then select the message again.
Hello, Clive.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 12:28:26 AM, you wrote:
> I was on the verge of uninstalling TB! from my machines and
> concentrating on Mulberry, which I find suits my needs very well. I
> might just delay that for a little while though.
So how's TB! working for you now, with 3.60.02
Hello Stuart,
Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 1:17:44 PM, you wrote:
SC> Confirmed. I am not sure what has happened here, but my IMAP is
SC> actually slower than it was. I keep getting the "no message loaded"
SC> message and it sits and waits until I get it to do something else and
SC> then select the m
Hello Keith Russell & everyone else,
on 23-Aug-2005 at 20:28 you (Keith Russell) wrote:
> No, I mean two messages with the subject "Wahoo! I'm back", which I
> typed and sent separately, and both of which eventually showed up in both
> Sent Mail and in my TBBETA f
message existed. Eventually, of
>> course, both showed up here, as well as in the Sent Mail folder.
>> So that's why you see two messages with the same subject. :-)
> You mean this message that I'm replying to and the last one about IMAP
> being much better for you?
No, I mea
Hello Keith,
Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 1:12:17 PM, you wrote:
KR> Thanks. It really is interesting to see how differently it
KR> performs for different users, and how dramatically different are
KR> the consequences of any changes.
Confirmed. I am not sure what has happened here, but my IMAP is
ac
Hello, Curtis.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 4:42:52 AM, you wrote:
> IMAP is behaving about the same for me as for the last several releases.
> But I'm happy to see that things have improved dramatically for those
> who still found it unusable. :)
Thanks. It really is interesting to see how diff
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 1:43:04 AM [GMT -0500], Keith Russell
wrote:
> Sorry about the duplicate post. It appears there are still some
> glitches to be ironed out
Unless the listserv got rid of it, I haven't seen a duplicate post from
you.
> I wrote the message, then minimized it (or
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 1:00:09 AM [GMT -0500], Keith Russell
wrote:
> Then, couple of days ago, I started reading raves about IMAP
> performance in 3.60.02, so I decided to try AGAIN and installed the
> new beta on Saturday. (Still hadn't ever been able to give this
> addiction up!) I've b
Sorry about the duplicate post. It appears there are still some
glitches to be ironed out
I wrote the message, then minimized it (or so I thought), and
after working in the main window for a minute, looked for my edit
window, and it was gone. I couldn't find it anywhere: not in
Outbox, not in
> I haven't seen a post from any of the programmers saying what they
> did with IMAP in this beta, but whatever they did, it worked. It's
> still not quite where I'd like to see it, but it's USABLE.
I agree, it would be nice if Ritlabs could say what they've done. Of
course, there's always the pos
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
Well, I have my fingers crossed. :-)
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to try again, and after several
hours of fighting with TB!, I was about to post a long message
about the latest IMAP episode. I never got around to it.
Then, couple of days ago, I started reading rave
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
I have my fingers crossed. :-)
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to try a supposedly stable TB!
release. After a couple of hours of fighting it, I intended to
post the details of my latest disappointing episode, but never
got around to it.
Then, a couple of days ago, I s
41 matches
Mail list logo
