Hello Roelof Otten & everyone else,
on 09-Nov-2006 at 02:07 you (Roelof Otten) wrote:
> So Peter's wish could come true. One problem though. When you decide
> to download the last 300 messages, you could be picking up messages
> that have been downloaded previously.
Indeed. If you do not downloa
Hallo Alexander,
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:58:26 +0100GMT (8-11-2006, 18:58 , where I
live), you wrote:
ASK> Yes. Shouldn't make a difference if a program automatically issues the
ASK> commands one by one. With the STAT and LIST command you can determine
ASK> how many messages are on the server, and
Hello Vili & everyone else,
on 08-Nov-2006 at 21:00 you (Vili) wrote:
> I told you that it is possible to download X message only.
OK, you'll get a beer! ;-)
> Just think about the mail dispatcher. That does the same thing. Apply
> different stuff to different messages. That would be done here,
Hello Alexander,
> Hmmm... but then again, if its not about only partially downloading some
> messages *headers* ... since you know how many messages are on the
> server, you could just as well only download a portion of them...
> without downloading all the headers, either... (I
> just don't kno
Hello Benedict Allen & everyone else,
on 08-Nov-2006 at 02:21 you (Benedict Allen) wrote:
AK>> That functionality depends on the POP server, not all types of
AK>> servers support the TOP msg n command.
> I thought that TOP msg n command would only give you one message
> header at a time...
Yes.
Howdy Alexander,
Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 8:12:40 PM, Alexander wrotened:
>> Using Telnet and POP protocol requests, it is possible to download the
>> X newest (top X, I mean) messages. So, it IS possible to download the
>> newest X messages indeed.
AK> That functionality depends on the PO
Howdy Peter,
Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 7:55:03 PM, Peter wrotened:
RO As far as the newest 300 messages are concerned, could you do
RO something like that with the mail dispatcher? (I don't know,
RO didn't try it.)
>>> I would also have to download all headers first, so both ways don
Hello Alexander,
>> Using Telnet and POP protocol requests, it is possible to download the
>> X newest (top X, I mean) messages. So, it IS possible to download the
>> newest X messages indeed.
> That functionality depends on the POP server, not all types of servers
> support the TOP msg n command.
Hello Vili & everyone else,
on 06-Nov-2006 at 19:59 you (Vili) wrote:
> Using Telnet and POP protocol requests, it is possible to download the
> X newest (top X, I mean) messages. So, it IS possible to download the
> newest X messages indeed.
That functionality depends on the POP server, not all
Hi Eddie,
on Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:24:03 +0100GMT, you wrote:
RO>>> As far as the newest 300 messages are concerned, could you do
RO>>> something like that with the mail dispatcher? (I don't know,
RO>>> didn't try it.)
>> I would also have to download all headers first, so both ways don't
>> exactly
Dear Peter,
-->> Montag, 06. November 2006, 14:12:17:
RO>> As far as the newest 300 messages are concerned, could you do
RO>> something like that with the mail dispatcher? (I don't know,
RO>> didn't try it.)
> I would also have to download all headers first, so both ways don't
> exactly help
Hi Vili,
on Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:59:02 -0500GMT, you wrote:
PM>> I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM>> on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
V> Using Telnet and POP protocol requests, it is possible to download the
V> X newest (to
Hello Peter,
PM> I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM> on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
>
M>> Downloading headers first is the only thing you can do with POP protocol
M>> to achieve what you want. What you mentioned in your fir
Hello Peter,
PM> I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM> on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
M>> Downloading headers first is the only thing you can do with POP protocol
M>> to achieve what you want. What you mentioned in your first
Hi MAU,
on Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:35:34 +0100GMT (06.11.2006, 14:35 +0100GMT here),
you wrote:
PM I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
M> Downloading headers first is the only thing you can do wi
Hello Peter,
PM>>> I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM>>> on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
>
PM>>> Do you think, this is a wish worthwhile filing to BT?
>
RO>> Only the messages of the last x days would require you to download the
RO>
Hi Roelof,
on Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:32:54 +0100GMT (06.11.2006, 00:32 +0200GMT here),
you wrote:
PM>> I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM>> on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
PM>> Do you think, this is a wish worthwhile filing to BT?
R
Hallo Peter,
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:57 +0100GMT (5-11-2006, 18:52 , where I
live), you wrote:
PM> I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
PM> on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
PM> Do you think, this is a wish worthwhile filing to BT?
Onl
Hello Peter Meyns & everyone else,
on 05-Nov-2006 at 18:52 you (Peter Meyns) wrote:
> Do you think, this is a wish worthwhile filing to BT?
Wouldn't this be possible with a selective download filter?
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)
The only thing that stops God from send
Hi all,
I would like to be able to check for, say, the last 300 new messages
on the server instead of *all*. Or those of the last x days.
Background: I fired up Voyager today after a couple of weeks' rest,
and, of course, upon + it began to download all messages on
the servers, which is (at least
20 matches
Mail list logo
