Hi Simon,
Friday, September 12, 2008, 3:51:15 PM, Privateofcourse ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
> For discussion lists this is the best setting that I've found (+ save the
> view mode as 'expanded' so you're not forever clicking little +es) ...
Are you aware that once a root message is highlighte
Friday, September 12, 2008, 11:19:39 AM, Privateofcourse ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> This version doesn't seem to. The kludges/headers:
>
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Thread-Index: AckT/hHhbq2zQW3MQrCb7evKSGep5Q
Hallo MFPA,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:10:04 +0100GMT (12-9-2008, 21:10 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
>> Ouch! Not only does Outlook 'forget' to insert the msg-id, but the
>> intermediate servers also forget about that, according to the relevant
>> RFCs that should be done.
>> Anyway there's nothi
Hi
On Friday 12 September 2008 at 2:53:22 PM, in
, Roelof Otten wrote:
> Ouch! Not only does Outlook 'forget' to insert the msg-id, but the
> intermediate servers also forget about that, according to the relevant
> RFCs that should be done.
> Anyway there's nothing you can do about that.
Couldn
Hi
On Friday 12 September 2008 at 3:51:15 PM, in
, Privateofcourse
wrote:
> Okay, more accurately, to get around it I meant this:
> View Menu -
> | Sort by:
> - Received time
> | View Threads by:
> - Re
Hello MFPA,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:05:03 +0100 your time, you said:
>> I can of course thread by References and subject and received time
> How? The Bat! only gives me the following 6 choices for threading:-
Okay, more accurately, to get around it I meant this:
View Menu -
Hi
On Friday 12 September 2008 at 12:51:43 PM, in
, Privateofcourse
wrote:
> I can of course thread by References and subject and received time
How? The Bat! only gives me the following 6 choices for threading:-
None
References (standard)
Subject
From
To
References + Subject
--
B
itch to thread on references and
subject.
P> So, without Outlook providing and initial message-ID TB! won't thread the
P> messages. I can of course thread by References and subject and received time
P> and hope that the right messages are threaded together, but still...
But you thought of
eference any of the the previous emails
And so forth, and so forth...
So, without Outlook providing and initial message-ID TB! won't thread the
messages. I can of course thread by References and subject and received time
and hope that the right messages are threaded together, but stil
Hallo Simon,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:19:39 +0100GMT (12-9-2008, 12:19 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
P> Yes, you're correct. I just checked and the emails and they don't contain
P> those normal headers. However, they do contain "Thread-Index:", which seems
P> to be a Microsoft specific header th
Hello Roelof,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:14:42 +0200 your time, you said:
P>> [...snip...] when replying to messages sent to me by people using
P>> Microsoft Office Outlook my replies aren't threaded. [...snip...]
> That's because the replies sent to you don't contain a References or
> an In-Reply
Hallo Simon,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:38:08 +0100GMT (12-9-2008, 9:38 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
P> I have noticed that when replying to messages sent to me by people using
P> Microsoft Office Outlook my replies aren't threaded. That is, the reply
P> isn't 'attached' to the original replie
rt the 'standard way' which is by references and received time. Has
anyone had this experience or similar? I've only just noticed this
behaviour lately. It is very annoying I might add.
--
Simon (Privateofcourse)
#1104. Qualm Dry Wore Sis ¶
T
Hallo TBUDL,
I'm just wondering. Would anybody know of a tool or a plug-in that
allows you to to alter the time/date in the Received: column, like
setting it to the most recent Received: header in the message?
--
Groetjes, Roelof
Sharewear (n.) -- Used clothing.
http://www.voormijalleen.n
Hi Joe,
Monday, July 21, 2003, 3:16:40 AM, you wrote:
Joe> Recently I found a problem when using TB. We need to handle
Joe> emails according to the time frame. Say, I will need to reply to
Joe> the emails arrive at our mail server from 9am to 3pm, my workmate
Joe> needs to reply from 3pm to 10pm.
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, 6:00:50 PM, Ricardo M. Reyes wrote:
DK>> Like when I accidentaly hit delete button and move message to Trash
DK>> - digging it back from the Trash is frustrating experience.
RMR> Well, at last I understand what you want!
RMR> You want a "Time of entry to this folder"
Hi Bill:
BM> On Wed 23-Jul-03 5:00pm -0400, Ricardo Marte wrote:
>> Yes! A "Received in Server Time" would be perfect as an added
>> feature! Where is the wishlist located?
BM> Start here: http://www.ritlabs.com/bt and, after you've logged in,
BM> "Switch" to "The Bat! Wishes" to add your featur
>> I am at a loss to understand the difference between Received order
>> and Database order. Except that "Database order" would logically
>> ignore received order when moving messages into a different folder..
DK> Yes, that's it. Sometimes I really would like to be able to move
DK> message to ano
On Wed 23-Jul-03 5:00pm -0400, Ricardo Marte wrote:
RMR>> I would suggest that you add this request to the Bugtrack database (in
RMR>> the wishlist) but not as a "rectification" of the received time,
RMR>> because I think that it's ok as it is now. I would ask f
Hi Ricardo:
RMR> I would suggest that you add this request to the Bugtrack database (in
RMR> the wishlist) but not as a "rectification" of the received time,
RMR> because I think that it's ok as it is now. I would ask for a third
RMR> Timestamp column in the list: &qu
would it? :)
I don't understand what you are asking for in that paragraph, but I
guess it has nothing to do with "Received-in-the-Server Time". Am I
right?
If you want the option to sort messages based on the order of entry to
TB's database, then sort by "Received Time"
Hello Allie,
Wednesday, July 23, 2003, 6:42:58 AM, you wrote:
AM> When downloading mail from the server, TB! will always download the
AM> mail the server received first, followed by the mail it received last.
What happens if the server goes offline for whatever reason and then
receives mail from
> I neglected to comment on this part.
> Sorting by received time will mess you up when a message takes a
> long time to reach your POP server. So, if you're taking part in a
> discussion, like on TBUDL, it's not unusual for a response to reach
> your POP server before the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, 2:43:47 PM, Marck wrote:
>> But TB! still lacks "sort by database order" feature which I often
>> miss (sometimes I move messages around folders and really wish to
>> see them sorted that way).
> I am at a loss to understa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Domagoj,
@23-Jul-2003, 13:55 +0200 (12:55 UK time) Domagoj Klepac said to
Allie:
DK>>> Order in which messages are downloaded from server and stored in
DK>>> TB!s message database...
>> This has always been what TB! d
orting by received time will mess you up when a message takes a long
time to reach your POP server. So, if you're taking part in a discussion,
like on TBUDL, it's not unusual for a response to reach your POP server
before the original message.
Furthermore, using the POP server received
rong
DK> order.
DK> But TB! still lacks "sort by database order" feature which I often
DK> miss (sometimes I move messages around folders and really wish to
DK> see them sorted that way).
Hmmm. I just switch to received time sorting then. It will reflect
the order in whi
lace in database". Simplest of all. It shouldn't be
DK>> _that hard_ to implement, would it? :)
> This has always been what TB! does for me with received time.
> When downloading mail from the server, TB! will always download the
> mail the server received first, followed by
It shouldn't be _that hard_
DK> to implement, would it? :)
This has always been what TB! does for me with received time.
When downloading mail from the server, TB! will always download the
mail the server received first, followed by the mail it received last.
I therefore find it a lot more ac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, 11:31:25 PM, Ricardo wrote:
DK>> This pisses me off with TB too. In all mail clients before TB, I
DK>> sorted my mail by time of arrival - time of arrival on server. If I
DK>> sort in any other way, by time created or by time
ifferent from POP3, although for the user might seem
like a regular account. I wouldn't be surprised to see that Outlook
(in that case) shows the time of arrival to hotmail as the received
time of the message. But that's a proprietary protocol exclusive to
Microsoft, and no one else i
Hello Domagoj,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:53:13 +0200 GMT (22/07/03, 01:53 +0700 GMT),
Domagoj Klepac wrote:
>> Your POP server should receive the mail just a few minutes after the
>> "Created" time. So you could all agree to use the "Created" time as
>> your cut-off time.
> Nope. Created time is ti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve M. Sawczyn, [SMS] wrote:
SMS> I sincerely appologize, I definitely didn't intend to violate the list
SMS> rules.
I didn't think so either. It's OK. Apology more than accepted. :)
SMS> Should responses be indented?
That's purely up to you. Our
On Mon 21-Jul-03 5:46pm -0400, Steve M. Sawczyn wrote:
DK>> This pisses me off with TB too. In all mail clients before TB, I
DK>> sorted my mail by time of arrival - time of arrival on server. If I
DK>> sort in any other way, by time created or by time received, I always
DK>> seem to read replies
AM> This posting violated the list rules regarding top posting.
I sincerely appologize, I definitely didn't intend to violate the list
rules.
AM> We would much prefer if you quote just that much of the message to which
AM> you're replying, so we know what it is you're referring to, and then
AM>
Hello Domagoj,
DK> This pisses me off with TB too. In all mail clients before TB, I
DK> sorted my mail by time of arrival - time of arrival on server. If I
DK> sort in any other way, by time created or by time received, I always
DK> seem to read replies to messages before messages themselves.
Tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve M. Sawczyn, [SMS] wrote:
SMS> Perhaps you could configure your mail server to allow Imap access? In
SMS> this way, messages aren't actually downloaded, so your coligue could
SMS> have access.
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to a
and "Created". Personally, I don't
> think that "Received" time is necessary since it just indicates the
> time when you download the emails from your POP3 server, thus, it
> only depends on your frequency of fetching emails from server. And
> the "Created&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, July 21, 2003, 2:36:38 PM, Thomas wrote:
>> And the "Created" time is just the time of the sender's computer
>> when he/she sends out the email.
> Your POP server should receive the mail just a few minutes after the
> "Created" time. So you
9:16 +0200, where I
RO> live), you wrote:
JL>> I wonder if the current "Received" time could be rectified to the
JL>> time when the emails arrive at the mail server. The "Created" time
JL>> should remain.
RO> That wouldn't be a rectification. After
Hello Joe,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:16:40 +0800 GMT (21/07/03, 14:16 +0700 GMT),
Joe Lee wrote:
> And the "Created" time is just the time of the sender's computer
> when he/she sends out the email.
Your POP server should receive the mail just a few minutes after the
"Created" time. So you could al
Hi Roelof,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, at 09:45:47 [GMT +0200] (which was 15:45 where I
live) you wrote:
RO> you could check for new mail every minute, that way keeping the
RO> received time at the server and the client practically the same.
Thanks. But I want it technically the same.
RO>
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:24:17 +0300
--
Ciprian
> A "peeping Tom" is a guy who is too lazy to go to the beach.
[snip]
JL> TB won't show the time when the email arrives at the POP3 server.
JL> There are two types of time listed in TB, "Received" and
JL&g
Hallo Joe,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:16:40 +0800GMT (21-7-03, 9:16 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
JL> I wonder if the current "Received" time could be rectified to the
JL> time when the emails arrive at the mail server. The "Created" time
JL> should remain.
Tha
Personally, I don't think that "Received" time is necessary since it just
indicates the time when you download the emails from your POP3 server, thus, it only
depends on your frequency of fetching emails from server. And the "Created" time is
just the time of the send
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Susanne,
On 16 November 2000 at 13:01:10 -0800 (which was 21:01 where I
live) Susanne wrote and made these points:
>> Why not post a sample RFC header for one of the German messages. We
>> could examine it and tell if there's an inordinate delay
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:01:28 -0800, Susanne wrote these
comments about 'Received time':
S> Thanks for checking this out for me.
No problem. :=)
S> I have a few more messages like this, but I assume it's probably
S> the
Hi A. Curtis Martin,
Thursday, November 16, 2000, 1:47:19 PM, you wrote:
> However, the senders creation time is one day ahead of the servers
> receive time. Somebodies time is erroneous and guess which one I think
> it is the senders of course. :=) You need to ask the sender of this
> messa
local mail servers received time is:
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:26:04 -0800 (PST)
While the senders creation time is:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:29:19 -0800
The times are completely out of whack, because the creation time is
ahead of your local mail server re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:01:10 -0800, Susanne thoughtfully wrote
the following:
S> Of course, now I can't find any of the German messages that did
S> this. All of the current ones behave normally.
S> Here is one of several US mails that claim to have b
Hi A.,
Wednesday, November 15, 2000, 5:07:05 PM, you wrote:
> Why not post a sample RFC header for one of the German messages. We
> could examine it and tell if there's an inordinate delay with respect to
> its reaching your local mail server.
Of course, now I can't find any of the German mess
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 November, 2000, 8:51 PM, I saw Susanne's comments made on
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:43:14 -0800, and thought I'd add my $0.02 worth:
>> Why not post a sample RFC header for one of the German messages. We
>> could examine it and tell if there
Hi A.,
Wednesday, November 15, 2000, 5:07:05 PM, you wrote:
> Why not post a sample RFC header for one of the German messages. We
> could examine it and tell if there's an inordinate delay with respect to
> its reaching your local mail server.
If you explain to me what an RFC header is and how
ter is wrong the message times will be wrong and not
sort accurately with other messages especially if they're involved in a
thread. If the senders PC clock is not properly set and off by even an
hour, it could mess up the message sorting for an e-mail based
conversation. TB!'s received ti
Hello Susanne,
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 at 16:24:14 GMT -0800 (which was 4:24 PM
where I live) witnesses say Susanne typed:
> This doesn't seem to work for messages from Germany. I get a lot
> of them, mixed in with mail from the US and several other
> countries and the german ones are always out
Hi A.,
Wednesday, November 15, 2000, 2:31:47 PM, you wrote:
> The time zones shouldn't affect the sorting because the client
> compensates for this by taking the time zones into consideration when
> sorting. TB! actually reflects this in the creation times it places in
> the message list and the
On 15-11-2000 at 18:37:19GMT -0500 (which was 23:37 where I live)
A. Curtis Martin wrote regarding the subject of "Received time"
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:11:58 +, Manfred Ell wrote these
> words of wisdom:
> [..]
ME>> This is exactly the reason why I use the C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:11:58 +, Manfred Ell wrote these
words of wisdom:
[..]
ME> This is exactly the reason why I use the Creation-Time on the TB
ME> lists!! The Received time doesn't work (for me) well enough here.
Why not sort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:49:53 -0800, David Tod Sigafoos wrote these
comments about 'Received time':
ACM>> Personally, I prefer the received time as TB! defines it. After-all, it
ACM>> doesn't really matter to me when the
On 15-11-2000 at 14:49:53GMT -0800 (which was 22:49 where I live)
David Tod Sigafoos wrote regarding the subject of "Received time"
ACM>> Personally, I prefer the received time as TB! defines it. After-all, it
ACM>> doesn't really matter to me when the server recei
ACM> Personally, I prefer the received time as TB! defines it. After-all, it
ACM> doesn't really matter to me when the server received the message because
ACM> I haven't personally received it until I have downloaded it. Knowing
ACM> when the mail hit my inbox is theref
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 November, 2000, 5:24 PM, I saw Susanne's comments made on
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:00:05 -0800, and thought I'd add my $0.02 worth:
S> Just a question about the time showing up in the message list as the
S> received time. I
Hi,
Just a question about the time showing up in the message list as
the received time.
I was used to and prefer it to be the time it was received on the
server, but with The Bat it seems to be the time I download the
mail.
Is there a way to change this?
I tried sorting it by the time created
are overwritten by
> The Bat.
>
> My way is to export this message, edit this with a Text Editor and
> import this back :-) But then i lose the Received Time. :-(
Yes, that's a problem whenever importing mail. For example, if a
message base becomes corrupt and you use the repair
64 matches
Mail list logo
