Hi, Not. I just want to make it clear understanding for my problem.
Regards, Vijay On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:00 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Send evolution-list mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of evolution-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: evo 2.30.1.2 tasks have mind of their own (George H) > 2. Re: Thoughts on one process-per window + state recovery on > crash? (Matthew Barnes) > 3. Re: Slow decryption of encrypted emails (Milan Crha) > 4. Re: Evolution-Mail handicaps ! (Adam Tauno Williams) > 5. Re: evo 2.30.1.2 tasks have mind of their own (Milan Crha) > 6. Re: mail client application (Patrick O'Callaghan) > 7. Re: (no subject) (Patrick O'Callaghan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:41:41 +0300 > From: George H <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] evo 2.30.1.2 tasks have mind of their own > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Milan Crha <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 10:51 +0300, George H wrote: > >> I am using the Exchange MAPI plugin, my calendar is not connected to > >> free/busy publishing site but it does get synchronized from the > >> exchange server that we are using. > >> > >> Is there any other information or tests that I can provide / conduct > >> to help debug this problem. > > > > ? ? ? ?Hi, > > unfortunately not. Microsoft Exchange server doesn't support time set on > > Tasks, it can hold only dates (try setup a task in Outlook). There is > > nothing evolution-mapi can do with it, because even we would find some > > workaround, then for interoperability reasons it would be "for nothing", > > because other clients wouldn't understand our workaround. > > > > See [1] for more tech information. > > ? ? ? ?Bye, > > ? ? ? ?Milan > > > > [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc815922.aspx > > > > Ah ok, thanks for sharing that. So this is a specific MAPI issue I > take it. If I was using a different connector then I guess I would not > have this same problem. > > Well I guess I will no longer set tasks that are 1 day long unless > they span more than 24 hours. > > Thanks for the help. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:24:09 -0400 > From: Matthew Barnes <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] Thoughts on one process-per window + state > recovery on crash? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 15:58 +1000, Nick Jenkins wrote: > > So I guess I really have two questions: > > 1) State recovery: Would it make sense to have Evo restore all open > > windows on reopening after a crash, in the same way that (say) Firefox > > restores all open tabs? > > That's actually near the top of my to-do list. Right now all we do is > save the most recently used view (mail, calendar, etc.) to a single > GConf key. Obviously that breaks down if you're using more than one > window. > > Proper session saving involves maintaining a key file, similar to a > Windows .ini file, containing a group per open window, and each group > holds enough state information about a window to reasonably restore it > on the next session. > > This would also let you shut down your computer with Evolution still > running, and Evolution would appear as you left it when you log back in. > > > > 2) Crash impact reduction via process isolation: Would it make sense to > > have a separate process for each window, such that a crash inside one > > window takes down just that one window, whilst leaving the rest of the > > app intact? > > Evolution actually did work much like that in the early, early days. > See the "Why We Need It" section of a status report I wrote last year > about our Bonobo removal: http://mbarnes.livejournal.com/2606.html > > Implementing a large, complex, tightly-integrated, multi-purpose > application is enough of a PITA when everything is in one process. > Trying to implement that kind of tight integration via inter-process > communication is just unwieldy. I believe that's what was found the > first time around, and I'm not all that anxious to return to that model. > > I think the reason Chrome can get away with it is because in a web > browser, each tab or each window is more or less autonomous. You don't > have the tight integration of a PIM application between Chrome's tabs > and windows -- other than perhaps user preferences -- so a multi-process > model makes a lot more sense there. > > For us, I think splitting remote storage management and local caching > off from the graphical front-end as we do for contact and calendar data > is still the most sensible approach and I'd like to see that applied to > email some day. Reducing Evolution to a graphical front-end that just > talks to D-Bus services and doesn't do any storage management itself I > think would go a long way towards the crash reducing process isolation > you're after. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:44:12 +0200 > From: Milan Crha <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] Slow decryption of encrypted emails > Message-ID: <1277207052.2654.15.ca...@madtux> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 09:06 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > What can I do to make Evolution use the performance that is available? > > Hi, > it was a bug in evolution-data-server, which is fixed in 2.30.x, if I > recall correctly. > Bye, > Milan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:46:40 -0400 > From: Adam Tauno Williams <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] Evolution-Mail handicaps ! > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 01:04 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 01:45 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > > Dear Developers, > > This is not a developers list, it's a users list. > > > too many not understandable Password-Windows appear, prevent and > > > defeat the use under UBUNTU-OS v.9.04. > > > What is all this about ? > > > e.g.: Keyring-Password ? ; SMTP-Password ? ; Key-Password ? ; > > > Authentifikation-Password ? > > > Why not let the USER deside wether to use a Password or not. > > Do you think Evolution is responsible for you having to choose all these > > passwords? How about Ubuntu itself? Or your mail server? I only see a > > single password box and if I used Gnome rather than KDE I wouldn't even > > see that. > > I use GNOME & Evolution. I don't see myriad password dialogs. > > Perhaps Ubuntu, or your installation, has broken keyring support. > -- > Adam Tauno Williams <[email protected]> LPIC-1, Novell CLA > <http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com> > OpenGroupware, Cyrus IMAPd, Postfix, OpenLDAP, Samba > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:50:47 +0200 > From: Milan Crha <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] evo 2.30.1.2 tasks have mind of their own > Message-ID: <1277207447.2654.17.ca...@madtux> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 13:41 +0300, George H wrote: > > If I was using a different connector then I guess I would not > > have this same problem. > > Hi, > nope, it's a *server* issue, not a client issue. That's how I understand > the MSDN doc, at least. > Bye, > Milan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:26:20 -0430 > From: Patrick O'Callaghan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] mail client application > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 11:36 +0200, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: > > Was that intentional? If so, it's really, really, bad netiquette. > > Was what intentional? It's also good netiquette to make your complaint > understandable. > > poc > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:27:52 -0430 > From: Patrick O'Callaghan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Evolution] (no subject) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Please don't hijack threads. If you want everyone to see your message, > send it again as a new post. Don't just reply to some unrelated message > (even if you change the Subject line it's still the same thread). > > poc > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > evolution-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list > > > End of evolution-list Digest, Vol 59, Issue 30 > ********************************************** _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list [email protected] To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
