The MacWorld article Barbara mentions is available online. <http://www.macworld.com/2004/02/secrets/mobilemac/>
This strategy is not suitable for my needs, since you end up with the same mail database on two machines. This may suit many people, but is not suitable if you want to minimize the amount of data stored on a small(er) hard disk. (My PM user folder is 500 MB, which would occupy 1/8 of the available space on the PB.) I would like to do is use a SHARED database on my PB when it is connected to my home LAN, but use Apple mail to send and receive messages when away from home. Setting up AM to leave messages on the server, so that PM can download them later, is easy. What I am not so clear about is the best way to share the PM database and application folders. Has anybody here succeeded in setting up PM so that the same database is used by two different Macs? Mark -- Mark Smith, Osaka, Japan. <http://www2.odn.ne.jp/hab26240//footy/grampalog/index.html> At 2:23 PM on Thu, Jan 29, 2004, Barbara Needham wrote: >Mikael Byström on 1/15/04 said > >>Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> >>>The way I keep my mail up on more than one computer is... >>> >>>Set the delete messages from server date far enough out >>>that I collect copies on all my computers by checking >>>for new mail before they are deleted. >> >>I couldn't use this method for several of my accounts because of >>PowerMail insists for some reason to keep redownloading the same messages >>if I check it again from the same source, resulting in myriads of >>duplicate messages. >>So I delete messages when I have downloaded them, rendering then >>unaccesible for other instances of PowerMail that I might want to use. >> >>Otherwise, if one lacks my problem, which by the way is not present on >>every account, your method is fine. But it would be easy to miss out one >>of the instances of the PM DB, if you break your routines once in a while. > >The latest issue of MacWord has a method for keeping mails synchronized >on more than one computer. I didn't actually read it thoroughly enough to >internalize it... but its the February 2004 issue if someone wants to >look into it. >-- >Barbara Needham > >
