powermail-discuss Digest #2553 - Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Bruce Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Marlyse Comte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PowerMail forum?
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail forum?
by "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Tim Lapin (sympatico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Bruce Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Marlyse Comte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Ultimate Spam
by "Alan Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Barbara Needham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
restoring folder list in the left pane
by "Joe Dannone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: restoring folder list in the left pane
by "Jim Pistrang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:01:36 -0600
subhash,
I'm not sure what you're asking.
If the question is "why is there a 2 gig limit?" my guess is that the
answer lies in the compiler or codebase that ctm uses; you'd have to ask
them, but a 2 gig limit was a filesize limit for Mac OS for many years,
and some apps that date back to pre-OS X still have code that lingers
and prevents passing that limit.
If the question is "why do you keep all that email?" that becomes a
personal question of how each person organizes their personal and
business life, work habits, preferences, and the like. Some people keep
nothing; some keep everything. I happen to be one of those who likes to
keep all email as a record to go back to; I find it very useful to go
back through a client conversation to remember what was said 6 months
ago about some issue or topic.
Not everyone would want to work this way. The thing is that there are
lots of us who do, and for us, 2 gigs is a problem. For myself, my
database is about 1.5 gigs, and that doesn't make me comfortable to be
that close to the edge for an app that is the lifeblood of my business
existence.
HTH,
Steve
On 1/30/07 at 7:50 PM, computer artwork by subhash ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>the 2 gig limit
>
>I do not understand you people having problems with this limitation.
>What is so important to keep 2 GB of it?
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:15:26 -0500
Is the 2 GB problem with the message database or with attachments? Could
attachments be handled with some kind of alias system?
What about saving html mail as text to save room?
>On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>
>>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>>
>>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>>
>>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>>
>>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>
>I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could
>easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have
>to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open
>simultaneously.
>
>I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2
>gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good
>enough anymore.
>
>Guys? Throw us a bone here?
>
>
>Steve Abrahamson
>Ascending Technologies
>FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
> http://www.asctech.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:29:29 -0600
Winston,
Mail, not attachments. Most mail gateways block anything over 10 megs
anyway, so that's not really an issue. And the Attachments folder
(AFAIK) can get as big as it gets.
If you Save as Text, that saves a file externally of PowerMail, doesn't
it? The point is to have everything in one place.
But, if I could set a flag to strip HTML off of messages as they come
in, or something like that, that'd be great. I read all my mail in
ASCII, and I prefer it that way.
Steve
On 1/30/07 at 2:15 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>Is the 2 GB problem with the message database or with attachments? Could
>attachments be handled with some kind of alias system?
>
>What about saving html mail as text to save room?
>
>>On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>
>>>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>>>
>>>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>>>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>>>
>>>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>>>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>>>
>>>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>>>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>>>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>>
>>I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could
>>easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have
>>to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open
>>simultaneously.
>>
>>I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2
>>gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good
>>enough anymore.
>>
>>Guys? Throw us a bone here?
>>
>>
>>Steve Abrahamson
>>Ascending Technologies
>>FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
>> http://www.asctech.com
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Bruce Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:31:18 -0800
Hi all,
Just adding my 2 cents here...
I'm a simple man, my mail DB is only 254MB so I don't have the issues
of some of you, but I too would like to split my mail into 2 or so DB's.
The reason in incremental backups. Every time I receive a single email
my DB changes and the backup I use (CrashPlan) wants to re-copy the
entire DB. So my mail DB is both my largest and most frequent file to be
baked up -- not a great combination.
So, I'd prefer to split my mail into 2 high-level folders, one for
frequent changes, one for historical or infrequently changing folders.
That way the incremental backups could be smaller and faster. Everything
else would work seamlessly. Well one can dream, right? :-)
Anyway, I'm years away from hitting the 2GB limit and very happy with PM
for now.
Bruce
--
Bruce Barrett See my website at: http://www.brucebarrett.com
As Jeremy Hughes wrote...
>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>
>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>
>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>
>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>
>Otherwise, I will find another mail client.
>
>Jeremy
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:59:57 -0500
Steve -
I am not aware of a flag that strips html, but that would be nice.
Feature request for ctm?
I would guess that would shrink your message database substantially. 1.5
GB of plan text is a lot of text.
You could re-save messages as plain text. Forward creates plain text
files and preserves attachments. However, it loses links to any web
images and url links, which could be a problem.
- Winston
>Winston,
>
>Mail, not attachments. Most mail gateways block anything over 10 megs
>anyway, so that's not really an issue. And the Attachments folder
>(AFAIK) can get as big as it gets.
>
>If you Save as Text, that saves a file externally of PowerMail, doesn't
>it? The point is to have everything in one place.
>
>But, if I could set a flag to strip HTML off of messages as they come
>in, or something like that, that'd be great. I read all my mail in
>ASCII, and I prefer it that way.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>On 1/30/07 at 2:15 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>
>>Is the 2 GB problem with the message database or with attachments? Could
>>attachments be handled with some kind of alias system?
>>
>>What about saving html mail as text to save room?
>>
>>>On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>>
>>>>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>>>>
>>>>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>>>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>>>>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>>>>
>>>>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>>>>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>>>>
>>>>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>>>>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>>>>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>>>
>>>I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could
>>>easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have
>>>to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open
>>>simultaneously.
>>>
>>>I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2
>>>gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good
>>>enough anymore.
>>>
>>>Guys? Throw us a bone here?
>>>
>>>
>>>Steve Abrahamson
>>>Ascending Technologies
>>>FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
>>> http://www.asctech.com
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Steve Abrahamson
>Ascending Technologies
>FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
> http://www.asctech.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Marlyse Comte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:00:18 -0600
From using eMA (email Message Archiver) for many years, I switched
recently to DevonThink OFFICE (it's in beta right now). I've been using
DevonThink for several years to store the ton of accumulated stuff, and
their new office version has a great email importer (saves all to RTF
files) and very good support for PowerMail import.
Searching large database has always been DevonThink's strength and this
is now 99% perfect for me. The 1% missing is that attachments will not
be imported nor linked, so you need to remember to remove them manually
from PowerMail Attachment folder before trashing archived messages. And
yeah, there are no links in the email which tell you which file was
attached (oddly enough I have seen some iCal attachments make it
through). I don't know if they will add some virtual linking or such in
later versions.
---marlyse
------------ former message(s) quotes: -------------
>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new
>>mail client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PowerMail forum?
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:02:04 -0500
Does anyone know why ctm does not have a forum for PowerMail?
The mailing list is handy for immediate help, but does not allow for
browsing or research.
- Winston
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:30:59 -0600
Winston,
The hypothetical "strip html/styled text" feature would indeed be nice,
but just to give you an idea: I have somewhere in the vicinity of 100+
nested mail folders, and well into the 100,000's of emails. Most of the
emails I get are plain text already (though that's changing), so
stripping the html would not be a magic bullet by any means.
Which is not to say I wouldn't like the feature ;-)
About forwarding to myself: that would change the sender data, as well
as the time and mail header data: I would lose a tremendous amount of
information and gain a lot that is useless.
To me, the email is a snapshot in time; me forwarding to myself defeats
that purpose.
But thanks for the ideas!
Steve
On 1/30/07 at 2:59 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>I am not aware of a flag that strips html, but that would be nice.
>Feature request for ctm?
>I would guess that would shrink your message database substantially. 1.5
>GB of plan text is a lot of text.
>
>You could re-save messages as plain text. Forward creates plain text
>files and preserves attachments. However, it loses links to any web
>images and url links, which could be a problem.
>
>>Winston,
>>
>>Mail, not attachments. Most mail gateways block anything over 10 megs
>>anyway, so that's not really an issue. And the Attachments folder
>>(AFAIK) can get as big as it gets.
>>
>>If you Save as Text, that saves a file externally of PowerMail, doesn't
>>it? The point is to have everything in one place.
>>
>>But, if I could set a flag to strip HTML off of messages as they come
>>in, or something like that, that'd be great. I read all my mail in
>>ASCII, and I prefer it that way.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>On 1/30/07 at 2:15 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>
>>>Is the 2 GB problem with the message database or with attachments? Could
>>>attachments be handled with some kind of alias system?
>>>
>>>What about saving html mail as text to save room?
>>>
>>>>On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>>>>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>>>>>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>>>>>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>>>>>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>>>>>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>>>>
>>>>I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could
>>>>easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have
>>>>to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open
>>>>simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2
>>>>gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good
>>>>enough anymore.
>>>>
>>>>Guys? Throw us a bone here?
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail forum?
From: "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:34:07 +0100
Am/On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:02:04 -0500 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>Does anyone know why ctm does not have a forum for PowerMail?
>
you find the archive here:
<http://tinyurl.com/kl8z8>
All the best
Matthias
-----------------------------------------------
Admilon Consulting GmbH
http://www.admilon.com
Tel. +81-736-56-3905
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:00:10 -0500
I agree about losing the header data. It still is in the forward, but not
readable by PowerMail's headings.
The one feature I'd really like is to be able to annotate the Subject
line for those emails where the subject does not match the content. I use
Forward for this, but as you point out, it has its drawbacks.
- Winston
>Winston,
>
>The hypothetical "strip html/styled text" feature would indeed be nice,
>but just to give you an idea: I have somewhere in the vicinity of 100+
>nested mail folders, and well into the 100,000's of emails. Most of the
>emails I get are plain text already (though that's changing), so
>stripping the html would not be a magic bullet by any means.
>
>Which is not to say I wouldn't like the feature ;-)
>
>About forwarding to myself: that would change the sender data, as well
>as the time and mail header data: I would lose a tremendous amount of
>information and gain a lot that is useless.
>
>To me, the email is a snapshot in time; me forwarding to myself defeats
>that purpose.
>
>But thanks for the ideas!
>
>Steve
>
>
>On 1/30/07 at 2:59 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>
>>I am not aware of a flag that strips html, but that would be nice.
>>Feature request for ctm?
>>I would guess that would shrink your message database substantially. 1.5
>>GB of plan text is a lot of text.
>>
>>You could re-save messages as plain text. Forward creates plain text
>>files and preserves attachments. However, it loses links to any web
>>images and url links, which could be a problem.
>>
>>>Winston,
>>>
>>>Mail, not attachments. Most mail gateways block anything over 10 megs
>>>anyway, so that's not really an issue. And the Attachments folder
>>>(AFAIK) can get as big as it gets.
>>>
>>>If you Save as Text, that saves a file externally of PowerMail, doesn't
>>>it? The point is to have everything in one place.
>>>
>>>But, if I could set a flag to strip HTML off of messages as they come
>>>in, or something like that, that'd be great. I read all my mail in
>>>ASCII, and I prefer it that way.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 1/30/07 at 2:15 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>>
>>>>Is the 2 GB problem with the message database or with attachments? Could
>>>>attachments be handled with some kind of alias system?
>>>>
>>>>What about saving html mail as text to save room?
>>>>
>>>>>On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>>>>>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a
new mail
>>>>>>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>>>>>>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>>>>>>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>>>>>>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could
>>>>>easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have
>>>>>to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open
>>>>>simultaneously.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2
>>>>>gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good
>>>>>enough anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>Guys? Throw us a bone here?
>
>
>Steve Abrahamson
>Ascending Technologies
>FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
> http://www.asctech.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Tim Lapin (sympatico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:01:51 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 1/30/2007 3:00 PM, Marlyse Comte wrote:
> Searching large database has always been DevonThink's strength and this
> is now 99% perfect for me. The 1% missing is that attachments will not
> be imported nor linked, so you need to remember to remove them manually
> from PowerMail Attachment folder before trashing archived messages. And
> yeah, there are no links in the email which tell you which file was
> attached (oddly enough I have seen some iCal attachments make it
> through). I don't know if they will add some virtual linking or such in
> later versions.
>
>
> ---marlyse
>
>
According to their website, attachments are sucked in with the mail.
Maybe that particular feature doesn't work too well with PowerMail but
the docs certainly imply that it does:
See the following review by Charles Moore:
http://www.applelinks.com/index.php/more/charles_moore_reviews_devonthink_professional_office_13b1/
More info:
http://www.macmegasite.com/node/3301
NOTE: I neither work for nor use DevonThink. I do, however, consider
it worth exploring and just might buy it in the future should my email
needs become as severe as some here.
Then again, I could start using Thunderbird, which has a 4 GB limit per
parent folder.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFv7I/uprXnyzF8jkRAq7rAJ9Edno88dWhJhojKQgSO90tDfR6wgCeNwj6
GrOMJhacQybcvBL3iA9gnZU=
=NR39
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Bruce Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:33:07 -0800
Hi Winston,
I used to do the same until someone else on this list
pointed out the "Change subject" script.
Thank you, Thank you.
Bruce
--
Bruce Barrett See my website at: http://www.brucebarrett.com
As Winston Weinmann wrote...
>I agree about losing the header data. It still is in the forward, but not
>readable by PowerMail's headings.
>
>The one feature I'd really like is to be able to annotate the Subject
>line for those emails where the subject does not match the content. I use
>Forward for this, but as you point out, it has its drawbacks.
>
>- Winston
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Marlyse Comte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:18:26 -0600
thanks tim for the pointer, I will definitely get back to them then on
this issue after some careful tests so I can give them specifics. again,
I use devonthink since years and know of nothing else that can handle
really big databases as well as they do, IMHO.
---marlyse
------------ former message(s) quotes: -------------
>According to their website, attachments are sucked in with the mail.
>Maybe that particular feature doesn't work too well with PowerMail but
>the docs certainly imply that it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Ultimate Spam
From: "Alan Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:52:35 -0800
I mean that I receive about 10 messages like this per day, and they are
serving no-one a useful purpose because I didn't send them because the
return address was spoofed:
>The original message was received at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:00:07 +0100
>from mx01.rrz.uni-hamburg.de [134.100.32.180]
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (reason: 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown)
> (expanded from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>... while talking to [192.168.100.1]:
>>>> DATA
><<< 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
>550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
><<< 503 5.0.0 Need RCPT (recipient)
>Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Action: failed
>Status: 5.1.1
>Remote-MTA: DNS; [192.168.100.1]
>Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>User unknown
>Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:00:10 +0100
I think that is what you are saying also.
Alan
=====
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:14:07 -0800 Richard Hart said:
>By this do you mean that, if you have been spoofed as the return
>address, you will receive the bounce warnings from the mailer daemon?
>
>Richard Hart
>
>Alan wrote:
>
>>Please don't ever "bounce" spam--it only adds to the
>>frustrations of us "Joes" who have been "Jobbed".
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Barbara Needham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:33:16 -0800
Tim Lapin (sympatico) on 1/30/07 said
>Then again, I could start using Thunderbird, which has a 4 GB limit per
>parent folder.
I get my mail twice each, once using thunderbird and once using
PowerMail. PowerMail search is still better. I like the ability to save
searches in Thunderbird as virtual folders. I like the threading in
thunderbird [most of the time]. I like the filtering in PowerMail as I
haven't seen yet [though I could have missed it] a SpamSieve for
thunderbird. I let PowerMail be the one to delete from server.
--
Barbara Needham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: restoring folder list in the left pane
From: "Joe Dannone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:09:35 -0700
Hi all,
I don't know how, but some how the Folder List is gone from the left pane.
all I can see is the "Inbox". When I open the folder list - it opens in a
separate window.
Any idea?
Thanks,
Joe
_________________________________________________________________
>From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the
Academy Awards®
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: restoring folder list in the left pane
From: "Jim Pistrang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:03:14 -0500
Hi Joe,
>I don't know how, but some how the Folder List is gone from the left pane.
>all I can see is the "Inbox". When I open the folder list - it opens in a
>separate window.
Maybe it just got dragged closed? If you see a little ^ to the left of
your message pane, try putting your mouse over it and see if the mouse
changes to a +. If it does, mouse-drag to the right.
Then again, maybe it's something else....
Jim
--
Jim Pistrang
JP Computer Resources
Certified Member, Apple Consultants Network
413-256-4569
<http://www.jpcr.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of powermail-discuss Digest
