Martin Freitag wrote:
Dale DePriest schrieb:
Thanks, that would seem a lot easier. Perhaps I can just go to 2.0
instead. I loaded it and it seems ok although I don't like the new split
screen for email with the left column running beside the messages
instead of just beside the message list, but
On 10/19/2009 03:49 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> NoOp:
>>On 10/19/2009 03:07 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
>>> NoOp:
On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
>>>
> If you want to start SM2 while SM1 is running you will need to add the
> parameter -no-remote in the corresponding short
NoOp:
>On 10/19/2009 03:07 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
>> NoOp:
>>>On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
>>
If you want to start SM2 while SM1 is running you will need to add the
parameter -no-remote in the corresponding shortcut.
>>>
>>>Should be '-noremote'.
>>
>> No, Martin
Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:19:11 -0700, /NoOp/:
On 10/19/2009 03:07 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
NoOp:
On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
If you want to start SM2 while SM1 is running you will need to add the
parameter -no-remote in the corresponding shortcut.
Should be '-noremote'.
N
On 10/19/2009 03:07 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> NoOp:
>>On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
>
>>> If you want to start SM2 while SM1 is running you will need to add the
>>> parameter -no-remote in the corresponding shortcut.
>>
>>Should be '-noremote'.
>
> No, Martin is right.
>
> H
NoOp:
>On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
>> If you want to start SM2 while SM1 is running you will need to add the
>> parameter -no-remote in the corresponding shortcut.
>
>Should be '-noremote'.
No, Martin is right.
Hartmut
___
support
Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:55:24 -0700, /NoOp/:
On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
If you want to start SM2 while SM1 is running you will need to add the
parameter -no-remote in the corresponding shortcut.
Should be '-noremote'.
It is really '-no-remote' w/o the quotes.
--
Stanimir
On 10/19/2009 11:42 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
> Dale DePriest schrieb:
>>
>> Thanks, that would seem a lot easier. Perhaps I can just go to 2.0
>> instead. I loaded it and it seems ok although I don't like the new split
>> screen for email with the left column running beside the messages
>> instea
Dale DePriest schrieb:
>
> Thanks, that would seem a lot easier. Perhaps I can just go to 2.0
> instead. I loaded it and it seems ok although I don't like the new split
> screen for email with the left column running beside the messages
> instead of just beside the message list, but otherwise it s
Daniel wrote:
Dale DePriest wrote:
Martin Freitag wrote:
Dale DePriest schrieb:
I am running out of space on my C: drive and I need to move the
Seamonkey email structure. I moved all kinds of other stuff by changing
the application default in the registry (lots of stuff and copied the
entire s
Dale DePriest wrote:
Martin Freitag wrote:
Dale DePriest schrieb:
I am running out of space on my C: drive and I need to move the
Seamonkey email structure. I moved all kinds of other stuff by changing
the application default in the registry (lots of stuff and copied the
entire structure to ano
Martin Freitag wrote:
Dale DePriest schrieb:
I am running out of space on my C: drive and I need to move the
Seamonkey email structure. I moved all kinds of other stuff by changing
the application default in the registry (lots of stuff and copied the
entire structure to another drive) but Seamon
Dale DePriest schrieb:
> I am running out of space on my C: drive and I need to move the
> Seamonkey email structure. I moved all kinds of other stuff by changing
> the application default in the registry (lots of stuff and copied the
> entire structure to another drive) but Seamonkey still wants t
13 matches
Mail list logo
