Hello MaXxX,
On Sun, 20 May 2001 at 00:08:50 GMT +0200 (which was 5/22/2001 5:08 AM
where you think I live) you response to Johannes Posel :
that's what I've always done. Why would it be wrong for TB! to do
the same to speed the connection up?
As Alexander Leschinsky said, connect to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, May 21, 2001, 8:50:35 PM, Syafril Hermansyah wrote:
Hmm maybe a moderator should stop this thread. The point has
been made, that this way of retrieving mail is not sane and thus
will never be used, as it does not guarantee data integrity.
Hello Syafril Hermansyah,
On Tue, 22 May 2001 at 00:50:35 GMT +0700 (which was 5/22/2001 12:50
AM where you think I live) you told to the list :
that's what I've always done. Why would it be wrong for TB! to do
the same to speed the connection up?
SH As Alexander Leschinsky said, connect
At Monday, May 21, 2001, 8:14:06 PM, Silviu has written the following:
Hmm maybe a moderator should stop this thread. The point has
been made, that this way of retrieving mail is not sane and thus
will never be used, as it does not guarantee data integrity.
Further discussion about RFC
At Monday, May 21, 2001, 7:50:35 PM, Syafril jotted down what is below:
that's what I've always done. Why would it be wrong for TB! to do
the same to speed the connection up?
As Alexander Leschinsky said, connect to POPServer using more than one
using same username is against RFC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Silviu,
On 21 May 2001 at 21:14:06 +0300 (which was 19:14 where I live)
Silviu Cojocaru wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and made these
points:
SC Hmm maybe a moderator should stop this thread. The point has been
SC made, that this way of retrieving
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Nick!
On Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 2:58:47 AM you wrote:
In fact, if memory serves, you can under some direct criticism for that
stance and your relentless pursuit of, yet now you seem to be heading in
the opposite direction.
Maybe he
At Thursday, May 17, 2001, 2:58:47 AM, Nick mashed together the following text:
Echoing your very words MaXxX... No More New Features until the bugs get
fixed!! Why now... all of a sudden... are you clamouring for new features
when only days before you were going on about Stef and Max working
At Thursday, May 17, 2001, 4:35:11 AM, Alexander has created the following text:
It can't be, even RFC-unrelated. On any connect you use maximum
bandwidth on POP-session (if you POP isn't on the Moon)
Bat! RETR 1
Bat! RETR 2
Bat! DELE 1
Bat! RETR 3
Bat! DELE 2
Bat! RETR 4
Bat! DELE 3
Hello Stefan Tanurkov,
On Thu, 17 May 2001 at 16:36:01 GMT +0300 (which was 17/05/2001 20:36
GMT +0700 my Local Time) Stefan Tanurkov=[ST] wrote to Syafril
Hermansyah :
1. Most POP currently implement asynchronous mode, means if message
successfully download by POPClient, it
Hello Philippe Gouillou,
On Thu, 17 May 2001 at 15:02:57 GMT +0200 (which was 17/05/2001 20:02
GMT +0700 my Local Time) Philippe Gouillou=[PG] wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
SH More than that, it would be nice if TB! can do download messages
SH base on message size (less size first)
Hello MaXxX,
On Thu, 17 May 2001 at 15:15:43 GMT +0200 (which was 17/05/2001 20:15
GMT +0700 my Local Time) MaXxX=[M] wrote to Syafril Hermansyah :
My reason as follow :
1. Most POP currently implement asynchronous mode, means if message
successfully download by POPClient, it will
Hello Alexander Leschinsky,
On Fri, 18 May 2001 at 01:47:52 GMT +0600 (which was 18/05/2001 2:47
GMT +0700 my Local Time) Alexander Leschinsky=[AL] wrote to Syafril
Hermansyah :
SH My reason as follow :
SH 1. Most POP currently implement asynchronous mode, means if message
SH
Hello Stefan,
Thursday, May 17, 2001, you wrote to me:
1. Most POP currently implement asynchronous mode, means if message
successfully download by POPClient, it will delete by POPServer
without waiting QUIT command.
ST Keeping messages on the server for at least one day always
14 matches
Mail list logo
