Re: IMAP question

2009-05-16 Thread Jens Franik
Samstag, 16. Mai 2009 at 00:15, Lynn wrote: I need to access some IMAP accounts, but all my current accounts are POP. Is it possible to do both? Yes, i have 8xPOP and 1xIMAP running, just create a new Account with IMAP. -- With kind Regards Jens Franik mailto:je...@gmx.de Picture of me?

Re: IMAP question

2009-05-15 Thread Stuart Cuddy
Hello Lynn, Friday, May 15, 2009, 5:15:09 PM, you wrote: L I need to access some IMAP accounts, but all my current accounts are L POP. L Is it possible to do both? Are you talking about accessing the same accounts as IMAP and POP or some IMAP and some POP. The latter is possible for sure.

Re: IMAP question

2009-05-15 Thread Dwight A Corrin
On Friday, May 15, 2009, 5:15:09 PM, Lynn wrote: Is it possible to do both? yes. start, i think, it's been ages since i did this, by creating a new account, and pick imap, then it's just a matter of knowing addresses for your servers, etc. -- Dwight A. Corrin 316.303.9385 phone ahead to

Re: IMAP Question

2008-09-10 Thread Peter Fjelsten
Bob, On 10-09-2008 19:12, you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: One of the last Mail Management pane items to be possibly checked is this, When inactive, disconnect after (X) seconds. Is it better to check that or to not check it when one has an always-on DSL connection? I'd not check it.

Re: IMAP Question

2008-09-10 Thread MFPA
Hi On Wednesday 10 September 2008 at 6:49:40 PM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Riley wrote: I was thinking of conserving bandwidth in the whole system. I think of IMAP as very handy (convenient) but perhaps using much more bandwidth than POP. Am I mistaken? Logic would suggest that IMAP

Re: IMAP Question

2008-09-10 Thread MFPA
Hi On Wednesday 10 September 2008 at 6:37:17 PM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Fjelsten wrote: It means that it disconnects from the server if you do not work with it. On xDSL there should be no reason for this. Does it have any adverse effect on the server performance if there are lots of

Re: IMAP Question

2008-09-10 Thread MFPA
Hi On Wednesday 10 September 2008 at 6:49:40 PM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Riley wrote: I was thinking of conserving bandwidth in the whole system. Further to my previous message, I would imagine being logged on but not actually doing anything uses very little bandwidth (-; -- Best

Re: IMAP Question

2008-09-10 Thread Peter Fjelsten
MFPA, On 10-09-2008 20:20, you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: It means that it disconnects from the server if you do not work with it. On xDSL there should be no reason for this. Does it have any adverse effect on the server performance if there are lots of people logged on but not active?

Re: IMAP Question

2004-04-23 Thread Allie Martin
Stuart Cuddy, [SC] wrote: SC The way the problems with IMAP crop up it seems there may be a SC likelihood that it is the difference with the IMAP servers that SC accentuate the problem. Is it possible to find out what server you SC are connecting to? Maybe we could create a list. I use my own

Re: IMAP Question

2004-04-23 Thread Jonathan Angliss
On Thursday, April 22, 2004, Allie Martin wrote... AM You can either do this manually, or have TB! do it upon exiting AM IMAP folders. For the latter, look at the account properties. SC Oh, if only it were so. I have tried manual and automatic SC Compress/Purge and neither get rid of the message

Re: IMAP Question

2004-04-22 Thread Allie Martin
Stuart Cuddy, [SC] wrote: SC Can someone explain what these numbers represent in my IMAP inbox. SC This is from my Blogstreet Account. SC Inbox4* 410 19 SC I assume that the 410 is the total messages in the folder, Yes. SC although this number seems to just accumulate despite the

Re: IMAP Question

2004-04-22 Thread Allie Martin
Stuart Cuddy, [SC] wrote: AM You can either do this manually, or have TB! do it upon exiting AM IMAP folders. For the latter, look at the account properties. SC Oh, if only it were so. I have tried manual and automatic SC Compress/Purge and neither get rid of the message count. It works here