Ken Green, [KG] wrote: KG> So none of your syncs are header only?
Trash and Spam. :)
KG> I too have only been using full sync, but may start experience with
KG> header-only sync.
At home, with my fast connection, I don't mind full syncs or header
syncs. Doesn't really matter, unless you wish to do message searches, in
which case you'd need a full sync.
At work, where my connection is slow, I do full syncs since TB! is
miserable when it comes to browsing a headers only folder and retrieving
message bodies for messages you select.
KG> If I have a New headers or New headers and text sync option set,
KG> exactly what does that mean?
TB! will sync only with new messages. The folder will contain only
those. The rest of messages will be ignored.
KG> Obviously, only get new messages - but does that mean only UNread
KG> messages or messages that TB hasn't actually seen yet (read flag
KG> could get set from another access point).
In TB!'s case, AFAIK, this means unread messages.
KG> Also, would it make sense to do an initial full sync of a folder with a
KG> large message base, then set it for new messages? Would this save time -
KG> not worrying about messages that aren't new?
I've not found this to be the case. When you do full syncs, TB! will do
an incremental type updating of the already cached messages, adding only
the new ones. It doesn't redo the cache all over with each full sync.
KG> Does that mean any operations on the stored local messages
KG> (moves/deletes/etc.) would NOT be reflected on the server?
I don't know. Try it. :)
KG> You misunderstood. I want to know if TB will *RE*connect.
Yes. I do this at work. In the account properties/options, the switch
the check for mail at a user defined interval does that.
KG> I'm guess you cannot test this as your two access points appear to
KG> be work and home, and you have described different connections, so I
KG> will assume they are not one and the same. ;)
My IMAP server is at home. I connect to it both at work and at home. The
connection from work to my IMAP server at home is slow. At home, the
connection is fast since it's on my home LAN.
Both TB! installs are set to collect mail at an interval.
KG> Not sure if an IMAP server is *supposed* to disconnect when there is
KG> another legitimate connection taking place, but I can understand why
KG> this might happen.
IMAP servers will accept many concurrent connections, even for the same
IMAP account. I leave TB! running at home at all times. It does stuff
while I'm away. I use TB! at work. Both are using the same IMAP server
and accounts.
I've had both SecureBat! Lite and TB! running at the same time on this
machine, syncing with the same IMAP account. No problems.
KG> Similar to the concept of locks on a database, things could get
KG> screwed up if two connections tried to perform an operation on the
KG> same message (one connection deleted a message and the other tried
KG> to move it to a different folder for instance.)
Well, it's the IMAP server that is doing the operations on the account
data and not the e-mail client. The e-mail client sends commands, gives
data and requests data. Queuing takes care of the many requests from the
different clients.
--
-= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com
____________________________________
Using SB! Lite v2.03.47 on WinXP Pro (SP)
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________________ Current beta is 2.03 Beta/47 | "Using TBBETA" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
