Hello, Allie.
I tried to send this using TB! several hours ago. In trying to determine why it hadn't showed up on the list, I found that the same thing happened as a couple of days ago: 30 copies of the message in the Outbox, all created one minute apart! So I'm back to using Thunderbird....
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 5:30:45 AM, you wrote:
> On Monday, November 01, 2004 at 10:27:00 PM [GMT -0500], Keith Russell
> wrote:
...
> I have a suspicion that if you create a folder on the server called
> "Sent" and use that instead, you'll be Ok. TB! may have a problem
> reading that folder. Of course, you'd have to set the other clients to
> use this folder and they shouldn't have a problem.
Thanks. I'll give that a try.
>> This is another instance of TB! not supporting one of the major
>> features of IMAP. If I use The Bat!, I have to give up several
>> important IMAP functions I'm used to using in Thunderbird and
>> Mulberry. I want to be able to start writing a message, and if I don't
>> have time to finish it before leaving the house, save it to the Drafts
>> folder and finish it somewhere else. That's why I switched to IMAP!
> Sounds like you need to use those other clients then.
:-) You keep saying that. I don't know whether you're being facetious, whether you're just tired of listening to me complain and trying to get rid of me ;-), or whether you're making a serious suggestion!
> The developers say > that implementing a draft folder would be a very involved task.
Really? I missed that discussion. I wonder why that would be the case.
> I don't
> use ThunderBird because it doesn't have a lot of the features I wish to
> use. Not that I think it's trash. I think it's a great IMAP client.
I agree on both points.
> I can understand your divided feeling though. All those nice TB! > features to give up??? Please NOOOOOOOO! ;)
Exactly. In the end, I just couldn't resist buying the new version!
> My reason for using IMAP is that it allows me to read my mail from
> multiple locations and not be worried about the mailbases at all
> locations being up to date. The other beauty is that copies of sent
> messages from all locations are accessible from all locations and
> message attributes/flags are the same at all locations.
Absolutely.
> I'm not really in the habit of partially writing mail across locations.
> Probably because my preferred client makes that kindof like jumping
> hoops. :)
:-) It's really not something I do a lot, either. I would just like to have it available. What I do do, though, is start writing a long message, get interrupted, and come back and finish with another client. Of course, if TB! were reliable enough to use all the time, I could stop doing that....
>> On the other hand, I think Mulberry was designed for a Cyrus server,
>> which I'm using, and I still have those constant "Waiting" dialogs.
> I thought Mulberry worked fine for you? However, it apparently doesn't.
:-) Not at all. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I've actually done as much complaining on the Mulberry list as I've done here, due to all the time wasted on "Waiting for server", which once it starts, displays for ever active folder before you can do anything else.
I haven't had any other problems, but that one shortcoming has meant that I use it about the same way I do TB!--that is, mostly for testing and learning.
>> Some of my problems might be on MailSnare's end, or might have to do
>> with the route between here and there, considering that other users
>> don't seem to have the number of problems that I have with both
>> Mulberry and TB!
> Sounds like you're using a relatively slow connection. Your wait times
> in your description below sounds like what happens to me at work.
It sounds that way, doesn't it? But get this...I actually just upgraded my DSL connection from 640 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps! That's what makes this whole thing especially frustrating.
>> Someone posted how to do this from the menu; I use the message's
>> context menu, which lists a Reload command. It doesn't always help,
>> though, as I'll describe later.
> No it will not always work. It will work, only if the message really
> needs reloading. If the original load request is in the queue, you've
> simply added another request.
Good point.
...
>> 3. I don't remember exactly what I did at this point (just >> clicking around),
> Don't click around. Selecting a folder initiates a number count and
> header sync. This quickly clogs the queue and you have to wait and wait
> and wait. Unlike ThunderBird, TB! will not spawn multiple connections to
> handle the many requests in parallel streams.
Yes, I need to learn to stop doing this. I get really frustrated and just can't help myself. :-(
...
>> 6. I selected "Synchronize now", clicked on a message, and got >> "No message loaded". I waited, and the message body finally >> displayed 30-60 seconds later.
> 'No message loaded' will show since it's getting the message list and
> will show messages only when that's done.
Sure, but when you expect it to take a few seconds and it still says "No message loaded" after several minutes....
>> 7. I displayed the next message without a problem, but when I >> tried to delete it (several times), nothing happened.
> There will likely be a lag for you. When you hit delete, the request is
> sent. When the server gets it and deletes the message, it's
> correspondingly done locally.
Yes, but again, I expect it to take a few seconds, and not a few minutes.
> Hit delete once and move on.
But you keep saying not to click around! If I "move on" and click somewhere else, am I not just building up the task queue again?
...
>> 11. I clicked up the thread on Martin's message, and got "No message
>> loaded". I then clicked on my earlier message, with the same result.
>> Reload did nothing, in either case.
> You rebuilt that cache which is the message lists. All messages you
> previously downloaded are no longer local. When you select that message
> it has to be retrieved so that means a wait. Deciding not to wait and
> selecting another message means that you have to wait for the previous
> message to be retrieved and then wait for this newly selected message to
> be retrieved.
Yes, that does make sense.
>> 12. I again selected "Synchronize This Folder Now".
> Again, another request to deal with. It has to wait its turn.
And this, too.
>> 13. Two minutes later, nothing had happened; I again tried reloading
>> both messages, unsuccessfully. At three minutes, I gave up and started
>> Thunderbird so I could finish what I started. That's why you will see
>> tonight's responses to this thread posted with Thunderbird. I checked
>> again a few minutes, and nothing had changed. I still couldn't read
>> several messages in the thread.
> I understand. I've been there.
> I'd suggest not using the betas. Their IMAP performance is actually
> worse than the last full release. We may have sound notification and
> broken auto-filtering, but performance has gone in reverse for now.
Interesting. This is the first time I've heard you say this.
>> 14. Now, a couple of hours later, I am able to read all messages in
>> the thread without a problem, but I need to get this done, so I'm
>> sticking with Thunderbird for now. This is the kind of frustrations I
>> repeatedly have to deal with when I work with TB! Thunderbird,
>> however, is the Energizer Bunny; it may not have all the features, but
>> as I said above, it just works.
Lest I be accused of unfairly praising Thunderbird to an extreme, it isn't perfect, either. After I posted my message last night, I tried to read two messages in my inbox and couldn't get the body to download for either one. :-)
> I've grown accustomed to how TB! works and fully understand the issue of
> request queueing and how requests are initiated. We could try an
> experiment. Do the following:
> - In the Manage IMAP folders panel, disable synchronisation for all
> folders.
I did this some time ago.
> - Go into the account preferences and select the 'Mail Management'
> section. Under the 'Automatically connect to the server' options,
> disable 'for any command' and 'when account is selected'.
"When account is selected" was checked. That is now changed.
> - Go to the 'IMAP fine tune' and use the 'Quick configure' option to
> select 'slow connection'.
Even though I definitely do not have a slow connection, I'll give this a try and see if it helps.
> Work with those settings and let me know what it's like. Use the CC and
> watch each request get processed. The folders will not update their
> counts automatically. You'll have to select each to know what's
> happening. This is a bear bones type configuration where only your
> requests are sent. Good luck. :)
> You may now see some of the problems you're having, like interrupted
> request processing or stalls in request processing.
Thanks. Any suggestions for improved settings are greatly appreciated. And thanks for your time helping me work through this.
-- Keith
________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.0.2.4 Rush | '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/
