Hello Sean, On Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 11:48:18 PM Sean [SH] wrote:
>>What do you have for the following settings: >> >> 1. Account, Properties, Imap Fine Tune, When on-line refresh folders >> every: >> >> 2. Account, Properties, Options, Synchronize Folders Every: >> >> >> SH> Thanks for your reply, John. Both were set to 1 minute, which seems like SH> it should be a reasonable amount of time. After the full 600 MByte are transferred: maybe. Probably. Before you have the first full synch done completely? I don't think so. SH> Peter Palmreuther wrote: >>*uh* IIRC I've already read other people using this server as well and >>not reporting this kind of "problem", so maybe there's something in >>their server setup that causes this kind of problem. >> SH> I've used this ISP for around 4 years and have never had a problem like SH> this. It is possible that they've recently screwed up their server SH> setup, but I believe it is much more likely that the problem lies with SH> TB! and the settings I was using at the time. *hmmm* I'm not really sure about this. But I'd only repeat myself ... ;-) SH> Regardless, other e-mail clients work fine with my server, and I SH> would be very surprised if Ritlabs took the approach of SH> recommending users change ISPs in order to use their product! To be honest: I *am* surprised an ISP is going to tell it's customers which MUA *not* to use, albeit this MUA is RFC-compliant (maybe IMAP not yet 100%, but no RFC-violation has been reported so far, so I expect some requirements *not* to be implemented, rather than *completely wrong* implemented) and quite secure. Just imagine they'd start telling you TB!, Thunderbird and Mulberry would put significant load onto their server and you're only allowed to log in when using Outlook Express for IMAP!?!?!? If TB! where about to open 1 zillion connections, let them hang stale all the time, log in another zilion times and do excessive "SEARCH" queries on an IMAP-mailbox plus implementing RFC in a way every second log statement on the server is a "command not found", which floods the log files, than I'd understand the *strong suggestion* not to use this client anymore. But a pure "we guess it must have been your The Bat!", instead a "your MTA executed the following commands, which cause the server to overload. This seems to be default behavior and should not be done, as for RFC. We can not except this program longer accesses the mailbox" disqualifies them in my not so humble opinion. Except a search I still can't imagine any action The Bat! could cause that puts the server under this heavy disk load. And even a search command should be handled server side in a way it does *not* block the server completely, but that's a different matter. *Any* chance you have a (or some) filter(s) set up that filter for *message body* on your IMAP account(s)? -- Regards Peter Palmreuther (The Bat! v3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2) Don't kiss an elephant on the lips today. ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.51.10 | '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/
