Hi just for Info,
today i got a support call for 2 imap accounts with windows 7 64
with thunderbird 17.03 not syncing new mails in INBOX ( no problem other
folders )
reproducable on serveral computers , with new installs of thunderbird
no antivirus etc was involved
The accounts worked perfect wit
Brent Bloxam put forth on 6/29/2010 3:36 PM:
> Thunderbird is a modern threaded application, users are able to perform
> many parallel actions. The IMAP protocol returns data for one action at
> a time, so in order to follow through with the user requests, it
> delegates commands to multiple conne
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/27/2010 11:37 AM:
I think what matters is that the number of connections that TB is
expecting to be able to use be *less* than the max supported by the IMAP
server. I do know that as soon as I changed the MAX number of
connections per IP in Cou
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/29/2010 6:28 AM:
> On 2010-06-28 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/28/2010 4:19 PM:
>>> On 2010-06-28 3:30 PM, Dave Brenner wrote:
On 6/28/2010 11:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Hmmm.. care to share a good set of command-line switc
On 2010-06-28 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/28/2010 4:19 PM:
>> On 2010-06-28 3:30 PM, Dave Brenner wrote:
>>> On 6/28/2010 11:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Hmmm.. care to share a good set of command-line switches for top that
will let me see per user proces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Charles Marcus wrote:
With ps aux, I can see all connections, but they are all pretty much at
zero with the exception of those where people are moving messages around
and such...
ps xua|perl -e 'while(<>) {
@a=split(/\s+/, $
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/28/2010 4:19 PM:
> On 2010-06-28 3:30 PM, Dave Brenner wrote:
>> On 6/28/2010 11:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm.. care to share a good set of command-line switches for top that
>>> will let me see per user processes like that? Just running 'top', I only
>>> s
On 2010-06-28 3:30 PM, Dave Brenner wrote:
> On 6/28/2010 11:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>> Hmmm.. care to share a good set of command-line switches for top that
>> will let me see per user processes like that? Just running 'top', I only
>> see the active processes, and there are really very fe
On 6/28/2010 11:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Hmmm.. care to share a good set of command-line switches for top that
will let me see per user processes like that? Just running 'top', I only
see the active processes, and there are really very few...
top -U
--
Dave Brenner - da...@toledotel.com
T
On 2010-06-27 9:18 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> When you get a chance fire up top and take a look at the CPU time
> used by each of the 5 imap processes associated with a given TB user.
> Four will be at zero or maybe one or 2 seconds. You'll see the vast
> majority of the CPU time is on the fifth i
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/27/2010 11:37 AM:
> I think what matters is that the number of connections that TB is
> expecting to be able to use be *less* than the max supported by the IMAP
> server. I do know that as soon as I changed the MAX number of
> connections per IP in Courier to 5, all o
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI put forth on 6/27/2010 6:22 AM:
> On 06/27/2010 06:04 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Regardless, my point is valid and stands: there is no (good) reason
>> for the
>> protocol to require multiple socket connections when everything can be
>> accomplished more efficiently (in terms
On 2010-06-25 11:02 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> This is a pet peeve of mine. Recent TB revs default to opening 5
> IMAP connections.
It's default has been 5 connections since for as long as I can remember
that option being there, and we've been using TB exclusively in our
office since about versio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 04:04:39AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de put forth on 6/26/2010 11:52 PM:
>
> > The references are spot-on. The IDLE command is just designed to notify
> > changes to the *selected* mailbox [...]
> None of thi
On 06/27/2010 06:04 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Regardless, my point is valid and stands: there is no (good) reason
> for the
> protocol to require multiple socket connections when everything can be
> accomplished more efficiently (in terms of resources consumed) over a single
> socket. I'm sure ma
to...@tuxteam.de put forth on 6/26/2010 11:52 PM:
> The references are spot-on. The IDLE command is just designed to notify
> changes to the *selected* mailbox. And a client can have just one
> selected mailbox (per-connection, that is). That's simply a limitation
> of the protocol. Clients may wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 09:11:19PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Patrick Nagel put forth on 6/26/2010 2:08 AM:
[...]
> I'm no IMAP expert, but what you state here doesn't make any sense at all.
[...]
> postfix smtpd fire the email showed in my inbo
Patrick Nagel put forth on 6/26/2010 2:08 AM:
> The connections are used for IMAP IDLE [1], AFAIK. So the first five folders
> (a.k.a mailboxes) you access(?) get "push mail" - the moment a new mail goes
> in or out, Thunderbird knows about it. Why they chose the number five, I
> don't
> know.
Hi Stan,
On 2010-06-26 03:02 UTC Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Steffen Kaiser put forth on 6/25/2010 7:01 AM:
> > 2) thunderbird opened too many simultaneous connections to the server. I
> > do not remember where they would blocked or terminated, but in some
> > cases thunderbird did not seem to detect t
Steffen Kaiser put forth on 6/25/2010 7:01 AM:
> 2) thunderbird opened too many simultaneous connections to the server. I
> do not remember where they would blocked or terminated, but in some
> cases thunderbird did not seem to detect this failure
This is a pet peeve of mine. Recent TB revs defa
Thanks for your *complete* answer Charles .
On 06/25/2010 02:32 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-25 7:48 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Some users had occasionally a problem with Thunderbird , some random
emails with attachement(s) cannot be read anymore
the email appears empty and TB seems to ent
On 2010-06-25 7:48 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
> Some users had occasionally a problem with Thunderbird , some random
> emails with attachement(s) cannot be read anymore
> the email appears empty and TB seems to enter in an infinite loop
> saying it is downloading the message
>
> The only solution I f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Some users had occasionally a problem with Thunderbird , some random emails
with attachement(s) cannot be read anymore
Yep.
the email appears empty
that one, too
and TB seems to enter in an infinite l
Hello
Some users had occasionally a problem with Thunderbird , some random
emails with attachement(s) cannot be read anymore
the email appears empty and TB seems to enter in an infinite loop
saying it is downloading the message
The only solution I found was :
1 - stop thunderbird on the clien
on 1/27/2008 2:40 PM Marc Perkel spake the following:
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 20:49:42 Anne Wilson wrote:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 15:41:04 Marc Perkel wrote:
Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
new message arives in the inbox. I
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 18:04 -0500, Adam McDougall wrote:
> Try running a script to run 'netstat' frequently, say once a minute, and
> log the port numbers from the connection, example:
> TCPreinheitsgebot:3482mail.egr.msu.edu:993 ESTABLISHED
> TCPreinheitsgebot:3485mail.egr.m
OK - I didn't know that I might be reporting something new. Here's
some more details. I leave my computer on at might (Windows XP) and
it's worse in the morning when I wake up. Thunderbird's checks the
email every 1 minute and it's set up to check several IMAP folders.
I'm running the latest
Marc Perkel wrote:
OK - I didn't know that I might be reporting something new. Here's
some more details. I leave my computer on at might (Windows XP) and
it's worse in the morning when I wake up. Thunderbird's checks the
email every 1 minute and it's set up to check several IMAP folders.
I'm r
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 20:49:42 Anne Wilson wrote:
On Sunday 27 January 2008 15:41:04 Marc Perkel wrote:
Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
new message arives in the inbox. I see it displayed in the message list
in bold. I click
On Sunday 27 January 2008 20:49:42 Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Sunday 27 January 2008 15:41:04 Marc Perkel wrote:
> > Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
> > new message arives in the inbox. I see it displayed in the message list
> > in bold. I click on the message and
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 20:49 +, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Sunday 27 January 2008 15:41:04 Marc Perkel wrote:
> > Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
> > new message arives in the inbox. I see it displayed in the message list
> > in bold. I click on the message and
On Sunday 27 January 2008 15:41:04 Marc Perkel wrote:
> Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
> new message arives in the inbox. I see it displayed in the message list
> in bold. I click on the message and it looks like it's reading it by the
> previous message that
Marc Perkel wrote:
Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
new message arives in the inbox. I see it displayed in the message
list in bold. I click on the message and it looks like it's reading it
by the previous message that was in the window remains and the new
Strange problem and I'm not sure what's causing it. I'm using IMAP. A
new message arives in the inbox. I see it displayed in the message list
in bold. I click on the message and it looks like it's reading it by the
previous message that was in the window remains and the new message is
still bol
34 matches
Mail list logo
