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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
