Re: [Evolution] Bug in Birthday calendar?

2015-11-26 Thread Milan Crha
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 00:11 +0100, Rolf Würtz wrote: > However, if the person is 67 or older, the birthday gets displayed > the day before at 23:00. Hi, it's basically this: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748465 which leads to this: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7

Re: [Evolution] Search folder fails to include all messages that match its criteria

2015-11-26 Thread Milan Crha
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 16:56 -0200, Jorge wrote: > Hi.  I have a search folder for messages involving my team leader > since 2015-01-01: > Find items which match: all the following conditions > Include threads: All related > Sender or Recipients contains > Date received is after 01-Jan-2015 > Sea

Re: [Evolution] Bug in Birthday calendar?

2015-11-26 Thread Ángel González
Rolf Würtz wrote: > However, if the person is 67 or older, the birthday gets displayed > the day before at 23:00. > > Is there any reason behind it, am  I doing something wrong, or is > it simply a bug? > > Best > > Rolf Seems timezone related. Either with being born in Summer/Winter time, or

[Evolution] Bug in Birthday calendar?

2015-11-26 Thread Rolf Würtz
Hi, I am talking about evolution 3.12.9, the latest version on Linux Mint Debian Edition it is nice that the birthdays of your contacts get displayed in a special calendar named "Birthdays and Anniversaries". However, if the person is 67 or older, the birthday gets displayed the day before at 2

[Evolution] Search folder fails to include all messages that match its criteria

2015-11-26 Thread Jorge
Hi. I have a search folder for messages involving my team leader since 2015-01-01: Find items which match: all the following conditions Include threads: All related Sender or Recipients contains Date received is after 01-Jan-2015 Search Folder Sources: All local and active remote folders This

Re: [Evolution] Inbox Malformed

2015-11-26 Thread Milan Crha
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 17:34 +, David wrote: > Thank you for the suggestion, it worked, I'm sure I've heard about > deleting *.db files previously, but forgot about it. Hi, nice, I'm glad it helped. > The 'faulty' folders.db file is 11.7M, it's replacement is 3.6M, can > you suggest a