On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 18:41 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 07:32 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > I'm speechless. Was this done because s
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 07:32 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > I'm speechless. Was this done because some IMAP servers were buggy? If
> > > not, there would seem to be
Dear List,
Here's my standard reply to many such issues: Users' Choice!
When setting up a new account, you get to choose
"Slow, accurate counts" vs "Fast, approximate counts".
Then we don't need to argue over whether this strategy
was a good idea.
Regards,
George Reeke
On Tue, 2006-04-25
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I'm speechless. Was this done because some IMAP servers were buggy? If
> > not, there would seem to be no justification for it.
>
> I believe it was done in order to fix in
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 20:06 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > I'm speechless. Was this done because some IMAP servers were buggy? If
> > > not, there would seem to be no justi
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I'm speechless. Was this done because some IMAP servers were buggy? If
> > not, there would seem to be no justification for it.
>
> I believe it was done in order to fix in
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I'm speechless. Was this done because some IMAP servers were buggy? If
> not, there would seem to be no justification for it.
I believe it was done in order to fix inconsistencies in the unseen
counts on folders when the strange clien
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 23:57 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > And STATUS means "tell me about *all* emails? If so, bummer.
> > >
> > > Turns out it's not STATUS but LIST, but in any case you can see the
> > > (impressive) amount of traff
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 23:57 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > And STATUS means "tell me about *all* emails? If so, bummer.
> > >
> > > Turns out it's not STATUS but LIST, but in any case you can see the
> > > (impressive) amount of traff
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > And STATUS means "tell me about *all* emails? If so, bummer.
> >
> > Turns out it's not STATUS but LIST, but in any case you can see the
> > (impressive) amount of traffic generated by running with
> > CAMEL_VERBOSE_DEBUG=1.
>
> receive
Le lundi 24 avril 2006 à 12:18 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 17:04 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > Le lundi 24 avril 2006 à 11:05 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> > > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 17:04 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> Le lundi 24 avril 2006 à 11:05 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Pat
Le lundi 24 avril 2006 à 11:05 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[..]
> > > For me, I would like a way of
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 22:39 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> Le samedi 22 avril 2006 à 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> [..]
> > > For me, I would like a way of
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > [Replying to own post]
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > >
Le samedi 22 avril 2006 à 22:31 +0200, Jerome Warnier a écrit :
> Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[..]
> > For me, I would like a way of selectively marking folders for checking
> > for new mail - mail o
Le mercredi 19 avril 2006 à 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > [Replying to own post]
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > Link the cache folders you don't want to /dev/null? (I haven't tried
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:23 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 06:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 07:46 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 16:26 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:38 +0100, Pete Biggs w
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 06:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 07:46 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 16:26 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:38 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 07:46 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 16:26 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:38 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 16:26 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:38 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:38 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > [Replying to own post]
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2006-04-1
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some of my IMAP folders (spam, history subfolders for mailing lists,
> etc) don't really need to be cached, but are, even if I accidentally
> go into them.
>
> So, a suggestion: add a boolean "do not cache" folder property.
>
> Exa
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:57 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > [Replying to own post]
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > Link the cac
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > [Replying to own post]
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > Link the cache folders you don't want to /dev/null? (I haven't tried
> > > thi
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > [Replying to own post]
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > Link the cache folders you don't want to /dev/null? (I haven't tried
> > > thi
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:39 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> [Replying to own post]
>
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Link the cache folders you don't want to /dev/null? (I haven't tried
> > this and don't know about any possible side-effects).
>
> This make
[Replying to own post]
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:08 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Link the cache folders you don't want to /dev/null? (I haven't tried
> this and don't know about any possible side-effects).
This makes no sense e.g. you might want to cache a subfolder but not its
parent, or c
Link the cache folders you don't want to /dev/null? (I haven't tried
this and don't know about any possible side-effects).
poc
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some of my IMAP folders (spam, history subfolders for mailing lists,
> etc) don't really need to be cach
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some of my IMAP folders (spam, history subfolders for mailing lists,
> etc) don't really need to be cached, but are, even if I accidentally
> go into them.
>
> So, a suggestion: add a boolean "do not cache" folder property.
>
Ummm
Hi,
Some of my IMAP folders (spam, history subfolders for mailing lists,
etc) don't really need to be cached, but are, even if I accidentally
go into them.
So, a suggestion: add a boolean "do not cache" folder property.
Example: I'm subscribed to Debian-User, which has approx 10-12K
emails per
31 matches
Mail list logo
