Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #16648 > unrolled thread

New authorization required for only ONE account

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 07:30 -0700
    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-14 16:48 +0100
    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> - 2025-05-14 16:53 +0100
      Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> - 2025-05-15 00:04 +0000
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> - 2025-05-15 12:27 +0100
    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:32 -0700
      Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-05-14 18:01 -0700
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-15 10:53 +0100
          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> - 2025-05-15 12:35 +0100
          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-16 07:46 +0100
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-15 06:22 -0400
          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 14:01 -0700
            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> - 2025-05-16 11:44 +0100
    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-14 13:52 -0500
      Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:26 -0700
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-14 23:53 -0500
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-15 00:11 -0500
          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-15 09:37 -0400
          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Jack Lemmon <Jack.Lemmon@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-15 22:54 +0100
            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 18:31 -0700
    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-14 21:50 +0200
      Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:14 -0700
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-14 22:32 +0200
        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-14 21:46 +0100
          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 14:59 -0700
            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-15 00:02 -0500
              Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:21 -0700
                Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-15 03:18 -0500
                  Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 14:23 -0700
                    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-16 08:10 -0500
                      Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 09:08 -0700
                        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-05-16 10:07 -0700
                          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 10:45 -0700
                            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-05-16 11:31 -0700
                              Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 22:12 -0700
                        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-16 13:47 -0500
                          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-17 06:13 -0500
                            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 22:22 -0700
                          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 22:10 -0700
                            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-18 08:22 -0700
                              Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-18 18:55 +0200
                              Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-18 18:04 +0100
                                Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-18 12:10 -0700
                        Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-17 11:30 +0200
                          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-17 06:28 -0500
                            Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 22:31 -0700
                              Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-18 11:51 +0200
                                Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-18 08:05 -0700
                                  Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-18 18:57 +0200
                                  Re: New authorization required for only ONE account Operation Sindoor <operation.sindoor@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-18 22:36 +0000
                                    Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-18 20:31 -0700
                          Re: New authorization required for only ONE account The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 22:18 -0700
                Re: New authorization required for only ONE account "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-15 13:01 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#16700

On 2025-05-18 17:22, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/17/25 22:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/16/25 11:47, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Stuff works now, except that when I start TB in the morning (I shut down
>> my computer at night) no unloading happens automatically, although it
>> should -- TB settings are download on startup and every 3 minutes
>> thereafter for all accounts including Eternal September.  Nothing, even
>> after repeated GET MESSAGES clicks.
> 
> THE MYSTERY SOLVED, and I can take partial blame.  Down at the bottom of 
> the account list, way off scale, are four defunct nntp servers that I 
> never figured out how to get rid of.  I zeroed out all of the connection 
> settings, but ONE of them insisted on trying really hard to connect and 
> wouldn't let the other accounts try until it finally gave up.  I just 
> happened to see the 'connecting with oldusa server' thing in the bottom 
> bar and went hunting.
> 
> I have never before seen the big red DELETE button;  I had wanted to get 
> rid of these long ago but was never able to.  Has this always been there 
> but only visible if you sort of back into it or is it a new thing added 
> after TB82?
>> So I go to the website, tap a different POP setting, tap it back again,
>> hit SAVE and mail starts to download.  This has happened yesterday and
>> today.  The website ALWAYS says POP is enabled before I do anything.
>> Does the website feel unloved?
>>
>> Moreover, TB seems to switch the setting on the accounts from UNREAD to
>> ALL whenever it feels like it.
> 
> This still happens.
>> I ran a bootable system backup last night and am going to try some
>> catastrophic changes in it tomorrow, maybe.
> Maybe...
> 

Accounts are deleted in the edit/accounts settings window or tab.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16702

The Real Bev wrote:

> I have never before seen the big red DELETE button;

It's fairly recent, maybe related to the Accounts Hub?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16703

On 5/18/25 10:04, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
> 
>> I have never before seen the big red DELETE button;
> 
> It's fairly recent, maybe related to the Accounts Hub?

Extremely interesting.  It shows up in each account UNTIL I click on 
Server Settings in one account, at which time it disappears from all 
accounts until I exit the 'Account Settings'.  When I go back, there 
they are again.  Since I generally go to the Server Settings for the 
account of interest rather than the name of the account, this might 
explain why I'd never seen them before.

Or not.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
    miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
    demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
    Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
                                             PJ O'Rourke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16689

On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:
> 
> Not fair.  I've spent days working on this.  The problem is that I'm 
> flailing around in the dark.  Last night I was getting messages in both 
> accounts.  When I turned on my machine this morning TB said there were 
> NO NEW MESSAGES in either account.  Website showed a few new messages in 
> AccountA and over a dozen new messages in AccountB but nothing forwarded 
> from A to B.  POP enabled.  Forward enabled.  It also told me that my 
> Firefox beta was an unsupported browser.

You don't need to forward. just click and move messages with the mouse, 
inside Thunderbird. But you need imap, not pop.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16691

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:
>> 
>> Not fair.  I've spent days working on this.  The problem is that I'm 
>> flailing around in the dark.  Last night I was getting messages in both 
>> accounts.  When I turned on my machine this morning TB said there were 
>> NO NEW MESSAGES in either account.  Website showed a few new messages in 
>> AccountA and over a dozen new messages in AccountB but nothing forwarded 
>> from A to B.  POP enabled.  Forward enabled.  It also told me that my 
>> Firefox beta was an unsupported browser.
> 
> You don't need to forward. just click and move messages with the mouse, 
> inside Thunderbird. But you need imap, not pop.

Since POP has the client locally store all messages, can't you move
messages between accounts in Tbird by selecting messages and either
dragging them between accounts, or right-click on them, use "move to" or
"copy to"?  Maybe simple select and drag only works to move into the
Local folders (which is just more local storage).  I don't if you could
then move from Local folders into an account folder.  Else, so you're
stuck with export & import.

You would have to occasionally do all that manual effort yourself to
keep moving message between accounts.  Seems easier to employ a
server-side forwarding option, but that only works on new e-mails, not
the entire message store to get old messages into a different account.

Much simpler with IMAP where you can select and drag-n-drop between
accounts.  With POP everything is stored locally, and account oriented.
Worse is that Gmail is designed with server-side behaviors that are
assigned to the client under standard RFCs for e-mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16696

On 5/17/25 04:28, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not fair.  I've spent days working on this.  The problem is that I'm 
>>> flailing around in the dark.  Last night I was getting messages in both 
>>> accounts.  When I turned on my machine this morning TB said there were 
>>> NO NEW MESSAGES in either account.  Website showed a few new messages in 
>>> AccountA and over a dozen new messages in AccountB but nothing forwarded 
>>> from A to B.  POP enabled.  Forward enabled.  It also told me that my 
>>> Firefox beta was an unsupported browser.
>> 
>> You don't need to forward. just click and move messages with the mouse, 
>> inside Thunderbird. But you need imap, not pop.
> 
> Since POP has the client locally store all messages, can't you move
> messages between accounts in Tbird by selecting messages and either
> dragging them between accounts, or right-click on them, use "move to" or
> "copy to"?  Maybe simple select and drag only works to move into the
> Local folders (which is just more local storage).  I don't if you could
> then move from Local folders into an account folder.  Else, so you're
> stuck with export & import.

I've always ignored 'local folders' because it's way down at the bottom 
of the list, requiring much scrolling.  No.  I really miss the folder 
rearrangement extension.  I think I can edit a list somewhere, but 
that's a pretty low priority right now.
> You would have to occasionally do all that manual effort yourself to
> keep moving message between accounts.  Seems easier to employ a
> server-side forwarding option, but that only works on new e-mails, not
> the entire message store to get old messages into a different account.
> 
> Much simpler with IMAP where you can select and drag-n-drop between
> accounts.  With POP everything is stored locally, and account oriented.
> Worse is that Gmail is designed with server-side behaviors that are
> assigned to the client under standard RFCs for e-mail.
The problem with IMAP is that I don't trust google to not go belly up or 
decide to charge for email or do something else equivalently 
undesirable. The Cloud is a "sometime thing". The multiple-device thing 
just isn't personally useful, and even with POP I still have it since I 
leave it on their server.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16697

On 2025-05-18 07:31, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/17/25 04:28, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:

...

>> Much simpler with IMAP where you can select and drag-n-drop between
>> accounts.  With POP everything is stored locally, and account oriented.
>> Worse is that Gmail is designed with server-side behaviors that are
>> assigned to the client under standard RFCs for e-mail.
> The problem with IMAP is that I don't trust google to not go belly up or 
> decide to charge for email or do something else equivalently 
> undesirable. The Cloud is a "sometime thing". The multiple-device thing 
> just isn't personally useful, and even with POP I still have it since I 
> leave it on their server.

With IMAP in TB you can automatically move any email (and new email the 
instant it arrives) to a local folder on the machine. Or email older 
than a week, or whatever you want.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16698

On 5/18/25 02:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2025-05-18 07:31, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 5/17/25 04:28, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Much simpler with IMAP where you can select and drag-n-drop between
>>> accounts.  With POP everything is stored locally, and account oriented.
>>> Worse is that Gmail is designed with server-side behaviors that are
>>> assigned to the client under standard RFCs for e-mail.
>> The problem with IMAP is that I don't trust google to not go belly up or 
>> decide to charge for email or do something else equivalently 
>> undesirable. The Cloud is a "sometime thing". The multiple-device thing 
>> just isn't personally useful, and even with POP I still have it since I 
>> leave it on their server.
> 
> With IMAP in TB you can automatically move any email (and new email the
> instant it arrives) to a local folder on the machine. Or email older
> than a week, or whatever you want.

I was going to say "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and then I realized...

The accounts have been this way ever since gmail started and THIS is the 
first time I've ever had a problem.  Anyway, I solved (pretty much by 
accident) the refusal-to-download problem -- a long-defunct nntp account 
that, in spite of no instruction to do so, insisted on trying to contact 
the server for a LONG time before giving up.  Details in a different post.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "If you expect to score points by whining, join a European soccer team."
                                                   --Demotivators poster

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16701

On 2025-05-18 17:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 5/18/25 02:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2025-05-18 07:31, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 5/17/25 04:28, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Much simpler with IMAP where you can select and drag-n-drop between
>>>> accounts.  With POP everything is stored locally, and account oriented.
>>>> Worse is that Gmail is designed with server-side behaviors that are
>>>> assigned to the client under standard RFCs for e-mail.
>>> The problem with IMAP is that I don't trust google to not go belly up 
>>> or decide to charge for email or do something else equivalently 
>>> undesirable. The Cloud is a "sometime thing". The multiple-device 
>>> thing just isn't personally useful, and even with POP I still have it 
>>> since I leave it on their server.
>>
>> With IMAP in TB you can automatically move any email (and new email the
>> instant it arrives) to a local folder on the machine. Or email older
>> than a week, or whatever you want.
> 
> I was going to say "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and then I realized...
> 
> The accounts have been this way ever since gmail started and THIS is the 
> first time I've ever had a problem.  Anyway, I solved (pretty much by 
> accident) the refusal-to-download problem -- a long-defunct nntp account 
> that, in spite of no instruction to do so, insisted on trying to contact 
> the server for a LONG time before giving up.  Details in a different post.

I saw it. But I understood better the explanation in this paragraph :-)

Yeah, TB is not threaded. There is some threading on new releases, but 
not there yet.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16704

On 18/05/2025 16:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> I was going to say "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and then I realized...

But did you realise that "If it ain't broke break it anyway before 
fixing it" does miracles in most cases!

Jai Hind

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16705

On 5/18/25 15:36, Operation Sindoor wrote:
> On 18/05/2025 16:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>> I was going to say "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and then I realized...
> 
> But did you realise that "If it ain't broke break it anyway before
> fixing it" does miracles in most cases!

I've always like "If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is."

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   I can picture a world without war, without hate.   I can picture
   us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16694

On 5/17/25 02:30, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2025-05-16 18:08, The Real Bev wrote:
>> 
>> Not fair.  I've spent days working on this.  The problem is that I'm 
>> flailing around in the dark.  Last night I was getting messages in both 
>> accounts.  When I turned on my machine this morning TB said there were 
>> NO NEW MESSAGES in either account.  Website showed a few new messages in 
>> AccountA and over a dozen new messages in AccountB but nothing forwarded 
>> from A to B.  POP enabled.  Forward enabled.  It also told me that my 
>> Firefox beta was an unsupported browser.

It doesn't like my old Chrome either.

> You don't need to forward. just click and move messages with the mouse,
> inside Thunderbird. But you need imap, not pop.

AccountA messages never get to AccountB except by forwarding.  TB moves 
the A messages into a subfolder (filter) of B so I can eventually move 
them into the A subfolders where they belong. Filters are more reliable 
than manual methods.

I am never able to drag/drop anything on the web.  Trust me.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16672

On 2025-05-15 08:21, The Real Bev wrote:
> And it won't pick up my .sig files any more 🙁

That one is ridiculous, it should pick the signatures. Maybe the config 
pointing to the signatures is missing.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web