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

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #22110 > unrolled thread

"We'll sent you a code" emails?

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

Contents

  "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 00:13 +0100
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-09-28 19:26 -0400
      Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 01:48 +0100
        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-29 09:16 +0200
          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:00 +0100
        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-09-29 08:49 +0100
          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:04 +0100
        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:00 +0100
          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:59 +0100
            Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-09-29 15:42 +0100
              Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 17:31 +0100
              Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 22:25 +0200
                Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 22:29 +0100
                  Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 06:57 +0000
                  Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-02 09:38 +0100
                    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 09:16 +0000
                      Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) - 2026-10-02 11:33 +0000
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 11:42 +0000
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 13:20 +0100
                          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 12:29 +0000
                            Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 16:28 +0100
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-03 00:51 +1000
                          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-10-02 18:11 +0200
                            IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 17:54 +0100
                              Re: IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 17:45 +0000
                                Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 21:08 +0100
                                  Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 20:30 +0000
                                    Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 21:52 +0100
                                      Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 21:43 +0000
                                        Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 23:46 +0100
                                          Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-03 05:32 +0000
                                      Re: IMAP and POP Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-03 12:12 +0100
                                        Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-03 18:29 +0000
                                          Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:56 +0200
                                            Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-04 16:02 +0000
                                              Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-04 17:14 +0100
                                Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-02 22:13 +0200
                                  Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 21:17 +0100
                                    Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-02 22:34 +0200
                                  Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 20:38 +0000
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-02 22:04 +0200
                Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) - 2026-10-02 11:36 +0000
                  Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 13:30 +0100
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:09 -0700
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:13 +0100
      Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:31 +0100
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-09-29 11:31 +0200
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:25 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#22167

On 2026-10-02 13:33, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:16:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
>>>> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
>>>
>>> I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?
>>>
>>
>> POP makes less demand on the connection, so in constrained circumstances it
>> can be helpful. But it’s been a long time since the average user has been
>> on a slow dial up link. For me the big advantage of IMAP, with a properly
>> designed mail client, is that outbound email is synchronised across
>> devices, which doesn’t happen with POP. So my sent items mail folder is the
>> same on, for example, my phone and my laptop.
>>
> 
> The big advantage of POP is that the mail is on my computer and not in
> the cloud.  There is stuff that I don't need access to on-the-road.

You can do the same with IMAP.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

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

#22152

On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 22:25:37 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2026-09-29 16:42, Chris Green wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2026/9/29 14:0:57, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then?
>>>> They messed about with TB "renaming" Junk and Spam folders a while ago,
>>>> wonder if you're seeing a side-effect of that?
>>>>
>>> No, it turned out that PlusNet -> Greenby had set up a spam folder - set
>>> to maximum aggression - in their webmail system, so that emails they saw
>>> as spam were shifted there, without POP having any _chance_ of seeing
>>> them (and subsequently moving emails to its own spam/junk folder[s]).
>>>
>>> I've now worked through the 98 emails that had been hidden from me.
>>> About 3 to 6 (I didn't count) were "genuine"-ish unwanted - about three
>>> phishing attempts, and three just unwanted junk mail (though these days
>>> they tend to pretend to be e. g. pushing subsidies rather than just
>>> selling their double glazing). OK, a lot of the rest were what might be
>>> called soft spam - things like newsletters, and similar, but from things
>>> I am signed up to or a customer for. Others, like energy statements,
>>> definitely were _not_ spam - and I've lost two of those, presumably
>>> because Greenby deleted them after a month. (Which make me wonder what
>>> else I've lost.)
>> 
>> I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
>> telling me as pretty useless. 
>
>They did tell. You are supposed to use IMAP, not POP. 

Cite where that rule exists please.

>If you insist on 
>using POP, there are caveats.
>

Better ISPs who properly support POP3 either:

1) email you to advise there is spam in your folder
or
2) allow you to dowload spam


-- 
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

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

#22157

On 2026/10/2 12:36:40, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 22:25:37 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-09-29 16:42, Chris Green wrote:
[]
>>> I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
>>> telling me as pretty useless. 

Well, it's pretty clear that Greenby _are_ pretty useless. Latest
wrinkle: I've been sending emails with From: set to my domain for years,
and they went through PlusNet's server no problem - and continued to do
so for all the weeks (possibly months, CBA to check) after Greenby took
over; but they've just stopped that working. I understand the reason
(danger of email spoofing giving their server a bad reputation), but
some warning would have been polite ...

>>
>> They did tell. You are supposed to use IMAP, not POP. 
> 
> Cite where that rule exists please.

:-)

> 
>> If you insist on 
>> using POP, there are caveats.
>>
> 
> Better ISPs who properly support POP3 either:
> 
> 1) email you to advise there is spam in your folder

Greenby certainly didn't do that ...

> or
> 2) allow you to dowload spam
> 
> 
... though they did have a switch (and slider) on their spam filter, so
by turning it off, spam remains in the remote inbox from which I
download, so I suppose that _was_ available. (Though I had to move the
emails that had already gone into their spam folder back to their inbox
so that TB would see and thus download them.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo    # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo  # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

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

#22113

On 9/28/2026 4:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
> over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
> until someone plugs it back in again).
> 
> However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
> the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
> send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
> them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".
> 
> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
> behave - or be treated - differently?
> 
> In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
> and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
> accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
> saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
> spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
> something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
> had to type in. Which never arrived.
> 
> (Thunderbird 'group added as I use Thunderbird, but I can't think why it
> should be TB at fault. But then I can't see what the fault could be at all.)
> 
> The normal emails I _do_ receive include ones from a mailing list (a
> groups.io one), if that's of any relevance.
> 

One Web site that I frequently visit does not send the code until I
click a link that requests it.  I wait and wait without receiving the
code.  Then I realize the link to click to get the code is near the
bottom of the page.  I must scroll down to click the link.  :(

A delay results from the large set of filters the reply with the code
must pass.  In Thunderbird, my primary E-mail account has 17 filters
some with multiple conditions.  Also, that account has over 60 filters
on the ISP's POP3 server some with more than 10 conditions.  Oviously,
it takes a while for a message to clear my filters.

Finally, my ISP and its servers are 13 hops away from my PC.  A ping
takes 55ms.  That is not much, but it adds to the total time required
from E-mail to reach me.

-- 

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com>

NO, not everyone has a smart phone.  My wife and I have
"dumb cell phones" and a land-line.  Neither of us can
handle QR codes, reply to text messages, or have any
kind of phone-based Internet connections.  We have no APS
on any phone.  We can send and receive photos only
through our desktop PCs.

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

#22118

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote:

> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
> over the cable again

I finally got my "Welcome to Greenby" email yesterday, that mailbox 
mostly gets spam and unwanted stuff that I subscribed to years ago.

> However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
> the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
> send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
> them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".

I dislike those, severn trent used to use email addr + password, now 
they send a one-time link every time, I find that a pain.  eBay is even 
worse, I have to solve a captcha, then give my password, them it sends 
me a one time PIN, then begs me to accept a passcode (the shine has gone 
off those to me) then because #i clear all cookies it sends me an enail 
warning that a new device is using my account

> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
> behave - or be treated - differently?


look at the timestamps in the chain of Received: headers in the ones 
that *do* arrive, see where the delays happen?  e.g. withi greenby, or 
between the various providers involved in your forwarding.
  > In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
> and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
> accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
> saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
> spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
> something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
> had to type in. Which never arrived.
> 
> (Thunderbird 'group added as I use Thunderbird, but I can't think why it
> should be TB at fault. But then I can't see what the fault could be at all.)
> 
> The normal emails I _do_ receive include ones from a mailing list (a
> groups.io one), if that's of any relevance.

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

#22119

On 2026/9/29 9:13:16, Andy Burns wrote:

[]
> I dislike those, severn trent used to use email addr + password, now 
> they send a one-time link every time, I find that a pain.  eBay is even 
> worse, I have to solve a captcha, then give my password, them it sends 
> me a one time PIN, then begs me to accept a passcode (the shine has gone 
> off those to me) then because #i clear all cookies it sends me an enail 
> warning that a new device is using my account

Yes, irritating. I didn't really mind the extra work, as it did suggest
extra security (though relying on a cookie on _your_ machine to remember
devices is a bit off), until they stopped arriving (now fixed).

_Some_ of the websites I accessed in the past few days - I think in both
cases comparison websites - had the alternative of password login,
though they showed the passcode method first, with the password option
definitely less prominent and/or lower down. And that may only because
I'd used them before and thus _had_ a password.
[]
> look at the timestamps in the chain of Received: headers in the ones 
> that *do* arrive, see where the delays happen?  e.g. withi greenby, or 
> between the various providers involved in your forwarding.
[]
That wouldn't, in this case, have clarified the matter. The solution was
that Greenby - unknown to me - had implemented a spam box, with the
filter set to its most aggressive - and, when they put something in that
box, no indication to my POP system was evident.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I use science as my model here. We will crawl toward the truth without
ever knowing if we are all the way there. - Scott Adams, 2015-3-20

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

#22120

Am 29.09.26 um 01:13 schrieb J. P. Gilliver:
> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
> over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
> until someone plugs it back in again).

Some mail servers do greylisting. Some may also reject such mails at 
all. Unless you operate the MX server, you cannot control that.

-- 
Gruß
Marco

Please send unsolicited mail to dustbin12@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

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

#22178

On 9/28/26 4:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
> over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
> until someone plugs it back in again).
> 
> However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
> the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
> send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
> them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".
> 
> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
> behave - or be treated - differently?
> 
> In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
> and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
> accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
> saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
> spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
> something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
> had to type in. Which never arrived.
> 
> (Thunderbird 'group added as I use Thunderbird, but I can't think why it
> should be TB at fault. But then I can't see what the fault could be at all.)
> 
> The normal emails I _do_ receive include ones from a mailing list (a
> groups.io one), if that's of any relevance.


I have that problem at time.  When the code finally arrives,
it is expired.

When I am in double, I hold my nose and log into web
mail.  Often times it can be seen there. Also when in
web mail, I check my spam fold.  Spam can take a day to
be sent to my Betterbird.  No idea why.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web