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 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-04 16:46 +0000
                                                  Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-04 17:10 +0000
                                              Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 20:38 +0200
                                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]

#22170 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 21:13:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
[]
> In the fetchmail documentation, developers recommended using imap over 
> pop3 for multiple reasons, one of them being safer and easier to handle. 

In what way safer?

> IMAP could do the same things as PO3, and then more.
> 
> ...
> 
I think the main fear among we dinosaurs is that not only _can_ IMAP do
more, it _will_, even if we don't want it to (especially if we're only
faintly aware of what they are).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

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

#22173 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026-10-02 22:17, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/10/2 21:13:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> []
>> In the fetchmail documentation, developers recommended using imap over
>> pop3 for multiple reasons, one of them being safer and easier to handle.
> 
> In what way safer?

You will have to read their docs :-)

(because I don't remember)

One issue was keeping track correctly of which was the last post 
retrieved. Or duplicated posts.

> 
>> IMAP could do the same things as PO3, and then more.
>>
>> ...
>>
> I think the main fear among we dinosaurs is that not only _can_ IMAP do
> more, it _will_, even if we don't want it to (especially if we're only
> faintly aware of what they are).


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

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

#22174 — Re: IMAP and POP

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2026-10-02 19:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>>I think there are certain parallels between IMAP and things like
>>>OneDrive; some of us are uneasy about both, and don't really want to say
>>>why :-)

>>I use Windows because there are a few business-critical programs that
>>don't have a Linux alternative. I use Linux where it's the better
>>option.

>In Linux it was traditional to use "fetchmail" to get mail using POP3. 
>The thing is, when IMAP came, I simply changed some words in the 
>fetchmail config file, and mail continued to be downloaded to my local 
>storage. My mail was not in the cloud and I was using imap.

>In the fetchmail documentation, developers recommended using imap over 
>pop3 for multiple reasons, one of them being safer and easier to handle. 
>IMAP could do the same things as PO3, and then more.

POP did no error checking. If IMAP did store and forward, there was
error checking during download to verify the transfer. Only then would
the message be deleted from the transferring server. With POP, the
transferring server deleted the message without knowing if the transfer
was successful.

This is unforgiveable.

POP3 has error checking now, with an option not to delete the message
from the transferring server, but I'm not willing to believe it's as
robust as IMAP4.

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

#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