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 "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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#22161

On 2026/10/2 13:29:46, Tweed wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> I only have the one device (this laptop), so the main advantage isn't.>>
>>>
> No phone with email?

No - no smartphone. Increasingly, this makes me a weirdo (at least two
supermarkets won't give me a card, only an "app", for example; I tried
to open a bank account on Wednesday, but "online only" - and when I
tried that, it was obviously assuming a smartphone; and so on).

> But even if you only have one device, if that breaks, gets stolen etc, you
> can use another computer to look at your email provider’s webmail and
> access both your received and sent messages. 
> 
True. Though I do back up my Thunderbird profile frequently.>
> 
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong. - H.L.Mencken

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

#22159

On 02/10/2026 21:33, 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.
> 
My mail can be accessed quite happily using IMAP, because it live on 
*my* computer.

And I can access it remotely, when needed.

	Cheers,
		Gary	B-)

	

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

#22162

On 02/10/2026 16:51, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 21:33, 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.
>>

So do you back up your e-mail or when your computer releases its magic 
smoke is it gone..

.. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about IMAP. Its a 
synchronisation process. What is in the cloud is a mirror of what is on 
my computer. I do back it up as well in case both die..

> My mail can be accessed quite happily using IMAP, because it live on 
> *my* computer.
> 
> And I can access it remotely, when needed.
> 
>      Cheers,
>          Gary    B-)
> 
> 
Dave

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

#22164 — IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?)

On 2026/10/2 17:11:13, David Wade wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 16:51, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>> On 02/10/2026 21:33, AnthonyL wrote:
[]
>>> 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.
>>>
> 
> So do you back up your e-mail or when your computer releases its magic 
> smoke is it gone..

I do back it up.>
> .. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about IMAP. Its a 
> synchronisation process. What is in the cloud is a mirror of what is on 
> my computer. I do back it up as well in case both die..

Not a lot of IMAP users realise that you _can_ have duplicated emails
between the server and the computer with POP; it is just that the
_default_ setting of most email clients is "download and delete from
server". On all clients I've looked at sp far, there is the _option_ to
"download but leave on server".

There is no _synchronisation_ function with POP, and it certainly does
not duplicate/synchronise any folder structure over the link; it is very
much a one-way system, other than the delete instructions going back to
the server if the client is left at the default setting. As such, it is
a lot simpler than IMAP - which doesn't make it better, just simpler.

I did know one person who still used POP, but with multiple devices: he
had one, master, device set to the default (delete from server after
downloading), and the others not; he made sure only run an email
connection on that machine after the others (I think it was only one or
two others). I'm not saying this was a good system, only give it as an
unusual example.

> 
>> My mail can be accessed quite happily using IMAP, because it live on 
>> *my* computer.
>>
>> And I can access it remotely, when needed.
>>
>>      Cheers,
>>          Gary    B-)
>>
>>
> Dave

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 :-)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Religion is a name for opinion that cannot be argued about.
[Heard on Radio 4, 2010-10-18, 9:xx.]

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

#22165 — Re: IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?)

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.

That being said, there is no analogy. OneDriive will happily delete
files at your storage capacity; the user is not being protected. All
Microsoft account-based service force themselves on the user.
Installation tries to force accounr set up. An update changes settings
back to default, back to account-based services.

Under no circumstances am I forced to use IMAP and I've never had
settings changed with an update.

I'll bite: What dis-ease is there about IMAP? Note that I don't
syncronize. If I archive a message, it's always forwarded, then stored,
deleting it from the inbox. If I don't want to archive a message, I
delete it from the inbox. I like IMAP because the inbox can be on one
host and the archive folder on another.

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

#22168 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 18:45:56, 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.
> 
> That being said, there is no analogy. OneDriive will happily delete

I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
files and folders.

> files at your storage capacity; the user is not being protected. All
> Microsoft account-based service force themselves on the user.
> Installation tries to force accounr set up. An update changes settings
> back to default, back to account-based services.
> 
> Under no circumstances am I forced to use IMAP and I've never had
> settings changed with an update.
> 
> I'll bite: What dis-ease is there about IMAP? Note that I don't
> syncronize. If I archive a message, it's always forwarded, then stored,
> deleting it from the inbox. If I don't want to archive a message, I
> delete it from the inbox. I like IMAP because the inbox can be on one
> host and the archive folder on another.

I have never operated email on more than one device at once, so the main
advantage of IMAP passes me by; the secondary one of extra backup, I do
appreciate would be a boon.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

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

#22172 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>files and folders.

Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

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

#22175 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 21:30:3, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>> you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>> and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>> files and folders.
> 
> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
sync, what is its advantage?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.

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

#22176 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>On 2026/10/2 21:30:3, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>>I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>>>you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>>>and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>>>files and folders.

>>Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

>I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>sync, what is its advantage?

I have my message archive folders on one host, with inboxes on a variet
of different hopes. IMAP allows me to check, save, or delete messages
between folders on different hosts. POP3 can ceck an inbox only.

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

#22177 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 22:43:6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/10/2 21:30:3, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>>>> I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>>>> you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>>>> and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>>>> files and folders.
> 
>>> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.
> 
>> I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>> sync, what is its advantage?
> 
> I have my message archive folders on one host, with inboxes on a variet
> of different hopes. IMAP allows me to check, save, or delete messages
> between folders on different hosts. POP3 can ceck an inbox only.

OK, so it's a multi-host file (or email) manager. As I only have one
host, it's not for me - I can see it is for some.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"...told me to connect with the electorate, and I did!" John Prescott
on having punched the man who threw an egg at him (Top Gear, 2011-2-28)

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

#22179 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>OK, so it's a multi-host file (or email) manager. As I only have one
>host, it's not for me - I can see it is for some.

IMAP acts on messages, not files. If I wanted to copy an entire folder,
if a Berkeley-style flat file, I'd use scp or sftp.

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

#22180 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.
> 
> I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
> sync, what is its advantage?

Most IMAP users will choose to sync the inbox, sent items, and perhaps 
spam and drafts folders, with most servers you can create any other 
folders you like to organise the mailbox, they won't automatically sync, 
but most clients will let you choose ...

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

#22169 — Re: IMAP and POP

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.

...

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

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

#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]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web