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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #156117 > unrolled thread

K9 mail program

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  K9 mail program "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-22 21:49 +0200
    Re: K9 mail program VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-09-24 10:39 -0500
      Re: K9 mail program Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-25 03:55 +1200
      Re: K9 mail program "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 21:15 +0200
        Re: K9 mail program VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-09-24 19:02 -0500
          Re: K9 mail program Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-09-25 06:19 +0000
            Re: K9 mail program Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-09-25 10:36 +0200
              Re: K9 mail program David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-09-25 20:46 +0100
                Re: K9 mail program Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-09-25 22:21 +0200
                  Re: K9 mail program David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-09-25 21:32 +0100
                  Re: K9 mail program "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-26 12:42 +0200
                Re: K9 mail program Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-26 15:01 +0000
                  Re: K9 mail program Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-09-26 18:30 +0200
                    Re: K9 mail program Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-26 17:50 +0000
                  Re: K9 mail program "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-27 13:40 +0200
            Re: K9 mail program "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-25 12:35 +0200
              Re: K9 mail program Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-09-27 11:41 +0200
                Re: K9 mail program Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:06 +0000
            Re: K9 mail program Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-09-27 11:30 +0200
    Re: K9 mail program Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-09-24 17:15 +0000
      Re: K9 mail program "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 21:19 +0200
        Re: K9 mail program Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-09-24 20:05 +0000
          Re: K9 mail program Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-09-25 21:05 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#156117 — K9 mail program

Hi,

Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display the 
photos included in the post. There is no button to "display remote 
images". I see it in other emails.

Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays perfectly 
in Tb on the computer, though.

Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#156133

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

> Hi,
> 
> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display the 
> photos included in the post. There is no button to "display remote 
> images". I see it in other emails.
> 
> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays perfectly 
> in Tb on the computer, though.
> 
> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".

Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
to determine if the images are linked or embedded.

That TB and K9 behave differently could be due to different
configuration regarding handling of linked content.  For TB, I suspect
it does come installed with linked images blocked, but you decided to
change that setting.  Or, the sender of that e-mail is trusted in TB,
but wasn't added to K9.  You can configure many e-mail clients to
download everything, included linked content, if the sender is in a
whitelist or trusted sender list.

I've never used K9 to know its settings regarding linked content, or if
it has a trusted sender whitelist.

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

#156134

VanguardLH wrote:
> I've never used K9 to know its settings

Likewise, I stopped using K9 email when Google temporarily, for a few
months, forced everyone to sign into Google for Android email, but then
very quick Marcel Bokhorst fixed FairEmail (with Tbird help) so that OAUTH
worked again, and I never re-loaded K9 email after that, so this is a
logical assessment of what Carlos' issue "might" be, as I didn't test it.

Looking at the problem set logically, it sounds like Carlos isolated it to
K9's handling of remote/embedded images, rather than the email itself.

The fact that "Download everything" makes the photos appear is a useful
clue showing that the images are available, but the app isn't automatically
fetching them in that message. Since the same email displays correctly in
Thunderbird on Carlos' computer, the message itself is probably fine	.

My recommendations, based purely on logical assessment alone, is Carlos
might want to look for options related to remote images or automatically
loading images in
 K9:Settings > account > Fetching mail > Show pictures

If this logic fails, then I guarantee Carlos gets his money back from me.
:)
-- 
Helpful suggestions from people are why Usenet still remains invaluable.

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

#156139

On 2026-09-24 17:39, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display the
>> photos included in the post. There is no button to "display remote
>> images". I see it in other emails.
>>
>> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays perfectly
>> in Tb on the computer, though.
>>
>> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
> 
> Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
> formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
> e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
> default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
> to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
> to determine if the images are linked or embedded.

The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded it 
all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded the text.

> 
> That TB and K9 behave differently could be due to different
> configuration regarding handling of linked content.  For TB, I suspect
> it does come installed with linked images blocked, but you decided to
> change that setting.  Or, the sender of that e-mail is trusted in TB,
> but wasn't added to K9.  You can configure many e-mail clients to
> download everything, included linked content, if the sender is in a
> whitelist or trusted sender list.
> 
> I've never used K9 to know its settings regarding linked content, or if
> it has a trusted sender whitelist.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#156142

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

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display
>>> the photos included in the post. There is no button to "display
>>> remote images". I see it in other emails. 
>>> 
>>> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays
>>> perfectly in Tb on the computer, though. 
>>> 
>>> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
>> 
>> Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
>> formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
>> e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
>> default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
>> to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
>> to determine if the images are linked or embedded.
> 
> The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded it 
> all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded the text.

There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
size.  Someone could send you huge e-mails in which you have no
interest, so you don't want to waste bandwidth and disk space of
possibly unwanted content.  Might be a sync option in K9 for the
server/account definition regarding max incoming message size.

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

#156143

VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > VanguardLH wrote:
> >
> >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display
> >>> the photos included in the post. There is no button to "display
> >>> remote images". I see it in other emails. 
> >>> 
> >>> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays
> >>> perfectly in Tb on the computer, though. 
> >>> 
> >>> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
> >> 
> >> Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
> >> formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
> >> e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
> >> default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
> >> to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
> >> to determine if the images are linked or embedded.
> > 
> > The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded it 
> > all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded the text.
> 
> There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
> size. 

There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.

> Someone could send you huge e-mails in which you have no
> interest, so you don't want to waste bandwidth and disk space of
> possibly unwanted content.  Might be a sync option in K9 for the
> server/account definition regarding max incoming message size.

-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

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

#156144

On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display
>>>>> the photos included in the post. There is no button to "display
>>>>> remote images". I see it in other emails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays
>>>>> perfectly in Tb on the computer, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
>>>> formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
>>>> e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
>>>> default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
>>>> to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
>>>> to determine if the images are linked or embedded.
>>>
>>> The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded it
>>> all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded the text.
>>
>> There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
>> size.
> 
> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.

Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.

-- 
"Ave! Morituri te salutant!"

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

#156153

In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
          Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> > VanguardLH wrote:
> > > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > VanguardLH wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display
> > > > > > the photos included in the post. There is no button to "display
> > > > > > remote images". I see it in other emails.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays
> > > > > > perfectly in Tb on the computer, though.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
> > > > > formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within
> > > > > the e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe
> > > > > all, default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons
> > > > > that try to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source
> > > > > of the e-mail to determine if the images are linked or embedded.
> > > > 
> > > > The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded
> > > > it all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded
> > > > the text.
> > > 
> > > There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
> > > size.
> > 
> > There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
> 
> Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.

1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
on unwanted stuff.

2) It's easy to dowload a complete larger message once you've decided
that it's not a waste of data allowance.

3) It's easy to set it to a much larger value, even unlimited.

David

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

#156155

On 25.09.26 21:46, David Higton wrote:
> In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
>           Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
>>> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
>>
>> Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.
> 
> 1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
> on unwanted stuff.
> 
> 2) It's easy to dowload a complete larger message once you've decided
> that it's not a waste of data allowance.
> 
> 3) It's easy to set it to a much larger value, even unlimited.

Where do you live? And your list shows me that you not even tried to
understand what I wrote.

BTW: We live in a flat rate world.



-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

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

#156157

In message <1196l4i$a3b9$1@solani.org>
          Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 25.09.26 21:46, David Higton wrote:
> > In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
> >           Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> > > > There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
> > > 
> > > Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.
> > 
> > 1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
> > on unwanted stuff.
> > 
> > 2) It's easy to dowload a complete larger message once you've decided
> > that it's not a waste of data allowance.
> > 
> > 3) It's easy to set it to a much larger value, even unlimited.
> 
> Where do you live? And your list shows me that you not even tried to
> understand what I wrote.

The UK.

> BTW: We live in a flat rate world.

Oh no we don't.  We very much don't.

David

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

#156164

On 2026-09-25 22:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 25.09.26 21:46, David Higton wrote:
>> In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
>>            Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
>>>
>>> Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.
>>
>> 1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
>> on unwanted stuff.
>>
>> 2) It's easy to dowload a complete larger message once you've decided
>> that it's not a waste of data allowance.
>>
>> 3) It's easy to set it to a much larger value, even unlimited.
> 
> Where do you live? And your list shows me that you not even tried to
> understand what I wrote.
> 
> BTW: We live in a flat rate world.

Not everybody. I don't. I have a large allowance, much larger than what 
I use, but it is not flat. And I have a secondary phone with only 5 GB.

And when I travel over the pond, what I get is very much not flat and is 
a short limit.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#156165

David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
> In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
>           Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> > > VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
> > > > There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
> > > > size.
> > > 
> > > There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
> > 
> > Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.
> 
> 1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
> on unwanted stuff.

  Exactly! Now, not so much, but I used to have some rather expensive
pre-paid mobile data in overseas countries, for example in Australia.
IIRC, I had set lhe fetch limit even lower, some 8KB or so.

  And even in 2024 (have not checked recently), pre-paid roaming charges
of 4 or even 9 Euro per *MB* were common. Spend a hundred Euro on *one*
e-mail message, just because my e-mail client doesn't have a limit? I
don't think so.

> 2) It's easy to dowload a complete larger message once you've decided
> that it's not a waste of data allowance.

  Yes, that called flexibility, some people might need to look-up/grasp
that concept.

> 3) It's easy to set it to a much larger value, even unlimited.

  See 2).

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

#156169

On 26.09.26 17:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
>>           Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
>>>>> size.
>>>>
>>>> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
>>>
>>> Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.
>>
>> 1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
>> on unwanted stuff.
> 
>   Exactly! Now, not so much, but I used to have some rather expensive
> pre-paid mobile data in overseas countries, for example in Australia.
> IIRC, I had set lhe fetch limit even lower, some 8KB or so.
> 
>   And even in 2024 (have not checked recently), pre-paid roaming charges
> of 4 or even 9 Euro per *MB* were common. Spend a hundred Euro on *one*
> e-mail message, just because my e-mail client doesn't have a limit? I
> don't think so.

*ROTFLSTC*


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita."

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

#156170

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 26.09.26 17:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
> >>           Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> >>>> VanguardLH wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>>> There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
> >>>>> size.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
> >>>
> >>> Which is an absolutely ridiculous figure nowadays.
> >>
> >> 1) It's a very effective defence against wasting a limited data allowance
> >> on unwanted stuff.
> > 
> >   Exactly! Now, not so much, but I used to have some rather expensive
> > pre-paid mobile data in overseas countries, for example in Australia.
> > IIRC, I had set lhe fetch limit even lower, some 8KB or so.
> > 
> >   And even in 2024 (have not checked recently), pre-paid roaming charges
> > of 4 or even 9 Euro per *MB* were common. Spend a hundred Euro on *one*
> > e-mail message, just because my e-mail client doesn't have a limit? I
> > don't think so.
> 
> *ROTFLSTC*

  Sorry that you STC and sorry to rain on your parade, but what I quoted
are still the current rates [1]. (And no, of course I don't pay that kind
of money, but get a local SIM instead.)

  And no, I - and many (most?) others - don't want to spend the amount
of money you're spending, just to get unlimited everything and worldwide
roaming. As I said, the concept is called 'flexibility'.

[1]
<https://www.vodafone.nl/content/dam/vodafone/downloads/tarieven/2025/tarievenoverzicht_prepaid_3_december_2025.pdf>
See 'OVERIGE TARIEVEN' -> 'MOBIEL INTERNET' -> 'Zone 2: Wereld' and 'Zone
3: Uitzonderingen'
('OTHER TARIFFS' -> 'MOBILE INTERNET' -> 'Zone 2: World and 'Zone 3:
Exceptions')

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

#156178

On 2026-09-26 17:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1195bqd$956u$2@solani.org>
>>            Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:


>    And even in 2024 (have not checked recently), pre-paid roaming charges
> of 4 or even 9 Euro per *MB* were common. Spend a hundred Euro on *one*
> e-mail message, just because my e-mail client doesn't have a limit? I
> don't think so.

Yes, I get those prices from my telco if I go across the pond.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#156146

On 2026-09-25 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display
>>>>> the photos included in the post. There is no button to "display
>>>>> remote images". I see it in other emails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays
>>>>> perfectly in Tb on the computer, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
>>>> formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
>>>> e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
>>>> default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
>>>> to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
>>>> to determine if the images are linked or embedded.
>>>
>>> The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded it
>>> all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded the text.
>>
>> There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
>> size.
> 
> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.

Aha. The problem post has 110K.

Another post (different cinema) was 904K, but was not a problem, because 
the images that are needed for the ticket are not attached, but are 
remote. In that one some times I have to tap "see remote images". 
Somehow the QR code is visible before doing that.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#156175

On 25.09.26 12:35, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-25 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
>> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
> 
> Aha. The problem post has 110K.
> 
> Another post (different cinema) was 904K, but was not a problem, because 
> the images that are needed for the ticket are not attached, but are 
> remote. In that one some times I have to tap "see remote images". 
> Somehow the QR code is visible before doing that.

Everything under 1 MB allowed size will create problems sooner or later.
HTML-code and attachments can easily reach the size you mentioned.

Even more cost efficient would be to just download the header in IMAP
accounts and to download only what you really need. POP is a no go
anyway under these circumstances.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

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

#156183

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 25.09.26 12:35, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> > On 2026-09-25 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> >> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.
> > 
> > Aha. The problem post has 110K.
> > 
> > Another post (different cinema) was 904K, but was not a problem, because 
> > the images that are needed for the ticket are not attached, but are 
> > remote. In that one some times I have to tap "see remote images". 
> > Somehow the QR code is visible before doing that.
> 
> Everything under 1 MB allowed size will create problems sooner or later.
> HTML-code and attachments can easily reach the size you mentioned.

  I don't think that will be a problem. Dave has explained the options
and you have found that (mobile) Thunderbird does the same as K-9 Mail.

Not that it means much, but I just checked my (computer) Inbox and only
a third are over 32KB, with the largest only 193KB. There is a 306KB
one, but that has 215KB of attachments and - other than you indicate -
attachments are not a problem, because the mailer will show that there
are attachments and you can load them later if they are beyond the
'Fetch messages up to' limit.

> Even more cost efficient would be to just download the header in IMAP
> accounts and to download only what you really need. POP is a no go
> anyway under these circumstances.

  Not to get into an IMAP versus POP argument, but POP can also just
fetch the header(s). See the Account Settings in your computer version
of Thunderbird ('Fetch headers only'). I use that in a 'guest' account..

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

#156174

On 25.09.26 08:19, Dave Royal wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display
>>>>> the photos included in the post. There is no button to "display
>>>>> remote images". I see it in other emails. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays
>>>>> perfectly in Tb on the computer, though. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the problematic e-mail has links (<A href=URL ...> for HTML
>>>> formatted e-mail) to the images rather than the images are within the
>>>> e-mail itself (inside MIME blocks)?  Most e-mail clients, maybe all,
>>>> default to blocking linked images; e.g., to deter web beacons that try
>>>> to track when you open an e-mail.  Look at the raw source of the e-mail
>>>> to determine if the images are linked or embedded.
>>>
>>> The images were attached. I think that TB in the computer downloaded it 
>>> all (from the IMAP server, not online), whereas K9 only downloaded the text.
>>
>> There might be a setting to restrict retrieved e-mails to a maximum
>> size. 
> 
> There is: "Fetch messages up to". The default is 32K.

I just checked Thunderbird on my Pixel: Maximum size allowed is 5 MB.
N.B.: TB and K9 are identical.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

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

#156136

"Carlos E.R." wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just now I noticed in an email that I got that it did not display the 
> photos included in the post. There is no button to "display remote 
> images". I see it in other emails.
> 
> Mmmm... maybe it is a problem in the mail itself. It displays perfectly 
> in Tb on the computer, though.
> 
> Hum! Worked when I tapped "download everything".

On this tablet I have 'Show remote images' at the top where it's obvious and 'Download complete message' right at the bottom, about 20cm away, where it's not. 

-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web