Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-02 19:48 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-27 20:29 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-04-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-04-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-27 18:53 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-28 16:47 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-28 11:32 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-28 21:30 +0200
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 09:17 +1200
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 03:02 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 17:04 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-28 22:22 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-28 18:32 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:38 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 03:00 +0000
POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-29 08:36 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 19:10 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-29 10:49 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-30 09:21 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:23 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2014-04-30 15:28 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:52 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:39 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 03:18 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 19:22 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-04-29 10:05 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-04-29 10:23 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-30 09:16 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 17:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 20:47 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-29 20:27 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 21:42 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:19 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-30 17:50 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 23:36 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-30 17:50 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 13:13 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-30 21:15 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 18:22 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:11 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 08:41 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-30 03:17 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 09:47 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-30 04:54 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 11:32 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-04-30 06:51 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 09:27 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 18:00 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-05-02 10:00 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-02 09:48 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-02 10:07 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:16 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:14 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:14 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 17:06 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-01 18:56 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-05-02 12:23 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-02 10:34 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2014-05-01 18:25 -0600
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 01:46 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 05:48 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-02 03:20 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 10:50 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-02 06:04 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 12:14 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:39 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 18:32 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-02 10:55 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 16:50 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-03 11:30 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-03 16:45 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-04 11:43 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-05 20:41 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-06 12:32 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-06 17:41 +0000
Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-07 12:25 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 00:10 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-07 20:32 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-05-08 04:29 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-08 14:40 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-10 07:16 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:14 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 21:42 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 12:15 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 16:42 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 01:08 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 16:40 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-11 17:52 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-12 11:39 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-05-11 21:25 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-12 11:53 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 10:29 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-09 03:45 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 09:30 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-09 18:17 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:28 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-10 13:30 +1200
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-05-12 00:12 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-05-11 21:32 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-12 04:00 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-05-08 11:42 +0200
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:33 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-09 03:43 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-07 19:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 15:55 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-08 22:16 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 11:35 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 16:20 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 13:43 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 04:20 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 15:01 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 14:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 17:24 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 17:38 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 20:58 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 21:33 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:17 +0000
Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-03 12:10 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-03 23:13 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 03:49 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:02 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-09 09:22 +1200
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 01:20 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 11:43 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 18:36 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-10 17:47 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 19:38 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 19:05 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 20:13 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 10:48 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 17:22 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 20:34 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 02:20 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 15:14 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 13:53 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-10 20:29 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 16:21 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-04 20:08 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 13:17 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 22:08 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 18:35 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-03 00:02 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 09:37 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-03 17:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 13:23 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 13:30 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John White <jccw@comcast.net> - 2014-05-05 16:41 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 13:55 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 16:10 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-02 10:37 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-02 10:48 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 11:09 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 17:06 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:23 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:34 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-03 12:01 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-02 17:00 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 13:19 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-03 16:29 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 12:46 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:35 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:27 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 17:41 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 22:14 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 18:46 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-05-02 23:33 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 19:48 -0400
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? |
| Message-ID | <ljk74s$ubi$1@dont-email.me> |
This is gonna sound severely OCD, but... <shrug> So be it. I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about upgrading to something newer) It functions well enough, but it has a flaw that's right on the edge of driving me back to the hell of web-based email: It makes cutesy noises. I hear you already - "Wuddaya mean, it makes noises?" Exactly that! IT MAKES NOISES! I hit send, and a jet plane whooshes by. It has trouble talking to the server, and I hear something like an asthmatic foghorn. It checks for mail but finds nothing, so it "plinks". And I have no idea what other situations might make it decide to sound off. And less interest! All I want is for it to shut up and silently handle my email traffic. Now, I'm sure there are folks who think it's cool, but so far as I'm concerned, the *ONLY* acceptable noise for a mail program to make is some sort of "New mail has arrived" signal. Aside from that, there's never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, any good reason for a mail program to make any sound at all. So I've gone looking for a way to silence Mail. With no luck. I've looked *EVERYWHERE* that makes even the most flimsy kind of sense to look, and come up with no way to make it shut up! Nothing in system prefs, nothing in the Mail program itself, nothing shows up on Google - NOTHING! Yet there MUST be a way to make this program shut the hell up and do its job silently, rather than having it trying to act like some sort of sound-effects program. Yes, I know this sounds like an insane gripe. Sorry, it's just how I am. Programs that make noises for no good reason bug me. SEVERELY. Even back in the days of the Apple II, I hated it when my computer made noises without my explicitly asking it to. So much that I literally wired in a switch to totally disable the speaker on my //e. That dislike for "chatty" computers hasn't changed a bit in all my years at a keyboard. Never mind that, at 4 in the everlovin' morning, that jet plane whoosh is (or at least seems) loud enough to wake the dead! So I turn to the "group mind": Can anyone tell me a way (that doesn't involve inane suggestions like "don't run it" or "turn off your speakers") to make Apple's Mail program operate in complete silence? The *ONLY* time I ever want to hear anything from it is when new mail comes in. Other than that, it should never, under any circumstances, make a sound. So how about it? Any ideas? -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 20:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270420142029544371%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58971 |
In article <ljk74s$ubi$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > This is gonna sound severely OCD, but... <shrug> So be it. > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about > upgrading to something newer) > > It functions well enough, but it has a flaw that's right on the edge of > driving me back to the hell of web-based email: It makes cutesy noises. > I hear you already - "Wuddaya mean, it makes noises?" Exactly that! IT > MAKES NOISES! I hit send, and a jet plane whooshes by. It has trouble > talking to the server, and I hear something like an asthmatic foghorn. > It checks for mail but finds nothing, so it "plinks". And I have no idea > what other situations might make it decide to sound off. And less > interest! All I want is for it to shut up and silently handle my email > traffic. > > Now, I'm sure there are folks who think it's cool, but so far as I'm > concerned, the *ONLY* acceptable noise for a mail program to make is > some sort of "New mail has arrived" signal. Aside from that, there's > never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, any good reason for a > mail program to make any sound at all. So I've gone looking for a way to > silence Mail. With no luck. I've looked *EVERYWHERE* that makes even the > most flimsy kind of sense to look, and come up with no way to make it > shut up! Nothing in system prefs, nothing in the Mail program itself, > nothing shows up on Google - NOTHING! Yet there MUST be a way to make > this program shut the hell up and do its job silently, rather than > having it trying to act like some sort of sound-effects program. replace the sound resources in the app bundle with silent ones. it might even work if you delete them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-75AAD7.18053927042014@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58971 |
In article <ljk74s$ubi$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net>
wrote:
> This is gonna sound severely OCD, but... <shrug> So be it.
>
> I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several
> years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4
> - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny
> new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about
> upgrading to something newer)
>
> It functions well enough, but it has a flaw that's right on the edge of
> driving me back to the hell of web-based email: It makes cutesy noises.
> I hear you already - "Wuddaya mean, it makes noises?" Exactly that! IT
> MAKES NOISES! I hit send, and a jet plane whooshes by. It has trouble
> talking to the server, and I hear something like an asthmatic foghorn.
> It checks for mail but finds nothing, so it "plinks". And I have no idea
> what other situations might make it decide to sound off. And less
> interest! All I want is for it to shut up and silently handle my email
> traffic.
>
> Now, I'm sure there are folks who think it's cool, but so far as I'm
> concerned, the *ONLY* acceptable noise for a mail program to make is
> some sort of "New mail has arrived" signal. Aside from that, there's
> never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, any good reason for a
> mail program to make any sound at all. So I've gone looking for a way to
> silence Mail. With no luck. I've looked *EVERYWHERE* that makes even the
> most flimsy kind of sense to look, and come up with no way to make it
> shut up! Nothing in system prefs, nothing in the Mail program itself,
> nothing shows up on Google - NOTHING! Yet there MUST be a way to make
> this program shut the hell up and do its job silently, rather than
> having it trying to act like some sort of sound-effects program.
>
> Yes, I know this sounds like an insane gripe. Sorry, it's just how I am.
> Programs that make noises for no good reason bug me. SEVERELY. Even back
> in the days of the Apple II, I hated it when my computer made noises
> without my explicitly asking it to. So much that I literally wired in a
> switch to totally disable the speaker on my //e. That dislike for
> "chatty" computers hasn't changed a bit in all my years at a keyboard.
>
> Never mind that, at 4 in the everlovin' morning, that jet plane whoosh
> is (or at least seems) loud enough to wake the dead!
>
> So I turn to the "group mind":
> Can anyone tell me a way (that doesn't involve inane suggestions like
> "don't run it" or "turn off your speakers") to make Apple's Mail program
> operate in complete silence? The *ONLY* time I ever want to hear
> anything from it is when new mail comes in. Other than that, it should
> never, under any circumstances, make a sound. So how about it? Any ideas?
Well, I have a solution for you but I question your technical ability to
follow or implement it.
You'll find 4 files in /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources
Mail Fetch Error.aiff
Mail Sent.aiff
New Mail.aiff
No Mail.aiff
Use a Music editor to make them silent or duplicate them with the
Finder's COMMAND-D key after selecting them.
Then use the Terminal to zero out the files
cd /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources
for i in Mail\ Fetch\ Error.aiff /
Mail\ Sent.aiff \
New\ Mail.aiff \
No\ Mail.aiff; do
cat /dev/null > $i
done
This will permanently silence Mail from making these sounds.
OR you could just use this pencil, paper, an envelop and some stamps.
Jesus, if such things bother you, just dump your computer and don't let
the door bang you on the ass when you leave.
--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <billvan-7A18AD.18102227042014@news.shawcable.net> |
| In reply to | #58971 |
In article <ljk74s$ubi$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > This is gonna sound severely OCD, but... <shrug> So be it. > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about > upgrading to something newer) (snip) > The *ONLY* time I ever want to hear > anything from it is when new mail comes in. Other than that, it should > never, under any circumstances, make a sound. So how about it? Any ideas? Here's something cut and pasted from a Web forum dealing with something similar. Maybe it will work for you: "Sounds like your preferences icon toolbar is missing, which can happen in Mail 2.1.3 alone and was removed from Mail 3.0. In the upper right hand corner of the window you opened by going to the Mail menu and then Preferences, along the title bar, is a light white/gray oval. Click on it once to reveal the different items you can change. You may have Accounts selected at the moment, click to Rules and make your changes." -- bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ljkcak$ubi$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58976 |
In article <billvan-7A18AD.18102227042014@news.shawcable.net>, bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > In article <ljk74s$ubi$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> > wrote: > > > This is gonna sound severely OCD, but... <shrug> So be it. > > > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several > > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 > > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny > > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about > > upgrading to something newer) > > (snip) > > > The *ONLY* time I ever want to hear > > anything from it is when new mail comes in. Other than that, it should > > never, under any circumstances, make a sound. So how about it? Any ideas? > > Here's something cut and pasted from a Web forum dealing with something > similar. Maybe it will work for you: > > "Sounds like your preferences icon toolbar is missing, which can happen > in Mail 2.1.3 alone and was removed from Mail 3.0. In the upper right > hand corner of the window you opened by going to the Mail menu and then > Preferences, along the title bar, is a light white/gray oval. Click on > it once to reveal the different items you can change. You may have > Accounts selected at the moment, click to Rules and make your changes." <goes to prefs, looks for oval, finds it, clicks it> <BLINK BLINK> I wish I'd realized that was there... All I've ever seen was what I now know is the "Accounts" sub-window. And on "General" is exactly what I've been trying to find - a checkbox to kill the sounds. How in the world did I manage to miss that oval gadget? <sigh> Thanks Bill! -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #58971 |
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes:
> I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several
> years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4
> - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny
> new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about
> upgrading to something newer)
Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP -
http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 11:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ljm6qb$69k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58985 |
In article <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes: > > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several > > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 > > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny > > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about > > upgrading to something newer) > > Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP - > > http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle > > Billy Y.. I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK* they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me) plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination. While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall somewhere between. -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | android <here@there.was> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bs7oiuF3303U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58987 |
In article <ljm6qb$69k$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > In article <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > > > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes: > > > > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several > > > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 > > > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny > > > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about > > > upgrading to something newer) > > > > Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP - > > > > http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle > > > > Billy Y.. > > I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK* > they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me) > plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination. > > While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any > particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna > try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and > the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since > sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall > somewhere between. IMAP gives you access to your mail on several devices simultaneously. If idle is supported by your server you can get push like functionality. -- teleportation kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 09:17 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <290420140917140370%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #58987 |
In article <ljm6qb$69k$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > In article <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes: > > > > > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several > > > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 > > > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny > > > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about > > > upgrading to something newer) > > > > Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP - > > > > http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle > > I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK* > they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me) > plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination. > > While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any > particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna > try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and > the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since > sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall > somewhere between. Yep, I've never bothered with IMAP either, plartly because it's pointless when you only have one device to do email on anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 03:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnllu5in.1rn9.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58994 |
In message <290420140917140370%YourName@YourISP.com> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <ljm6qb$69k$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> > wrote: >> In article <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: >> > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes: >> > > >> > > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several >> > > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 >> > > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny >> > > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about >> > > upgrading to something newer) >> > >> > Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP - >> > >> > http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle >> >> I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK* >> they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me) >> plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination. >> >> While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any >> particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna >> try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and >> the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since >> sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall >> somewhere between. > Yep, I've never bothered with IMAP either, plartly because it's > pointless when you only have one device to do email on anyway. No, IMAP is better than POP even if you only have one device. You have your mail, and your server has your mail. Even the most clueless moron will have a backup of sorts of their mail with IMAP. IMAP also (almost) always allows you to access mail via a web browser, so if you happen to be somewhere else and need to look up an email, not only can you, but the email is there on the server. -- Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-30 17:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fvqdnXNteqnf-PzOnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #59003 |
On 2014.04.28, 23:02 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <290420140917140370%YourName@YourISP.com>
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article <ljm6qb$69k$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net>
>> wrote:
>>> In article <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
>>>> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several
>>>>> years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4
>>>>> - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny
>>>>> new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about
>>>>> upgrading to something newer)
>>>>
>>>> Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP -
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle
>>>
>>> I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK*
>>> they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me)
>>> plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination.
>>>
>>> While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any
>>> particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna
>>> try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and
>>> the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since
>>> sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall
>>> somewhere between.
>
>> Yep, I've never bothered with IMAP either, plartly because it's
>> pointless when you only have one device to do email on anyway.
>
> No, IMAP is better than POP even if you only have one device. You have
> your mail, and your server has your mail. Even the most clueless moron
> will have a backup of sorts of their mail with IMAP.
In over 20 years of home ISP service, using POP mail, I've never had an
issue with a lost e-mail. I archive my e-mail at home. I don't want it
lingering on a server somewhere. And if e-mail is lost or deleted,
getting the correspondent to re-e-mail has never been an issue.
If I were running a business from home, that would be another matter.
Though these days I might even look at Apple iCloud rather than an IMAP.
> IMAP also (almost) always allows you to access mail via a web browser,
> so if you happen to be somewhere else and need to look up an email, not
> only can you, but the email is there on the server.
I can do this with my POP account up to the number of days that I have
it set to delete (1 day in my case). When I access "un popped" e-mail
via the web interface (while traveling) it does not affect the "timer",
so when I get home and access the mail, it is still there (and finally
POPed).
IMAP is great for businesses and some home users, POP is fine for most
home users.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ljmkbs$h1i$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #58987 |
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes:
> I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK*
> they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me)
> plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination.
>
> While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any
> particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna
> try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and
> the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since
> sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall
> somewhere between.
The main advantage of adding support for IMAP Idle is you get new
mail delivered immediately, without polling for it. Other than that,
if you're happy with what you have, and are leaving a copy of mail on
the server until you back up (IMAP keeps copies), there's no need to
switch.
Apple Mail didn't support IMAP Idle until OS 10.5.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mLadndVNE_2dfsPOnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58995 |
On 2014.04.28, 18:22 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK*
>> they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me)
>> plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination.
>>
>> While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any
>> particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna
>> try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and
>> the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since
>> sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall
>> somewhere between.
>
> The main advantage of adding support for IMAP Idle is you get new
> mail delivered immediately, without polling for it.
Which e-mail clients handle very well, automatically and at any period
you like. Personally I set POP to 30 minutes. If it's important that I
get it quick, they'll call or text and I'll pull it.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 18:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ljmvf7$cdt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58997 |
In article <mLadndVNE_2dfsPOnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.04.28, 18:22 , billy@MIX.COM wrote: > > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes: > > > >> I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK* > >> they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me) > >> plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination. > >> > >> While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any > >> particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna > >> try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and > >> the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since > >> sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall > >> somewhere between. > > > > The main advantage of adding support for IMAP Idle is you get new > > mail delivered immediately, without polling for it. > > Which e-mail clients handle very well, automatically and at any period > you like. Personally I set POP to 30 minutes. If it's important that I > get it quick, they'll call or text and I'll pull it. (One reply to all the responses) Thus far, it sounds as thought the main "features" of IMAP over POP3/SMTP are "multiple device support" and "no need to poll", with a side of "Server keeps backups for you" (Which POP3 can do easily enough, though I've never liked working things that way - Logical or not, I've got this "thing" about leaving my mail laying where somebody else can get to it). I read mail on precisely one device - the one on which I'm typing currently. Anything so urgent as to need to be "pushed" at me, or polled for more often than my normal schedule can/will get to me via text message or phone call. Backups are taken care of routinely through other methods. Which, I guess, adds up to "I probably won't be bothering to switch to IMAP anytime soon - For me, POP3/SMTP ain't broke, so I'm not going to bother trying to fix it." -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-30 16:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ieudnX6DZunMwvzOnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58999 |
On 2014.04.28, 21:32 , Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <mLadndVNE_2dfsPOnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.04.28, 18:22 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
>>> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK*
>>>> they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me)
>>>> plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination.
>>>>
>>>> While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any
>>>> particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna
>>>> try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and
>>>> the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since
>>>> sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall
>>>> somewhere between.
>>>
>>> The main advantage of adding support for IMAP Idle is you get new
>>> mail delivered immediately, without polling for it.
>>
>> Which e-mail clients handle very well, automatically and at any period
>> you like. Personally I set POP to 30 minutes. If it's important thatI
>> get it quick, they'll call or text and I'll pull it.
>
> (One reply to all the responses)
>
> Thus far, it sounds as thought the main "features" of IMAP over
> POP3/SMTP are "multiple device support" and "no need to poll", with a
> side of "Server keeps backups for you" (Which POP3 can do easily enough,
> though I've never liked working things that way - Logical or not, I've
> got this "thing" about leaving my mail laying where somebody else can
> get to it).
>
> I read mail on precisely one device - the one on which I'm typing
> currently.
>
> Anything so urgent as to need to be "pushed" at me, or polled for more
> often than my normal schedule can/will get to me via text message or
> phone call.
>
> Backups are taken care of routinely through other methods.
>
> Which, I guess, adds up to "I probably won't be bothering to switch to
> IMAP anytime soon - For me, POP3/SMTP ain't broke, so I'm not going to
> bother trying to fix it."
We're in violent agreement.
Ever since my first ISP account I've taken care of all my mail on my
home computer. I POP it, it's mine and I back it up (or not), I archive
it (or not) and that's it. It stays on the ISP server for 1 day and
then it's deleted on that end.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 03:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnllu5f3.1rn9.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58987 |
In message <ljm6qb$69k$1@dont-email.me> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > In article <ljm0ni$nv3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: >> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> writes: >> >> > I recently started running Apple's 2.1.3 version of "Mail" after several >> > years of making due with web-based email. (This version ships with 10.4 >> > - yes, I know, it's old. Unless you're volunteering to buy me a shiny >> > new Mac that can run the newer versions, don't talk to me about >> > upgrading to something newer) >> >> Here's something you'll find useful, if you're using IMAP - >> >> http://www.rothwell.us/imap-idle >> >> Billy Y.. > I'm running POP3/SMTP with the outfit I'm going through now. I *THINK* > they offer IMAP, but haven't bothered to look past the (for me) > plenty-functional POP3/SMTP combination. > While I've heard folks talking about IMAP for years, I haven't seen any > particular reason it's better/worth my effort to try to use it - Wanna > try to "sell me"? I know very little about it beyond its existence and > the fact that some people seem to think its the greatest thing since > sliced bread, while others think it sucks, and still others fall > somewhere between. IMAP can do everything that POP3 can do, but can also do many more things. <https://www.google.com/search?q=why+imap> -- You and me Sunday driving Not arriving
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 08:36 +0200 |
| Subject | POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) |
| Message-ID | <1lkuvlk.we7paplh2d4N%befr@eaglesoft.de> |
| In reply to | #59002 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > IMAP can do everything that POP3 can do, but can also do many more > things. Which means, that there are many more potential pitfalls (different default folder names, sync-problems, etc.) POP3 is lean and easy, IMAP is big and (if you´re unlucky) troublesome. Sure, it works, mostly, ... until it doesn´t. Plus (for the paranoid amongst us): I don´t like to have all my mail lying on a server where the snoops can get to it. Yes, I know, if they really want it, they´ll get it, but at least the´ll have to try harder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 19:10 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) |
| Message-ID | <290420141910434919%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #59004 |
In article <1lkuvlk.we7paplh2d4N%befr@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > > IMAP can do everything that POP3 can do, but can also do many more > > things. > > Which means, that there are many more potential pitfalls (different > default folder names, sync-problems, etc.) > > POP3 is lean and easy, IMAP is big and (if you´re unlucky) troublesome. > Sure, it works, mostly, ... until it doesn´t. > > Plus (for the paranoid amongst us): I don´t like to have all my mail > lying on a server where the snoops can get to it. > Yes, I know, if they really want it, they´ll get it, but at least the´ll > have to try harder. Although they have been getting larger, email providers usually have a limited mailbox storage space (and in some cases that limited space also has to include your website data, cloud backup, etc.), whereas the amount of space on your own computer is virtually unimited. A big email or many emails left sitting on the server can cause new emails to be bounced back with a "mailbox full" error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 10:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <1lkv1yf.1pi9s3p19vmkuaN%befr@eaglesoft.de> |
| In reply to | #59005 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > Although they have been getting larger, email providers usually have a > limited mailbox storage space (and in some cases that limited space also > has to include your website data, cloud backup, etc.), whereas the > amount of space on your own computer is virtually unimited. A big email > or many emails left sitting on the server can cause new emails to be > bounced back with a "mailbox full" error. Good point. My mail-archive dates back into the last century and has a size of about 100000 mails / 3GB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-30 09:21 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <300420140921364770%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #59008 |
In article <1lkv1yf.1pi9s3p19vmkuaN%befr@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> wrote: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > > Although they have been getting larger, email providers usually have a > > limited mailbox storage space (and in some cases that limited space also > > has to include your website data, cloud backup, etc.), whereas the > > amount of space on your own computer is virtually unimited. A big email > > or many emails left sitting on the server can cause new emails to be > > bounced back with a "mailbox full" error. > > Good point. > My mail-archive dates back into the last century and has a size of about > 100000 mails / 3GB. Personally I can't be bothered keeping emails, including work ones - once I've dealt with them, they get deleted. I've never need to go back to any old emails.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web