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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 15:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <slrnln1pt0.1auf.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59313 |
In message <lkq8tr$rpo$1@reader2.panix.com> billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting me: >> > I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough >> > customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement >> > settlement free peering can be negotiated. >> >> Hmmm. I can imagine two smaller players doing that, but what's in it >> for level3? >> >> If you have a national or regional network, which ultimately is >> providing connectivity to end users, they have to provide global >> connectivity to those end users. IME, that's done by buying pipes from >> the likes of Telia, Global Crossing, level3, and others. You typically >> have several such pipes to more than one provider. > Yea, that's what my upstream ISP does, along with most others. Not just ISPs, either. Many small businesses have two connections to the Internet and a router that splits the traffic. A decent load balancing/bonding router costs less than $1500. > It's been longer for me, but I doubt anyone has gotten less secretive > about it. I looked a bit, but couldn't find any publicly available > info. One thing I do recall was going from a customer to a peer was > essentially impossible. That might have changed. Heh. I doubt it. Peering arrangements have *always* been completely secret unless the peering was between public institutions. Back in the days before SMTP, email addresses showed the peering. For example, my 'bang path' was ...!apple!ucsc!ucscb!kreme which meant "First, you have to get to Apple. From there, Apple will route the email to the University of California at Santa Cruz, which will send it to the machine named ucscb, which will route it to the user 'kreme'. Apple and UCSC were peers. Someone at, say, Dartmouth, would have to send an email to me with and address something like: athene!dartmouth!apple!ucsc!ucscb!kreme while someone at Harvard might have to do something like apollo!harvard!mit!ucb!apple!ucsc!ucscb!kreme So, not only did you need to know someone's address, but you had to manually specify the route. If one of the machines (or more) was connecting via UUCP, email could take days. Sometimes many days. Sometimes more days than putting a stamp on a letter and dropping it in a mailbox. -- Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was The Walrus. I could be The Walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 17:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <120520141722378301%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #59317 |
In article <slrnln1pt0.1auf.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <lkq8tr$rpo$1@reader2.panix.com> > billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting me: > > >> > I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough > >> > customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement > >> > settlement free peering can be negotiated. > >> > >> Hmmm. I can imagine two smaller players doing that, but what's in it > >> for level3? > >> > >> If you have a national or regional network, which ultimately is > >> providing connectivity to end users, they have to provide global > >> connectivity to those end users. IME, that's done by buying pipes from > >> the likes of Telia, Global Crossing, level3, and others. You typically > >> have several such pipes to more than one provider. > > > Yea, that's what my upstream ISP does, along with most others. > > Not just ISPs, either. > > Many small businesses have two connections to the Internet and a router > that splits the traffic. A decent load balancing/bonding router costs > less than $1500. I'm trying to remember what one does in this situation. Don't you have to have a full routing table from each provider so your router can choose between them? That's quite a bit of memory - but then as I say it's been a few years so perhaps it's a lot cheaper to do that than it used to be. -- "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 20:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkrb80$b6h$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59321 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>:
> > Many small businesses have two connections to the Internet and a router
> > that splits the traffic. A decent load balancing/bonding router costs
> > less than $1500.
>
> I'm trying to remember what one does in this situation. Don't you have
> to have a full routing table from each provider so your router can
> choose between them? That's quite a bit of memory - but then as I say
> it's been a few years so perhaps it's a lot cheaper to do that than it
> used to be.
Memory's become cheaper, but the number of prefixes has grown. Heh.
Anyway, there's more than one way to do this -
Sample Configuration for BGP with Two Different Service Providers (Multihoming)
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/23675-27.html
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 20:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <slrnln2ddf.29s7.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59321 |
In message <120520141722378301%timstreater@greenbee.net> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <slrnln1pt0.1auf.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <lkq8tr$rpo$1@reader2.panix.com> >> billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: >> > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes, quoting me: >> >> >> > I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough >> >> > customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement >> >> > settlement free peering can be negotiated. >> >> >> >> Hmmm. I can imagine two smaller players doing that, but what's in it >> >> for level3? >> >> >> >> If you have a national or regional network, which ultimately is >> >> providing connectivity to end users, they have to provide global >> >> connectivity to those end users. IME, that's done by buying pipes from >> >> the likes of Telia, Global Crossing, level3, and others. You typically >> >> have several such pipes to more than one provider. >> >> > Yea, that's what my upstream ISP does, along with most others. >> >> Not just ISPs, either. >> >> Many small businesses have two connections to the Internet and a router >> that splits the traffic. A decent load balancing/bonding router costs >> less than $1500. > I'm trying to remember what one does in this situation. Don't you have > to have a full routing table from each provider so your router can > choose between them? That's quite a bit of memory - but then as I say > it's been a few years so perhaps it's a lot cheaper to do that than it > used to be. It's been a long time since I set one up. As I recall you had to do some funky stuff to get dual fixed IPs to work on the servers, but it wasn't bad. The bonding was pretty much plug and play, but we had to tweek it to load balance properly since one connection was twice as fast as the other. It was not seamless on the user end if one connection went down, but it was close enough. You would lose ssh connections if they'd been made over the connection that died, but this didn't happen often. We did lose both connections when a construction crew cut a bundle of fibre that contained for our provider's cables. -- "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 02:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <slrnln0bv1.s6l.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59289 |
In message <110520142013027741%timstreater@greenbee.net> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <lkohla$qhb$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes: >> >> > > | Level 3 claims six ISPs dropping packets every day over money disputes >> > >> > Are these people customers of level3? Do they have worldwide backbones? >> > Or are they just local ISPs providing connectivity to end-users? >> >> Mark Taylor (L3 VP of Content and Media) is calling them peers, which >> means they are not customers. Too bad he didn't name them, but I'd bet >> he'd be buried in lawsuits if he did. My guess is they are the larger >> CATV and Telecom companies (Netflix copetitors) in the USA. > If they are limited to the USA, either they don't need global > connectivity, in which case why are they peering with level3, or they > do, in which case they would be customers. If they are customers it's > up to them to rent a pipe of sufficient bandwidth for their needs from > level3. > So what is going on? Look up "peering" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering> -- My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm... afraid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 15:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-C2F39B.15143711052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59248 |
In article <lklon5$m9o$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> > Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some
> > Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as
> > well.
>
> So -- would you rather have this...
[Article about triple-dipping snipped]
> ...or a few CDNs co-locate their own servers at your ISP?
You're just not getting it. We're in the state we're in because Usenet
was abandoned and the greedy bastards were allowed to move into the
neighborhood. It wasn't enough for them that *I* paid for my connection
and *you* paid for your connection, now they wanted to be paid *again*
to connect our connections, which was *supposed* to be a given for the
Internet. And even *that* isn't enough, because a CDN, which improves
the network for everyone involved, is also something the middle man
benefits from but refuses to pay for, and may outright refuse to host if
in means they can charge more for transit.
So what I would "rather have" is an Internet that doesn't screw people
coming and going and standing still. Your false dichotomy is rejected
completely; to even propose it makes you sound like a shill.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 13:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-3A56B0.13535410052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59223 |
In article <lkj76i$gua$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes:
>
> > Like I said, *of course* people have been pushing their proprietary CDNs
>
> Anyone can post to Youtube.
How? It certainly doesn't let me.
> > to do what Usenet could have been doing all along.
>
> But, you're continually ignoring the fact that Usenet was not created
> nor intended to do this.
I'm not ignoring it. It's irrelevant given the realities of what Usenet
*is*. The proper approach is to make it stronger for how it *is* used,
not moan and cry about how it's not being used right.
> > If I were an ISP, I'd rather have one generic CDN protocol on servers
> > that I control rather than having hundreds of content providers
>
> Where do you get hundreds?
I use my brain to think about the future. Try it. It's pretty cool!
> Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some
> Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as
> well.
If someone wants to pay me to solve their problems, great. That's kinda
what I do. If they instead just want to complain about their problem
and expect free sympathy . . . get an intern, maybe?
> > Usenet can benefit *everyone*, not just the big players like Google.
>
> _Something_ may benefit everyone. Usenet is not it. You're putting
> the cart before the horse. It'd be best to first find a horse.
The horse was there long before the cart, but the ISPs killed it. As
you well know, even without them, the traffic keeps going up . . .
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 20:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkm27d$o3$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59255 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
> > Anyone can post to Youtube.
>
> How? It certainly doesn't let me.
Perhaps you'd like to explicitly state what your problem there is?
> > But, you're continually ignoring the fact that Usenet was not created
> > nor intended to do this.
>
> I'm not ignoring it. It's irrelevant given the realities of what Usenet
> *is*. The proper approach is to make it stronger for how it *is* used,
> not moan and cry about how it's not being used right.
As I've said, you'll need to take this up with the IETF. Example -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01
And a bit of helpful guidance -
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html
If you don't resolve this first, propagation of your desired content will
suck, big time. Arts can, among other parameters, be rejected by size, and
each server can be set to a specific limit independently.
And, even if you do succeed in revising the protocol, that's no guarantee
anyone will impliment it. "Make it stronger" involves a significant amount
of money - the 14TB+ of daily crap isn't going away, and you want to pile
yet more - who will be paying for that? The same people paying for the
current load, you say? Nope - a good number of them are already ignoring
it.
Thus, there's the very real possibility your content will wind up on a mere
handful of hosts, like Altopia. If it can get there in the first place.
Since you appear not enamored with Google (centralized control of data),
this cold, hard fact should give you pause...
> > > If I were an ISP, I'd rather have one generic CDN protocol on servers
> > > that I control rather than having hundreds of content providers
> >
> > Where do you get hundreds?
>
> I use my brain to think about the future. Try it. It's pretty cool!
You and your brain should take a good, hard look at all the consolidation
in vendors, including CDNs, going on right now. Speaking of (not) cool.
http://www.bizety.com/2014/04/07/tough-road-ahead-limelight-networks/
> > Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some
> > Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as
> > well.
>
> If someone wants to pay me to solve their problems, great. That's kinda
> what I do. If they instead just want to complain about their problem
> and expect free sympathy . . . get an intern, maybe?
Nobody's going to pay you to create yet more problems.
And - hard as it is to believe - I'm talking about who pays for the
additional resources you want to eat. How could you possibly ignore
that, to say nothing of confusing it with what you might get paid?
I did a bit of looking around trying to answer my own question, and
found, for example, this illuminating bit of info -
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/26555
| Subject: [ruby-talk:26555] Re: Selector Namespaces: A Standard Feature
| for Smalltalk?
| From: "David Simmons" <david.simmons smallscript.net>
| Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 06:06:56 +0900
|
| Doc O'Leary,
|
| I've read your post/response and I don't know how to respond. You seem to
| think that "versioning" is the solution to all the ills when I've pointed
| out issues that versioning simply doesn't address. And my posts were merely
| augmenting/clarifying items relating the JavaScript 2.0 references cited in
| the original post on selector-namespaces.
|
| I've also made it abundantly clear that versioning is already a supported
| language option and that the PRAGMATIC issue is that in REAL situations of
| just-in-time deployment it NOT always an option. Why are you ignoring the
| realities of software deployment and telling me what I already know about
| the ideals of versioning.
|
| You also prattle on about namespaces with non-specific "dogma", yet you
| could not have had experience with "selector namespaces" which ARE NOT just
| "namespaces" as we see in other systems. They are a NEW Unifying Feature for
| Dynamic Languages that provide a more general solution to what SOME static
| languages have provided in the form of "public", "private", "protected".
|
| They are not meant to be a SUBSTITUTE or REPLACEMENT for versioning [rather
| they augment it], they are designed to address REAL issues [which one can
| demonstrate "versioning" does not adequately address; as per one (or more)
| of my posts] in the area of effective/reliable deployment in 3rd party late
| integration scenarios.
|
| -- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org]
Gosh. At this point I'm feeling quite like Mr Simmons did 13+ years ago.
> > > Usenet can benefit *everyone*, not just the big players like Google.
> >
> > _Something_ may benefit everyone. Usenet is not it. You're putting
> > the cart before the horse. It'd be best to first find a horse.
>
> The horse was there long before the cart
The fact that the amount of abuse has grown to be in the vicinity of the
load you'd like to dump on Usenet does not in any way whatsoever justify
it, nor does it render it anything other the abuse it actually is, period.
To be 100% clear, "it" immediately above includes your intended traffic.
If you don't want to be an abuser, you must first get the protocol
revised to include your intended use of it.
> but the ISPs killed it.
Why should they devote any of their time, money, and resources to
handling daily terabyte loads of abusive, inappropiate content?
Yea, some of them filter out most of the junk, but others, lacking
the modest expertise required to even do that, just throw out the
baby with the bath water.
> As you well know, even without them, the traffic keeps going up . . .
And this justifies nothing, at all.
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 | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 16:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-6349B3.16213811052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59259 |
In article <lkm27d$o3$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
>
> > > Anyone can post to Youtube.
> >
> > How? It certainly doesn't let me.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to explicitly state what your problem there is?
The "problem" is that I don't have/want a Google account, and I'm fairly
certain they don't allow "Anyone" to have one (e.g., age restrictions
and the like). I say my privacy has already been raped enough. Can I
still post on YouTube?
> > > But, you're continually ignoring the fact that Usenet was not created
> > > nor intended to do this.
> >
> > I'm not ignoring it. It's irrelevant given the realities of what Usenet
> > *is*. The proper approach is to make it stronger for how it *is* used,
> > not moan and cry about how it's not being used right.
>
> As I've said, you'll need to take this up with the IETF.
There's no need to take it up with anyone. As it exists today, Usenet
is operating as a CDN. It could be nicer and more efficient at that if
the standards were changed, but my point is that you weren't complaining
about the standards, but the use of Usenet for anything other than text
discussions.
> If you don't resolve this first, propagation of your desired content will
> suck, big time. Arts can, among other parameters, be rejected by size, and
> each server can be set to a specific limit independently.
And that would be foolish, because if the content is "desired" then it
is in the best interest of the people running the server to let it do
its job and distribute it. Sounds to me like your real argument is that
peering is done poorly for NNTP networks, which wouldn't surprise me at
this point.
> Thus, there's the very real possibility your content will wind up on a mere
> handful of hosts, like Altopia. If it can get there in the first place.
Good. If it's not "content" that anyone is interested it, it
*shouldn't* be widely distributed.
> Since you appear not enamored with Google (centralized control of data),
> this cold, hard fact should give you pause...
As you can see, it does exactly the opposite. Adjust your expectations.
> > I use my brain to think about the future. Try it. It's pretty cool!
>
> You and your brain should take a good, hard look at all the consolidation
> in vendors, including CDNs, going on right now. Speaking of (not) cool.
>
> http://www.bizety.com/2014/04/07/tough-road-ahead-limelight-networks/
As noted at the top of my response, there's definitely a lot of "not
cool" happening on the Internet these days. Usenet could be revamped to
help fix that, but *some* people are hung up on it being viewed through
tools like tin.
> And - hard as it is to believe - I'm talking about who pays for the
> additional resources you want to eat. How could you possibly ignore
> that, to say nothing of confusing it with what you might get paid?
Because, as I've stated a number of times, a CDN *reduces* resources
usage. That's why big companies will pay to install their proprietary
versions. If anyone is confused and ignoring facts, it is you.
> I did a bit of looking around trying to answer my own question, and
> found, for example, this illuminating bit of info -
>
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/26555
What is illuminating about taking part of a discussion from over a
decade ago completely out of context? Never mind the crappy web
interface used to display it! Apparently what I was disagreeing with
was the desire to solve problems of project mismanagement by adding
bloat to the technology. I'd argue the same thing today, and
essentially have when discussing open source projects like tin; I say
the mindset of the project needs to be addressed, and you say I should
just shut up and submit some code that is to your liking.
> Gosh. At this point I'm feeling quite like Mr Simmons did 13+ years ago.
Let's hope you're at least 13 years younger than him, then.
> The fact that the amount of abuse has grown to be in the vicinity of the
> load you'd like to dump on Usenet does not in any way whatsoever justify
> it, nor does it render it anything other the abuse it actually is, period.
Stop seeing only what Usenet is today (or, really, 1994 or whenever it
was that tin was a popular newsreader). The solution to what you call
abuse is exactly the same as it was for P2P networks: start using what
you have for *legitimate* purposes! I have already given one,
podcasting, that seems like it is ideally suited to be on a CDN like
Usenet. There are countless others, but they're all likely to be
smothered in the crib so long as people like you maintain a "tin vs.
abuse" dichotomy.
> If you don't want to be an abuser, you must first get the protocol
> revised to include your intended use of it.
Nope. The protocol seems quite able to do what people want. A bit more
overhead than might be necessary to do it, but all backwards-compatible
systems suffer from similar cruft.
> > but the ISPs killed it.
>
> Why should they devote any of their time, money, and resources to
> handling daily terabyte loads of abusive, inappropiate content?
If their users are requesting that content, they're *already* devoting
their operation to doing that. The only question is whether or not
having it cached locally is more or less efficient than going upstream
for every request. All evidence, including what you have presented,
indicate that it is more efficient. All that's really at stake here is
whether or not the battle is won by a mishmash of incompatible,
proprietary servers, or something open like Usenet. Call me a dreamer,
but I'm still voting for open.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | android <here@there.was> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-04 20:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <bsne1fFs6veU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #59089 |
In article <droleary-0CDB8C.10554302052014@news.eternal-september.org>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <bsh4i9Fhtc4U1@mid.individual.net>, android <here@there.was> > wrote: > > > In article <5363472a$0$50666$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, > > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > > > I can see Apple wishing to transition to IMAP and eventually deprecate > > > POP, just as they have NFS and now in process of moving away from AFP. > > > So i can understand (but not agree with) their attempt to make it hard > > > to find a way to configure POP. > > > > Oki... > > Could you shed some light over why they would want to limit the options > > for the user? > > Well, as someone who got fed up with the loss of MT-NW on Mavericks and > am now deep into developing my own Usenet reader, coding ain't cheap. A > lot of people consider POP as dead as NNTP, and so they devote their > resources to more "popular" features like IMAP (or Twitter and Facebook > for social stuff). If your love of POP is limited to what you can get > for free, you're looking at the wrong party when you blame companies for > limiting options. Handling cattle, I hope... ;-/ I've paid for the privilege to use a Mac... :-p -- teleportation kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-02 13:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <fYWdnZ6LaOqvTv7OnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #59079 |
On 2014.05.02, 04:50 , android wrote:
> In article <5363472a$0$50666$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> I can see Apple wishing to transition to IMAP and eventually deprecate
>> POP, just as they have NFS and now in process of moving away from AFP.
>> So i can understand (but not agree with) their attempt to make it hard
>> to find a way to configure POP.
>
> Oki...
> Could you shed some light over why they would want to limit the options
> for the user?
Not saying it's their policy, but one reason to do so would be a sound
engineering (or any design discipline) reason: simplify.[1]
Carrying legacy support "forever" seems supportive to customers but in
the long term harms them by bloating code, increasing complexity and
test requirements.
Apple have a history of leading abandonment. Floppies were abandoned
and now CD/DVD readers are being abandoned.
Hard disks are in transition too as SSD size grows and costs become
economical. With Apple's lead to a PCIe lane to the SSD, they are
getting stunningly fast. (Mac Pro).
Apple sliced flash out of the mobile segment by brutal pruning and in
response sites are using more HTML5. Flash is on a slow march to the
graveyard and not many people will bemoan the loss.
Lopping off POP may be too drastic at present but 2nd classing it for a
while will help move people to IMAP. At some point Apple may feel
justified in lopping it off and as usual will point out the benefits
(with appropriate RDF) and otherwise shrug off the howls of protest.
'til then or other compelling reason, I'll POP.
(I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple
Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.)
--------------------
[1] "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery
--
"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 | 2014-05-02 22:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <slrnlm85rp.11i1.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59098 |
In message <fYWdnZ6LaOqvTv7OnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > Hard disks are in transition too as SSD size grows and costs become > economical. With Apple's lead to a PCIe lane to the SSD, they are > getting stunningly fast. (Mac Pro). The MacBook Air also uses a PCIe SSD, and so do the Mac Book Pros. > (I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple > Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.) Gmail is not IMAP. It is sort of kind of IMAP compatible. Sort of. -- "I'm just like every modern woman trying to have it all. A loving husband, a family. I only wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-02 18:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <PKCdneN7LvUAgPnOnZ2dnUVZ_qCXnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #59112 |
On 2014.05.02, 18:08 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <fYWdnZ6LaOqvTv7OnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Hard disks are in transition too as SSD size grows and costs become
>> economical. With Apple's lead to a PCIe lane to the SSD, they are
>> getting stunningly fast. (Mac Pro).
>
> The MacBook Air also uses a PCIe SSD, and so do the Mac Book Pros.
Great.
>> (I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple
>> Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.)
>
> Gmail is not IMAP. It is sort of kind of IMAP compatible. Sort of.
Then I probably won't bother retrying it. Otherwise POP from gmail
works fine as does same from my ISP e-mail.
--
"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 | 2014-05-03 00:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lk1bmb$ah5$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59112 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes, quoting
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>:
> > (I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple
> > Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.)
>
> Gmail is not IMAP. It is sort of kind of IMAP compatible. Sort of.
Lots of useful info here -
https://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+imap+site:tidbits.com
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 09:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <3Pudnc9yx-qQbPnOnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #59120 |
On 2014.05.02, 20:02 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes, quoting
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>:
>
>>> (I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple
>>> Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.)
>>
>> Gmail is not IMAP. It is sort of kind of IMAP compatible. Sort of.
>
> Lots of useful info here -
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+imap+site:tidbits.com
Thanks for that. I'm on the fence about even trying it though. The
article really highlights what a finicky mess the Apple Mail | GMail
relationship is. Appears to be Google's fault.
--
"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 | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 17:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <bskm5nFamf1U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #59122 |
On 2014-05-03, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.05.02, 20:02 , billy@MIX.COM wrote: >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes, quoting >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>: >> >>>> (I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple >>>> Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.) >>> >>> Gmail is not IMAP. It is sort of kind of IMAP compatible. Sort of. >> >> Lots of useful info here - >> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+imap+site:tidbits.com > > Thanks for that. I'm on the fence about even trying it though. The > article really highlights what a finicky mess the Apple Mail | GMail > relationship is. Appears to be Google's fault. Meh. Take that with a grain of salt. GMail in Apple Mail works just fine for me - on several devices/computers. Always has. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 13:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <iImdnUp-hvG0u_jOnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #59127 |
On 2014.05.03, 13:09 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-05-03, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.05.02, 20:02 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes, quoting
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>:
>>>
>>>>> (I may retry IMAP sometime soon to see if Gmail behaviour wrt to Apple
>>>>> Mail has improved - I was really not happy with it last time around.)
>>>>
>>>> Gmail is not IMAP. It is sort of kind of IMAP compatible. Sort of.
>>>
>>> Lots of useful info here -
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+imap+site:tidbits.com
>>
>> Thanks for that. I'm on the fence about even trying it though. The
>> article really highlights what a finicky mess the Apple Mail | GMail
>> relationship is. Appears to be Google's fault.
>
> Meh. Take that with a grain of salt. GMail in Apple Mail works just fine
> for me - on several devices/computers. Always has.
Not me. I recall an issue with
- e-mails appearing in 2 folders.
- not being marked read when accessed from other devices.
That was last tried a couple years ago, so as I said above I'm sort of
willing to try it out again. Just not much priority when POP is doing
the job just fine and with no fuss.
--
"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 | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-05 13:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <050520141330526322%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #59129 |
In article <iImdnUp-hvG0u_jOnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.05.03, 13:09 , Jolly Roger wrote: > > > > Meh. Take that with a grain of salt. GMail in Apple Mail works just fine > > for me - on several devices/computers. Always has. > > Not me. I recall an issue with > - e-mails appearing in 2 folders. > - not being marked read when accessed from other devices. Yup. Still happening to me, except that messages show up in /3/ folders, maybe because I use a rule to move certain messages to a local folder. Even after they are moved, they show up in the "All Mail" and "Important" folders and have to be read in all three to get rid of the new mail marker. Also, it is very difficult to delete messages from the Spam folder. Previously deleted messages continue to reappear in that folder for weeks. Count me as another happy POP user. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John White <jccw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-05 16:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <jccw-D63E62.16411505052014@mx05.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59147 |
In article <050520141330526322%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, it is very difficult to delete messages from the Spam folder. > Previously deleted messages continue to reappear in that folder for > weeks. > That particular behavior seems to have gone away in the last week or two, for me anyway. Presumably gmail did a bit of a tweak to their IMAP implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-02 13:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lk084v$f26$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59076 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes, quoting
Jolly Roger:
> > Only for those who bullheadedly stick with POP when IMAP is available.
> > for the rest of us, it's a time-saving feature, because if IMAP is
> > supported by the server, we would naturally rather use IMAP than POP.
>
> I use IMAP. However, I still feel the option to choose POP or IMAP
> should be easy to access without requiring sneaky tricks.
The thing here is, some people (well, at least me, and I doubt I'm
the only one) would like to look over a user agent's configuration
options without having to enter a bogus username and password first,
and then waiting for the authentication to time out and fail. Not
to mention some versions of Apple's Mail require more of a hack than
just that.
Regarding another question downstream in this thread, I'm sure Apple
wants it all to "just work," but they've carried this a bit too far.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web