Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #59273
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.system |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Date | 2014-05-11 04:20 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <lkmtq4$37h$1@reader2.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <droleary-E218FD.12325106052014@news.eternal-september.org> <lke1fg$314$1@reader2.panix.com> <droleary-4836C7.15554608052014@news.eternal-september.org> <lkiv7r$4c$1@reader2.panix.com> <droleary-369FD2.13431710052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
> > When traffic is continually increasing, "slide into obscurity"
> > does not follow...
>
> Your argument is not consistent. If you call the bulk of traffic
> "junk", you don't get to hold it up as a success story.
No -- you don't get hold up what I've said as something completely
different. Not sliding into obscurity != success story.
> > ...even when it's unwanted, abusive crap. People _are_ using it.
>
> Right . . . using it for things that tin does *not* support very well.
Again, people are also using it for things tin *does* support.
> > You should find that informative -- the audience you're seeking to
> > serve prefers web sites. Not to mention I personally would greatly
> > prefer they use them.
>
> I disagree. Those same masses have flocked to mobile apps as well.
> What they want clearly is not web-centric, so the rational mind would
> look to what features are offered by other services that are not
> commonly offered by Usenet clients.
Nor are they commonly offered by Usenet servers.
Duh.
The rational mind would A) not belittle a system and software that
have functioned very well for decades, B) not make wildly presumptive
and erroneous statments about the people implimenting them, and most of
all, C) not ignorantly assume that massive amounts of illegal traffic
mean the system will cheerfully support yet more of it.
As things are now, you are not going to transmit binary data via Usenet
without 'encoding' it into text. There are various size limits. It's
likely you'd have to use the alt.binaries hierarchy, the propagation
and retention of which are nowhere even close to your stated goals.
Further, it's now obvious you'd rather argue about it with me instead
of doing even a modest amount of research.
> we could argue about whether or not NNTP is the best way to build
> such a CDN, but that's another discussion.
No, that's the discussion we're having now.
> > Why would we (maintainers of Usenet) pursue anything that's only
> > going to pile yet more inappropiate load on a system that is not
> > meant to support any of it?
>
> Wrong perspective. You're in a *service* industry, so do your fucking
> job and start better serving the needs of the people.
If the people have other, grossly imcompatible needs...
> If you don't, then you should not be at all surprised when they flock
> away to services that do.
...let them find something that _can_ handle them.
If I'm a fisherman, and someone walks up and asks me for some beef,
they're going to get told, "Hey - you're looking in the wrong place."
Hopefully that's dumbed down enough that you can grasp the concept.
> Nor should you be surprised when even *more* "inappropriate" traffic
> takes over the network. It is *you* who is to blame for the
> neighborhood going to hell.
Oh, bullshit. Your 'logic' here is not only completely wrong, it's
thoroughly twisted.
Most everyone even remotely familiar with the history of Usenet places
the blame on _too many people gaining access to it._
> > By the way... The Panix reader servers only carry (at this moment)
> > 9550 text groups. There may be a few binary groups in these, but I
> > doubt it.
>
> Great, for those that are part of that special in-crowd. But there
> is a large continuum between that and Penny Arcade's "Shitcock".
So, invent something for them. Call it, say, Usenet 2. Oh, wait...
Better go with Usenet 3. 2's already been tried. It was an utter
failure.
> > > > In spite of this, propagation is quite good, but as far as I
> > > > know it's due to the generousity of many organizations hosting
> > > > feeds that are not (directly, at least) generating enough
> > > > revenue to cover their costs.
> > >
> > > Like email, Usenet is not inherently a commercial medium, so
> > > nobody should expect it to have a return on investment.
> >
> > Huh? I'm a very heavy user of email for commercial purposes. I
> > pay for it. How much do you think 15TB a day of email would cost?
>
> Reread your own post. You said "directly, at least". I don't know
> about you, but *I* certainly don't have anyone sending me money
> directly in email (or Usenet).
Huh? I pay for email service. I don't use it for receiving any sort
of payments. That's what banks do. What part of that do you not grasp?
I'm not going to suggest you reread anything, but I will ask -- what the
hell is going on with you...?
> > Anyone can generate income with a web site. Usenet is not a
> > commercial service. The charters of most groups forbid, or at
> > least discourage, commercial use.
>
> Then it's a shame that new groups can *never* be created . . .
New groups can be, and are, created. The only problem for you
is the kind of groups you'd like to use can not be created in the
hierarchies that would provide the kind of propagation you'd like.
> > Again, Usenet is not a commercial service. Further, I suspect
> > the massive load created by traffic Usenet was never intended to
> > support is a significant factor in many ISPs deciding to just
> > stop providing it, at all.
>
> Please. As I have noted and linked to, the changes are mainly due to
> "questionable" content more than the bandwidth or disk space used. I
> burn through more bandwidth these days streaming video (Hulu/Netflix/
> YouTube/etc.) than I ever did (or ever will) with Usenet.
Served by whom? And at who's expense?
> > > For most distribution/caching of content, a system like Usenet is
> > > going to be re-invented in one form or another. Either the case
> > > should be made for using Usenet going forward, or we should all
> > > completely abandon these groups for whatever is out there that
> > > does the job better.
> >
> > I don't see any mutual exclusivity here.
>
> It's not, but the rational thing to do is follow best practices
> wherever possible.
Oh, really? How about Usenet's best practices?
[about tin...]
> > > It *definitely* does not work for people with an iPhone.
> >
> > Well, yea, of course not.
>
> No! Again, it's only "of course not" because the developers are stuck
> with some crappy ol' code they can't be bothered to modernize. The
> fact that tin is increasingly brittle is not something that should be
> acceptable.
Huh? Where exactly do you get "brittle?" There must be thousands of
programs that not only do not, but never will run on an iPhone.
> > And this [your code] will execute under how many different operating
> systems?
>
> All the ones I'm being paid to get it running on. :-)
In other words, two. Or, actually, about 1.5.
> > Tin builds and runs on plenty of them - http://www.tin.org/builds.html
>
> Great for people who still use tin on fringe systems.
So, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, and Windows are
fringe systems? Yea, right...
> You sound a lot like the OpenSSL goons who couldn't bear to excise
> similar crap from their code.
You're sounding quite intensely bigoted. It does not become you.
Nor will it inspire any cooperation from those whose help you need
to get your concept off the ground.
> Hell, I'm not even going to bother testing what I'm doing on Macs
> prior to 10.9. Not unless somebody is going to cover supporting
> older systems, of course.
I write under contract. You, on the other hand, might want to research
your market. As a retailer, that'd be a prudent pursuit for you.
> > > > I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more
> > > > easily parsed by you.
> >
> > > Ugh, no. They, too, seem unable to spell out "article"
> >
> > Again, I must say, geez. Feel free to fire up your prefered search
> > and replace tool and regex your way to happiness.
>
> Again, I point to it as a symptom of a project's underlying disease.
> There are *scores* of ugliness that I'd have to undo to make the code
> reasonable. And if *they* cared, they'd already have taken steps to
> make it better. Since that's not the case, they have self-selected
> for a poor developer community, and should not be surprised when I
> don't want to be a part of that.
At this point I'd be shocked were any of them not profoundly grateful
for your absence.
> > Tin is not going to cater to how people _ABUSE_ Usenet. Not in
> > 2014, not ever. I seriously doubt slrn ever will, too.
>
> Look, we get it! Anything that makes tin still relevant is the True
> Scotsman of Usenet usage, and anything that makes tin look bad is
> horrible abuse. Bury that dead horse already.
You're blinded by your own light. It's ugly.
> > I think you need some experience maintaining NNTP and NNRP servers.
>
> I'd rather update the protocol to something more in line with how the
> CDN is being used.
Well, then, stop posting all this nonsense, and get busy and make it
happen. I've already given you all the info you need to begin.
> > I'm very happy with it as it is. I _don't want_ photos, video,
> > et cetera. Just say it with words, and perhaps a cite or two,
> > and I'll be happy.
>
> Good for you, old man. But the world has moved on, what with the kids
> and their Twattering and FaceBorking. Again, it's all a question of
> whether or not what you've built in the past can be built on in the,
> future. If not, say goodnight Gracie.
Oh, bullshit. Yet again. There's nothing mutually exclusive going on
here. And, all the kiddies in my neighborhood (West Los Angeles area)
are doing fine. They've done Snapchat and who knows what else, and I'm
sure there's plenty more to come.
[about photos and other binary data]
> > > What about them? They all have their niches. That fact that
> > > Usenet traffic is still growing in some areas shows that it does
> > > certain things well. Unfortunately, much of that is illicit/
> > > illegal use
> >
> > Yes, it is. Does that justify your piling yet more load on a
> > service never intended to support (any of) it?
>
> Yes. The proper perspective is to *fix* the service to support its
> actual utility. Clearly you'd prefer to fossilize.
Clearly you'd prefer to make up shit I've never said, and then criticise
me for it, instead of actually making an effort towards fixing anything.
Including coming up with a viable scheme to cover the added costs.
> > > The fact is that I could put an important file up on Usenet today
> > > and be fairly certain I could get at it from the other side of the
> > > world both tomorrow and for at least the next 5 years.
> >
> > No - most servers expire stuff, and in particular, expire the material
> > you'd like to clog them with quite rapidly. There are some archives,
> > but for the the text groups.
>
> What "most" servers do is not the issue. As long as there is still a
> market for *any* service with long retention times, you have a means to
> that end.
Aren't you the guy who's so intent on avoiding Google-like central
control?
You can not have your cake, and eat it, too.
> > > and who knows if the company you went with will even be around next
> > > year?
> >
> > DejaNews. R.I.P.
>
> You support my point. My file is on *Usenet*, not DejaNews.
You are one very confused guy. Usenet *expires* everything.
> > Again, who is going to pay for all this?
>
> We all are. It's not a problem, because it's a better way to do this
> than the alternatives.
First you'll need to get the protocol modified. Then you'll need to
generate enough interest and usage to perhaps pursuade the feeder sites
to handle your traffic. Then it'll either generate some profit, or go
meet the dinosaurs.
> I already gave a simple example: I want to use tin as the basis for
> nntp support in cURL. Show me the quick, shallow hooks that can
> make it happen.
>
> > Huh? You want to sell your own code, but you want us to write it
> > for free? Speaking of unprofessional.
>
> Straw man again. I never said you should be doing anything for free.
Yes, you did. I was quite clear in explaning Neither tin nor slrn are
commercial software.
> > How does the existence a transportable library relate to getting the
> > IETF, et al., to agree to support your intended uses of Usenet?
>
> It doesn't. That was just another straw man *you* threw in there as a
> distraction. My point was that tin and slrn probably *do* adhere to
> the standards much better at their place in the SDLC than any new
> implementation does, and that is why it is a shame that what has been
> done by them cannot be reused.
The only shame here is your writing new code that'll be utterly useless
without an infrastructure upon which to run it.
> > > But that's my experience. You can see it played out not so long
> > > ago in the GNUstep newsgroups after their failed Kickstarter.
> > > The problem with tin, too, probably isn't with the code itself,
> > > but simply with its organization and/or the aims of the project/
> > > management itself.
> >
> > I don't see how you can say that - you don't know any of them,
> > nor how they work, nor what they want to accomplish. Speaking
> > of disingenuous.
>
> I know them by how they interact with other people, and how they
> approach criticism. For example, one person who claimed to be a core
> FreeBSD developer flat-out stated that they didn't care about anyone
> who didn't submit code to the project. What a shitty way to be
> dismissive of people who could otherwise help! That's a toxic
> environment, and I will not be a part of a community that is like
> that.
If you're so damned smart, and such a wonderful, and quick, software
engineer, what exactly is wrong with giving them a patch?
You obviously have no experience, of any kind, with the maintainers
of tin, or slrn. I think you'd do well to at least tone down your
bitterness and bigotry, if not entirely drop it, but based on your
behaviour over time, I don't expect that to happen.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web