Good time to move to TB on Vista? - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Good time to move to TB on Vista? - Mozilla ; > > (1) TB works in online mode by default with all Usenet servers and > > newsgroups, meaning that messages have to be downloaded anew for each > > session in which they are viewed. Each newsgroup can be ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83

Thread: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

  1. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > > (1) TB works in online mode by default with all Usenet servers and
    > > newsgroups, meaning that messages have to be downloaded anew for each
    > > session in which they are viewed. Each newsgroup can be switched over
    > > to 'offline use' mode (where messages are kept between sessions) but
    > > it seems a little odd to me that an inherently offline
    > > mail/newsgroup/RSS
    > > client like TB defaults to online mode.

    > Huh? I know about "offline mode" but I've really never used it. To me
    > it's an asset that TB defaults to being in online mode. IOW I have 0
    > need for the above.


    I wouldn't mind about TB defaulting to online mode if offline mode worked
    more usefully, e.g. could allow message bodies to be downloaded
    automatically just as with POP3. I find interactive download of NNTP
    messages (i.e. download at the time of reading) too slow, even on
    broadband, to be effective.

    > > (2) There is no 'Automatically download new messages' option for
    > > newsgroups.

    > Again - Huh? There's a check for new messages every x minutes in the
    > account settings.


    Correct. As I said, there is no option to automatically download new
    messages.

    The check for new message option to which you refer does not download
    message bodies. Whilst it may be useful to indicate which newsgroups have
    new messages, it's no use for offline reading.

    > Or did you mean that it doesn't download the body of
    > the message automatically?


    Correct.

    > There are way more messages
    > that I don't care about the body than messages that I do.


    Quite so. That's why I'm in favour of making it an option, exactly as with
    POP3.

    Thus your method of working with TB could be accommodated along with those
    people who prefer or require offline/non-connected access.

    > Downloading
    > stuff I don't want to read is a waste of time.


    I agree with you. I've not suggested that you should be made to download
    anything you're not interested in.

    > > Even when a newsgroup is set for 'offline use' messages are still
    > > only downloaded and kept offline when you actually read each one
    > > individually.

    >
    > Exactly! And why should it be any other way?


    Because, when working offline, I expect messages to be there waiting for
    me, just as with POP3. Why else would I choose to work in offline mode?

    It seems quite reasonable to allow messages to be downloaded in advance,
    precisely as TB's POP3 functionality allows.

    > I *scan
    > *newsgroups - not read each and every message religiously.
    > [...]
    > I *want* to only
    > download messages IFF I signal that I want to read it.


    Good for you. I've not suggested anything that would require you to change
    this.

    > > I.e. Provide an 'Automatically download new messages' option for news
    > > servers allowing newsgroup messages to be downloaded and stored
    > > locally in advance. This would avoid the annoying delay that one
    > > currently experiences in some cases when clicking on a newsgroup and
    > > waiting for its (I presume) new headers to download.

    > This would be totally useless and a waste of bandwidth for most users.


    Then they needn't use it. I've not suggested that it should be enabled by
    default or forced on anyone.

    However, for a great many other users it would be extremely useful; an
    efficiency improving and time saving feature.

    > > (3) There is no way to selectively delete messages in newsgroups! Is
    > > this really true - have I missed the feature? It seems like a very
    > > odd feature to miss out. Why is this? It means that a busy newsgroup
    > > quickly becomes 'over-crowded' with messages that you may not be
    > > interested in.

    > Yes but we want to make sure we download all of that useless
    > information locally first right?


    It's entirely up to you what you download.

    > You don't delete messages in a news group any more
    > than you delete posts in a forum.


    What sort of "forum" do you have in mind? Most web forums can have
    messages deleted by the author. There are other forum types which also
    allow messages to be deleted. Furthermore, message deletion/cancellation
    is not a commonly used feature of NNTP but it is supported by Thunderbird
    (although I've never tested it).

    In this case I am merely suggesting that it would be useful (not to
    mention consistent) for TB to allow locally stored messages that are no
    longer of interest to be deleted from the newsgroup folder selectively,
    just as with downloaded POP3 mail. (The (somewhat clumsy) workaround of
    copying messages to another folder is noted).

    Even if you personally find this requirement to be beyond your
    comprehension, rest assured that there would be many people who would find
    it most useful.

    > You wish to keep a message? Copy it to a local folder. Pretty easy eh?


    This is a workaround but it is a bit clumsy. Easy but clumsy: An
    unnecessary burden and inconsistent with POP3.

    Your suggestion also highlights one of the apparent differences in your
    and my thinking about online versus offline working. It would appear that
    you prefer online methodologies and TB serves you well in this regard in
    terms of its NNTP support. However, many other people, even those who
    commonly work on a broadband connection, prefer the efficient that an
    offline approach can bring. Although I normally (but not exclusively) work
    with a broadband connection, I find waiting for message headers to
    download in realtime when I click on a newsgroup extremely annoying - it
    interrupts the flow of work when I am scanning and reading a high volume
    newsgroup. I would find it much more efficient if I could just let TB
    download the messages for me, exactly as it does with POP3, so that I can
    peruse them at my leisure later on, regardless of whether or not I have a
    working network connection at the time.

    You'll note that I keep on comparing NNTP to POP3. This is because it
    reflects my method of working and therefore requirements fir a local
    mail/NNTP/RSS client such as Thunderbird. A comment that Joshua Cranmer
    made in the previous discussion on this issue in
    mozilla.dev.apps.thunderbird brought home to me the difference between the
    'online mindset' versus the 'offline mindset'. He said: "NNTP is close to
    IMAP in this regard". I think this is *entirely* a matter of usage and
    personal experience. In his experience, NNTP messages are always there and
    he (presumably) always has online access. In my experience and preferred
    usage, it is necessary to keep a local copy of messages I am interested in
    for permanent reference and I sometimes work without a live network
    connection. Thus NNTP can be like POP3 (if you happen to work that way or
    prefer it) or it can be like IMAP (if you happen to work that way or
    prefer it).

    There is no single 'correct' way to work.

    The issues that I have described would make Thunderbird into a much better
    offline NNTP client, as well as a good online NNTP client. Furthermore,
    the two methodologies do not need to conflict. It's perfectly possible for
    TB to work with both methodologies and mindsets.


    MarkR


  2. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > > (3) There is no way to selectively delete messages in newsgroups! Is
    > > this really true - have I missed the feature? It seems like a very
    > > odd feature to miss out. Why is this? It means that a busy newsgroup
    > > quickly becomes 'over-crowded' with messages that you may not be
    > > interested in.
    > >

    >
    > Check out the activity on this bug. The backend patch has landed and
    > front end work is in progress.
    > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11054


    Thanks for the reference to this.

    > > (4) Old newsgroup messages can be purged to keep 'over-crowding' down
    > > but there is no way to indicate that you wish to /keep/ some messages.
    > >

    >
    > [...] This may also be one of the
    > enhancements to the News filtering that are in progress for news.


    That would be good.


    MarkR


  3. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > Well of course it does, how else can you download messages unless
    > you're ONLINE ???


    See how Thunderbird works with POP3.

    > 3. You can't delete newsgroup messages, they reside on the server.


    If a message is downloaded locally, which is specifically what is being
    discussed here, then there should be no reason at all to not be able to
    delete it selectively.

    Note also that Thunderbird does support Usenet message cancellation which
    *is* deletion of messages from the server.

    > 5. If you've downloaded a group of messages for offline reading you can
    > keep those same messages after unsubscribing. Ever heard of "Local
    > Folders"?


    Ever heard of offline working? A newsgroup folder that is selected for
    offline use *is* local (even if not a "Local Folder" as TB currently sees
    it). It could not exist if it was not not a local folder, in terms of
    storage location.

    Read the reply I wrote to Andrew@DeFaria.com about the differences in
    online versus offline mindset.

    There is nothing inherently online about NNTP. Whether you expect to use
    it in an online manner (which TB supports well) or in an offline manner
    (which TB supports patchily) depends entirely on your expectations,
    personal experience, and personal requirements.

    Thunderbird is a great POP3 client for those people who prefer to or need
    to work in an offline manner. All I am in favour of is the minimal set of
    changes required to bring a little more of the offline POP3 methodology
    that TB supports so well to how it handles NNTP. (As I mentioned
    elsewhere, it needn't get in the way of TB's online NNTP support that many
    people are used to). It's not such a shocking idea when you look at it
    this way.


    MarkR


  4. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > > 3. You can't delete newsgroup messages, they reside on the server.
    >
    > If a message is downloaded locally, which is specifically what is being
    > discussed here, then there should be no reason at all to not be able to
    > delete it selectively.


    I forgot to add: Again, this is just like POP3.

    NNTP messages do not reside on the server to any greater or lesser extent
    than do POP3 messages. In other words if you are reading online (e.g.
    using IMAP or NNTP) then you are concerned with the messages on the server
    and so you would have no need to delete messages stored locally. If, on
    the other hand, you are reading offline (e.g. using POP3 or NNTP) then you
    are concerned with messages stored locally and so you do have a potential
    need to selectively delete messages stored locally.


    MarkR


  5. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    "XS11E" wrote in message
    news:Xns9A87A987995AFxs11eyahoocom@216.196.97.169. ..
    > Filtering is a way of eliminating what you don't want, just as a coffee
    > filter keeps the grounds out of the coffee, a newsreader needs a means
    > of preventing unwanted messages from being seen. Notice my signature,
    > I kill posts originating from Google Groups as that's the source of a
    > huge amount of Usenet spam. Xnews has a killfile/bozobin/plonkfile
    > that allows me to eliminate all posts from a specific person and it
    > also allows scoring with is a feature that lets me assign a score to
    > messages. I assign -9999 to posts from Google Grouper so that I don't
    > see their posts and a score of -5000 to replies to posts from Google
    > Groupers so that they're flagged but I can read them if I want to.
    > Scoring also does the reverse, it allows me to assign a higher score to
    > posts or threads I want to follow.


    I don't think Windows Mail does that at all so it is not an argument against
    changing over.

    There is no huge rush to change over, so I will probably wait until TB 3
    comes out and then switch, assuming that it works well on 800 x 600.


  6. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    "Mark Rousell" wrote in message
    news:memo.20080422020356.13024A@ekp.cix.co.uk...
    > Some possible reasons (discussed recently over in
    > mozilla.dev.apps.thunderbird):


    I could imagine why some people would want these, but none of these issues
    would be a problem for me.


  7. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > I could imagine why some people would want these, but none of these
    > issues would be a problem for me.


    Well, I do want these. The issues certainly are a problem for me. :-)

    Each of us has a preferred (or required) way of doing things. There is no
    single 'correct' way of working in my opinion.

    In brief, all I'm really looking for is for Thunderbird's way of working
    with POP3 to be optionally applied to NNTP if the user prefers it.

    I.e.
    (a) Optional automatic downloading of message bodies (as with POP3).
    (b) The (optional) ability to read previously newsgroup folders
    containing previously download message bodies without being forced to wait
    while TB searches for new headers (even when TB is in online mode). In
    other words, just like POP3 works already.
    (c) Selective deletion of locally stored message (which Ron K. has now
    pointed out is in hand).


    MarkR


  8. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    On 21.04.2008 23:20, XS11E wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> So, do you have any original thoughts other than those posted
    >> above by someone else?

    >
    > Yes, as posted, didn't you read before replying?


    All I saw was that you said it "sucks" and an agreement that someone
    else posted. Was there something else?

    >> Dunno about the OE UI, never used OE, it's not on my system. And
    >> besides ... so what?

    >
    > So it's an unacceptable UI, why should T'bird emulate it?


    What don't you like about it? Have you tried other themes?

    >> Re: scoring .. install XNews, IMHO it's a useless feature.

    >
    > I use Xnews, don't you read headers? Scoring is the difference between
    > usable and not usable in a newsreader.


    I don't usually view headers.

    You're entitled to your opinion and I stand by my view/opinion. Xnews
    sucks big time, also entitled to the opinion.

    > Your opinion is pretty weird, you're either a newbie to Usenet or you
    > really enjoy spam.


    I run my own mail servers with 18,000+ users. Spam prevention/rejection
    is nothing new here and taken very seriously.

    Since you're the one that made the original assertion, then post
    something original of merit. Calling each other's apps "sucks" isn't
    getting anywhere.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  9. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    On 22.04.2008 12:07, Mark Rousell wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    >> You don't delete messages in a news group any more
    >> than you delete posts in a forum.

    >
    > What sort of "forum" do you have in mind? Most web forums can have
    > messages deleted by the author. There are other forum types which also
    > allow messages to be deleted. Furthermore, message deletion/cancellation
    > is not a commonly used feature of NNTP but it is supported by Thunderbird
    > (although I've never tested it).


    You can only delete forum posts IF you have permissions set to do so,
    otherwise no you cannot. On news servers you cannot delete posts even IF
    you are the poster -- in most cases -- you can however cancel a post IF
    and only IF the server admin has enabled it. On this server for instance
    (news.mozilla.org) you cannot cancel a post off the server. If you
    cancel a post of yours you only remove it from YOUR view, not everyone
    else's.

    >> You wish to keep a message? Copy it to a local folder. Pretty easy eh?

    >
    > This is a workaround but it is a bit clumsy. Easy but clumsy: An
    > unnecessary burden and inconsistent with POP3.


    What is so "clumsy" about Drag'n'Drop to "Local Folders"??

    > The issues that I have described would make Thunderbird into a much better
    > offline NNTP client, as well as a good online NNTP client. Furthermore,
    > the two methodologies do not need to conflict. It's perfectly possible for
    > TB to work with both methodologies and mindsets.


    How many RFE's have you entered? Seems like you have some interesting
    suggestions that are only going to be bantered about here but may be of
    some merit as an entered RFE. Some of us don't agree but some others may
    and that's the whole idea of entering an RFE.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  10. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    On 22.04.2008 12:07, Mark Rousell wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    >> Well of course it does, how else can you download messages unless
    >> you're ONLINE ???

    >
    > See how Thunderbird works with POP3.


    POP3 and NNTP are two completely different protocols.

    >> 3. You can't delete newsgroup messages, they reside on the server.

    >
    > If a message is downloaded locally, which is specifically what is being
    > discussed here, then there should be no reason at all to not be able to
    > delete it selectively.


    Sure, you can delete anything locally.

    > Note also that Thunderbird does support Usenet message cancellation which
    > *is* deletion of messages from the server.


    Only IF the server (if posted to a 'server') supports it and is enabled
    by the admin. Posts made to "usenet" are propagated through many servers
    and are not actually removed. Moderated groups are different.

    >> 5. If you've downloaded a group of messages for offline reading you can
    >> keep those same messages after unsubscribing. Ever heard of "Local
    >> Folders"?

    >
    > Ever heard of offline working? A newsgroup folder that is selected for
    > offline use *is* local (even if not a "Local Folder" as TB currently sees
    > it). It could not exist if it was not not a local folder, in terms of
    > storage location.
    >
    > Read the reply I wrote to Andrew@DeFaria.com about the differences in
    > online versus offline mindset.


    I did and I think we're speaking of different scenarios. Sure, you can
    delete/remove anything locally. But unsubscribing doesn't affect
    anything that has been moved to a local venue.

    > There is nothing inherently online about NNTP. Whether you expect to use
    > it in an online manner (which TB supports well) or in an offline manner
    > (which TB supports patchily) depends entirely on your expectations,
    > personal experience, and personal requirements.
    >
    > Thunderbird is a great POP3 client for those people who prefer to or need
    > to work in an offline manner. All I am in favour of is the minimal set of
    > changes required to bring a little more of the offline POP3 methodology
    > that TB supports so well to how it handles NNTP. (As I mentioned
    > elsewhere, it needn't get in the way of TB's online NNTP support that many
    > people are used to). It's not such a shocking idea when you look at it
    > this way.


    As I mentioned in another reply, enter RFE's.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  11. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    On 22.04.2008 12:20, Mark Rousell wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    >> > 3. You can't delete newsgroup messages, they reside on the server.

    >>
    >> If a message is downloaded locally, which is specifically what is being
    >> discussed here, then there should be no reason at all to not be able to
    >> delete it selectively.

    >
    > I forgot to add: Again, this is just like POP3.
    >
    > NNTP messages do not reside on the server to any greater or lesser extent
    > than do POP3 messages. In other words if you are reading online (e.g.
    > using IMAP or NNTP) then you are concerned with the messages on the server
    > and so you would have no need to delete messages stored locally. If, on
    > the other hand, you are reading offline (e.g. using POP3 or NNTP) then you
    > are concerned with messages stored locally and so you do have a potential
    > need to selectively delete messages stored locally.
    >
    >
    > MarkR
    >


    Locally and remote are two very different things. IMAP is more akin to
    NNTP than POP3 is. With NNTP you download the headers and when one is
    selected for reading then and only then is the body viewed ON the
    server. If you download for offline reading then the entire post is
    downloaded and then you have the option to do whatever it is you wish.
    However, in TB you DO have the POP3 option to view headers only prior to
    downloading the entire message. In POP3 vs NNTP, the entire message is
    downloaded whether for OFF or ONline reading, the message is stored
    locally regardless. It looks to me like you want NNTP to behave like
    IMAP not POP.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  12. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    On 21.04.2008 23:20, XS11E wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Yes, as posted, didn't you read before replying?


    Ok, sorry .. I went back and found "one" reply regarding "filtering".

    > Your opinion is pretty weird, you're either a newbie to Usenet


    Yup, only been "around" since the early 70's (mainframes), long before
    "usenet" really took off, so yah, I'm a usenet "newbie". :-)

    If you have suggestions then file an RFE. You're not going to get
    anywhere here, only argument and weird opinions. 8-)

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  13. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    Mark Rousell keyboarded, On 4/22/2008 1:20 PM :
    >>> 3. You can't delete newsgroup messages, they reside on the server.
    >>>

    >> If a message is downloaded locally, which is specifically what is being
    >> discussed here, then there should be no reason at all to not be able to
    >> delete it selectively.
    >>

    >
    > I forgot to add: Again, this is just like POP3.
    >
    > NNTP messages do not reside on the server to any greater or lesser extent
    > than do POP3 messages. In other words if you are reading online (e.g.
    > using IMAP or NNTP) then you are concerned with the messages on the server
    > and so you would have no need to delete messages stored locally. If, on
    > the other hand, you are reading offline (e.g. using POP3 or NNTP) then you
    > are concerned with messages stored locally and so you do have a potential
    > need to selectively delete messages stored locally.
    >
    >
    > MarkR
    >
    >


    Please remember that part of the definition of "Online" for newsreading
    is that the client access is being toggled between network and local.
    There are security issues related to this action. It would be very bad
    if local file privileges were not properly modified when toggled back to
    the online mode.

    --
    Ron K.
    Who is General Failure, and why is he searching my HDD?
    Kernel Restore reported BSOD use by Major Error to msg the enemy!

  14. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > You can only delete forum posts IF you have permissions set to do so,
    > otherwise no you cannot. On news servers you cannot delete posts even IF
    > you are the poster -- in most cases -- you can however cancel a post IF
    > and only IF the server admin has enabled it.


    Quite so. Of course, none of this means that one shouldn't be able to
    delete whatever *locally* stored messages one pleases.

    I only mentioned message deletion from web forums and NNTP servers to
    counter the comment that "you don't delete messages in a news group any
    more than you delete posts in a forum". Instead I should really just have
    pointed out that what can or does happen on the server is irrelevant to
    the issue at hand: The issue at hand being that of locally stored and
    processed messages.

    > > This is a workaround but it is a bit clumsy. Easy but clumsy: An
    > > unnecessary burden and inconsistent with POP3.

    >
    > What is so "clumsy" about Drag'n'Drop to "Local Folders"??


    If you've selected a newsgroup folder for 'offline use' then it seems
    reasonable to me to expect it to function as exactly that: An offline
    (i.e. local, in TB terms) folder. In other words, it seems to me to be
    logical and consistent for it to function just like folders containing
    items downloaded via POP3.

    In brief, all I'd like is the (optional) ability to use NNTP in
    Thunderbird in exactly the same way that POP3 already works in
    Thunderbird.

    > How many RFE's have you entered?


    I've been using TB intensively for a couple of years now but I'm a
    relative newcomer to the mozilla.* newsgroups and to the Thunderbird bug
    and dev tracking system as a whole. So I've not entered any RFEs yet. For
    that matter I've only just discovered that the official route to enter an
    enhancement request is via the bug tracker. Rest assured that I shall post
    some RFEs in due course.


    MarkR


  15. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > Please remember that part of the definition of "Online" for newsreading
    > is that the client access is being toggled between network and local.
    > There are security issues related to this action. It would be very bad
    > if local file privileges were not properly modified when toggled back
    > to the online mode.


    Yes, I have been a little careless in my use of "online mode" in a couple
    of messages. Part of the reason for this is that, when reading POP3
    messages (which is my main usage of Thunderbird), TB effectively acts as
    if it's in offline mode even when it's in online mode. This is of course a
    natural result of the nature of POP3.

    What I mean by this is that you can leave TB in online mode all the time,
    you can choose for POP3 messages to be downloaded on an automatic schedule
    to suit you, you can then read them and reply to them, and this
    process can include moving from POP3 folder to POP3 folder (even in
    "online mode") without having to wait for TB to go off an check for new
    headers from the server: All messages are already downloaded. Of course
    there's no /need/ to check for new headers because all the messages (for
    now) have been downloaded.

    My experience and preference is to work with NNTP in exactly the same way.
    It seems that many people here think of NNTP as an inherently online
    protocol but there is, in fact, nothing at all inherent within it which
    requires it to be used in such a manner.

    My experience of NNTP and thus natural expectation is for NNTP to be used
    in exactly the same way as POP3. I.e. I would expect to be able to choose
    for new messages (message bodies) to be downloaded automatically on a
    scheduled basis, I would expect to be able to *not* have to wait for TB to
    check for new headers when I click on a different NNTP folder (even when
    in online mode, just as with POP3), I would expect messages to be
    stored locally (just as with POP3), and I would expect to be able to
    delete individual locally stored message (just like with POP3). Clearly
    this methodology wouldn't suit everyone which I why I think it should be
    optional.

    There's nothing that shocking about this way of working. I and many other
    people have been doing it this way for years with certain other NNTP
    clients. I was surprised when I discovered that Thunderbird was not
    designed with this usage model in mind for NNTP, especially when it
    supports it so well with POP3.


    MarkR


  16. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > Locally and remote are two very different things.

    Yes they are. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Indeed, it is
    the *difference* in online versus offline outlooks (which could also be
    described as local and remote outlooks) that leads me to make the comments
    I do.

    > IMAP is more akin to
    > NNTP than POP3 is.


    The similarity of NNTP *in* *practical* *usage* to either IMAP or POP3
    depends mainly on each individual user's expectations, experience and
    preferences. There is nothing inherent about NNTP that necessarily makes
    it more like IMAP or makes it an 'online' protocol.

    In practice, there is nothing inherent in NNTP that prevents it from being
    used offline just like POP3 (although TB does not currently support
    offline NNTP very well, at least not compared to the excellent TB support
    for POP3).

    > With NNTP you download the headers and when one is
    > selected for reading then and only then is the body viewed ON the
    > server.


    That's one way of using it. Another equally legitimate way to use NNTP is
    to automatically download message bodies straight away. Just like POP3.

    Indeed (as you go on to point out) many POP3 servers support header-only
    downloads, thus allowing the user to choose which message bodies to
    download.

    Furthermore, even if you choose to review headers first (whether POP3 or
    NNTP), this does not necessarily imply an online usage style. For example,
    one could use the headers to choose which message bodies to download for
    later offline review.

    > If you download for offline reading then the entire post is
    > downloaded and then you have the option to do whatever it is you wish.


    Yes. This is equally true (in both POP3 and IMAP) regardless of whether
    you chose to download the entire message to begin with or chose to
    download the message body only after seeing the header.

    > In POP3 vs NNTP, the entire message is
    > downloaded whether for OFF or ONline reading the message is stored
    > locally regardless.


    It all depends how you choose to use *either* POP3 or NNTP. Both of them
    support both methods of working.

    > It looks to me like you want NNTP to behave like
    > IMAP not POP.


    No, to be precise I want the optional ability for Thunderbird to work with
    NNTP in *exactly* the same way that it already works with POP3. I.e.
    a) Optional automatic downloading of message bodies (just like POP3).
    b) An option to disable realtime lookup of new message headers when
    clicking on a newsgroup folder (just like how POP3 folders always work,
    even when TB is in online mode).
    c) The ability to selectively delete individual locally stored messages
    (just like POP3 messages).



    MarkR


  17. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > > See how Thunderbird works with POP3.
    >
    > POP3 and NNTP are two completely different protocols.


    Yes. I didn't suggest that they were in any way the same thing.

    NNTP and IMAP are two completely different protocols too.

    However, NNTP can be used in an offline manner that is similar to POP3, or
    it can be used in an online manner that is similar to IMAP.

    Thus, if you want to see how I would like TB to (optionally) work with
    NNTP, you can look at how TB already works with POP3.

    > > If a message is downloaded locally, which is specifically what is
    > > being discussed here, then there should be no reason at all to not be
    > > able to delete it selectively.

    >
    > Sure, you can delete anything locally.


    But not for individual messages in NNTP folders, not even in folders
    selected for what TB calls 'offline use'.

    > I did and I think we're speaking of different scenarios.


    Yes, we are looking at the same protocol but from widely differing usage
    scenarios and sets of expectations and experiences.

    > But unsubscribing doesn't affect
    > anything that has been moved to a local venue.


    Indeed so. My perspective is that TB's 'Local Folders' are fine, a great
    idea which I would not want to replace, but should surely not be
    /necessarily/ in the specific case of NNTP folders that have been selected
    for 'Offline Use'.

    In comparison, there's no need to use Local Folders to permanently store
    stuff that came in via POP3. Why should one expect NNTP to be any
    different when one thinks of and are used to working with NNTP as an
    offline protocol? I hope that makes my perspective, experience, and
    preferred usage scenario more clear.

    > As I mentioned in another reply, enter RFE's.


    I shall do. :-)


    MarkR


  18. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    Mark Rousell keyboarded, On 4/22/2008 3:35 PM :
    >> Please remember that part of the definition of "Online" for newsreading
    >> is that the client access is being toggled between network and local.
    >> There are security issues related to this action. It would be very bad
    >> if local file privileges were not properly modified when toggled back
    >> to the online mode.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I have been a little careless in my use of "online mode" in a couple
    > of messages. Part of the reason for this is that, when reading POP3
    > messages (which is my main usage of Thunderbird), TB effectively acts as
    > if it's in offline mode even when it's in online mode. This is of course a
    > natural result of the nature of POP3.
    >
    > What I mean by this is that you can leave TB in online mode all the time,
    > you can choose for POP3 messages to be downloaded on an automatic schedule
    > to suit you, you can then read them and reply to them, and this
    > process can include moving from POP3 folder to POP3 folder (even in
    > "online mode") without having to wait for TB to go off an check for new
    > headers from the server: All messages are already downloaded. Of course
    > there's no /need/ to check for new headers because all the messages (for
    > now) have been downloaded.
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >
    > MarkR
    >
    >


    I understand your concept. It would be nice for those who rely on
    pulling for offline reading, an automatic function like that of POP. I
    am aware that some people on dial-up would start a d/l then go to bed
    while the machine grabbed all there binary group messages.

    A side note to your comment on the Kill sub-thread bug. Tb does not
    delete news in the context of the bug. The action is to hide the
    filtered messages so they do not show in the thread pane. This is the
    case in the "Online" scenario where the header info is needed to sustain
    the filtering. This bug is just one of several newsreader bugs that
    were recorded back in 1999-2000 at the inception of the Mozilla.Org
    project. My read of what has to happen first is, the backend code for
    news infrastructure has to be enhanced. Then with the needed tools,
    other features can have functions to tap.

    --
    Ron K.
    Who is General Failure, and why is he searching my HDD?
    Kernel Restore reported BSOD use by Major Error to msg the enemy!

  19. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    > A side note to your comment on the Kill sub-thread bug. Tb does not
    > delete news in the context of the bug. The action is to hide the
    > filtered messages so they do not show in the thread pane. This is the
    > case in the "Online" scenario where the header info is needed to
    > sustain the filtering. This bug is just one of several newsreader bugs
    > that were recorded back in 1999-2000 at the inception of the
    > Mozilla.Org project.


    Many thanks for the clarification.



    MarkR


  20. Re: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

    On 22.04.2008 13:41, Mark Rousell wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    >> You can only delete forum posts IF you have permissions set to do so,
    >> otherwise no you cannot. On news servers you cannot delete posts even IF
    >> you are the poster -- in most cases -- you can however cancel a post IF
    >> and only IF the server admin has enabled it.

    >
    > Quite so. Of course, none of this means that one shouldn't be able to
    > delete whatever *locally* stored messages one pleases.


    You can do that, yes.

    > I only mentioned message deletion from web forums and NNTP servers to
    > counter the comment that "you don't delete messages in a news group any
    > more than you delete posts in a forum". Instead I should really just have
    > pointed out that what can or does happen on the server is irrelevant to
    > the issue at hand: The issue at hand being that of locally stored and
    > processed messages.


    I understand.

    >> > This is a workaround but it is a bit clumsy. Easy but clumsy: An
    >> > unnecessary burden and inconsistent with POP3.

    >>
    >> What is so "clumsy" about Drag'n'Drop to "Local Folders"??

    >
    > If you've selected a newsgroup folder for 'offline use' then it seems
    > reasonable to me to expect it to function as exactly that: An offline
    > (i.e. local, in TB terms) folder. In other words, it seems to me to be
    > logical and consistent for it to function just like folders containing
    > items downloaded via POP3.


    Create a folder(s) for offline storage, easy enough.

    >> How many RFE's have you entered?

    >
    > I've been using TB intensively for a couple of years now but I'm a
    > relative newcomer to the mozilla.* newsgroups and to the Thunderbird bug
    > and dev tracking system as a whole. So I've not entered any RFEs yet. For
    > that matter I've only just discovered that the official route to enter an
    > enhancement request is via the bug tracker. Rest assured that I shall post
    > some RFEs in due course.


    Good luck, I hope you get what you hope for.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast