Good time to move to TB on Vista? - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Good time to move to TB on Vista? - Mozilla ; Miles wrote: > * Andrew DeFaria wrote, On 4/24/2008 08:23: >> XS11E wrote: >> >>> "Mickey Segal" wrote: >>> >>>> "XS11E" wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9A87A987995AFxs11eyahoocom@216.196.97.169. .. >>>>> Filtering is a way of eliminating what you don't want >>>> I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 81 to 83 of 83

Thread: Good time to move to TB on Vista?

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

    Miles wrote:
    > * Andrew DeFaria wrote, On 4/24/2008 08:23:
    >> XS11E wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Mickey Segal" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "XS11E" wrote in message
    >>>> news:Xns9A87A987995AFxs11eyahoocom@216.196.97.169. ..
    >>>>> Filtering is a way of eliminating what you don't want
    >>>> I don't think Windows Mail does that at all so it is not an
    >>>> argument against changing over.
    >>> Correct, it doesn't, neither does Thunderbird, it's not an argument
    >>> against changing to Thunderbird, it's an argument against using
    >>> Thunderbird as a newsreader. Thunderbird works well as an email client.

    >> How can you say that with a straight face? TB definitely can do
    >> filtering. Stop spreading lies.

    > For example, TB in newsgroups will not filter out googlegroups which
    > is usually located in the organization line of the header. It will
    > only filter based on subject, from, or date.

    This is hardly the same as proclaiming that TB doesn't do filtering at all.
    > That's why TB users need another program.

    Bull! I'm a TB user. I don't need another program. I don't need to
    filter based on Organization and most users don't either.
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    When you do a good deed, get a receipt - In case heaven is like the IRS.


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

    > > > > 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.

    >
    > You didn't answer the question! Try again!


    I think you mean that I didn't answer it to *your* *satisfaction*. :-)
    Clearly, in your opinion, TB does not work in a clumsy manner for NNTP and
    so I have to go that extra step to help you to see why I find your
    suggestion of drag and drop clumsy. Thus I'll repeat what I said above
    using different phraseology.

    You ask what is clumsy about drag and drop to a local folder? Well, the
    first response is why should that even be necessary? It's deeply
    unintuitive. Why is it unintuitive? Because if you have selected a
    newsgroup folder for 'offline use' then what is this supposed to mean? To
    me it should mean that the folder is indeed intended for offline use. I.e.
    It has effectively been converted into a what would otherwise be called a
    local folder. In other words, it seems to me to be logical and consistent
    for an NNTP folder selected for 'offline use' to function *exactly* like
    folders containing items downloaded via POP3.

    Thunderbird's POP3 handling is very elegant and straightforward. It is
    completely non-clumsy, as I'm sure you'll agree. There is no good reason
    why Thunderbird's NNTP support should not function in *exactly* the same
    way for those who prefer that usage style (i.e. offline working).

    Having to drag and drop to a local folder just to get functionality that
    one would reasonably expect to be *built* *in* to a folder set for
    'offline use' is therefore: Clumsy, in my opinion.

    If you don't agree that it's clumsy then that's fine of course - it means
    that Thunderbird supports your requirements. But there are many users of
    Thunderbird, and many more potential users of Thunderbird, who have
    requirements and preferences which are not currently met and who would
    find the extension of Thunderbird's POP3 handling style to NNTP to be most
    beneficial.



    MarkR


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

    > >> How do you plan to address the issue of unwanted posts/replies/spam,
    > >> etc. when you automagically download news posts/replies/threads?

    >
    > > Exactly the same way that they're handled already in POP3. How else
    > > would you expect to do it with this way of working?

    >
    > I own mailservers with 18,000+ users. I run SpamAssassin and ClamAV that
    > reject spam/viruses, etc. Neither one of those applications will handle
    > NNTP. So ... what's your plan for filtering news?


    Perhaps, if I may turn the question around: How are spam/viruses
    *currently* filtered out with NNTP?

    The answer, of course, is that they are not filtered out for the most
    part (as you go on to say).

    Nothing I am suggesting will make this issue any more (or less)
    troublesome than it currently is as far as NNTP is concerned.

    If you think that scheduled downloading and local storage of NNTP message
    bodies would make recognition or avoidance of spam or viruses more
    difficult than it currently is, perhaps you could explain why you think
    so?

    > You can't do that with NNTP
    > that I am aware of.


    This is true - regardless of whether one is reading NNTP online or
    offline. So what I am advocating will not make this situation any worse.

    Why, therefore, do you bring it up as an objection, since it applies
    equally to Thunderbird's current NNTP handling as to my suggestion for
    POP3-like NNTP handling?

    > Only thing you can do is to rely on the server
    > owner/admin to employ rejection techniques on posters after the fact for
    > future posts, etc.


    Indeed. So, again, my suggestion doesn't alter this or make it any worse.


    MarkR


+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5