 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Eudora / March 2007Questions about Eudora
I'm looking for an e-mail client for my Mac, since I find that Mac's Mail is not up to my standards. I've looked at the Eudora features page, and it doesn't answer my questions. Would you kindly answer the questions below. a) When you have multiple accounts, I want Fetch to get mail _only_ for the currently open account. Does Eudora do that? b) Does/can Eudora display text and attachments in different panes of the mail window? c) Does/can Eudora treat all embedded non-text objects as attachments? d) Does/can Eudora to treat all HTML messages, or HTML parts of messages, as attachments? e) Does Eudora wait for explicit permission before opening attachments? Please don't tell me what wonderful features Eudora has instead of the above. I have an e-mail client this aging Win2000 machine that does exactly what I outline above, and I want to know if Eudora can do it too. Thanks for any help.  SignatureWolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine) There are a couple versions of endora, but this is what I've found: I'm looking for an e-mail client for my Mac, since I find that Mac's Mail is not up to my standards. I've looked at the Eudora features page, and it doesn't answer my questions. Would you kindly answer the questions below. a) When you have multiple accounts, I want Fetch to get mail _only_ for the currently open account. Does Eudora do that? *-You can fetch mail from each separately by double clicking on the accounts mailbox. If you are using IMAP, same for each folder withing the account. b) Does/can Eudora display text and attachments in different panes of the mail window? *-There's an attachement icon within the text c) Does/can Eudora treat all embedded non-text objects as attachments? *-You can pick the behavior you want, default is they are not treated as attachements d) Does/can Eudora to treat all HTML messages, or HTML parts of messages, as attachments? *-You can pick the behavior you want, default is all part of same message. e) Does Eudora wait for explicit permission before opening attachments? *-You can set the behavior, default is not. You need to double click on the attachement icon or open with some other method. Please don't tell me what wonderful features Eudora has instead of the above. I have an e-mail client this aging Win2000 machine that does exactly what I outline above, and I want to know if Eudora can do it too. Thanks for any help. *-Sounds like you are worried about viruses, welcome to the mac it just doesn't happen. Its good insurance, however, as you never know when you may be using a PC and operate it dangerously. You can do pretty much the same thing with the mac client but IMAP is a bit tricky/quirky. SignatureWolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine) > There are a couple versions of endora, but this is what I've found: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > be using a PC and operate it dangerously. You can do pretty much the same > thing with the mac client but IMAP is a bit tricky/quirky. Thank you. Gives me a clear picture of Eudora. SignatureWolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine) > Please don't tell me what wonderful features Eudora has OK then, we won't. SignatureFrank Taylor > I'm looking for an e-mail client for my Mac, since I find that Mac's > Mail is not up to my standards. I've looked at the Eudora features page, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a) When you have multiple accounts, I want Fetch to get mail _only_ for > the currently open account. Does Eudora do that? Not exactly, because it does not have any sort of open/closed mode for personalities. You could reproduce that with distinct config files but that's a bit goofy. It does have flexible settings for checking mail, and you can set each personality for its own automatic checking schedule, to be checked whenever you use the manual "check mail" command, or only when you specifically tell Eudora to check for that personality. > b) Does/can Eudora display text and attachments in different panes of > the mail window? I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. Eudora has 2 types of windows involved directly in reading mail: mailbox windows and message windows. Graphics that Eudora or Quicktime can render that are attached with a "Content-Disposition: inline" MIME header or are referenced in an HTML message (and attached, not external) will be displayed inline with the message text. You can change a setting (<x-eudora-setting:236>) to turn off attached image display. As with many settings that Qualcomm does not expect users to want often, this is one that has no place in the settings interface, but it's there... > c) Does/can Eudora treat all embedded non-text objects as attachments? Yes, but it does understand more MIME types to be text than many mailers (e.g. Microsoft's junk) and it understands how to do rudimentary HTML rendering including the inline display of any images that are actually attached to the message (as opposed to having http URL's in the IMG tags.) > d) Does/can Eudora to treat all HTML messages, or HTML parts of > messages, as attachments? No. It does very rudimentary rendering of HTML (no scripting, no CSS, limited layout ) that can be toggled off in an individual message. Overall, the handling of text/html messages and parts is pretty poor but at least it is not dangerous. > e) Does Eudora wait for explicit permission before opening attachments? Image attachments marked for inline display are displayed inline unless you tweak the above-mentioned setting. Other attachments require a manual double-click to open. > Please don't tell me what wonderful features Eudora has instead of the > above. I have an e-mail client this aging Win2000 machine that does > exactly what I outline above, and I want to know if Eudora can do it too. > > Thanks for any help. One unsolicited note: Mac Eudora is a moribund product. Qualcomm is no longer developing it as a free-standing program, but has instead tasked its Eudora developers with the development of an add-on for Mozilla Thunderbird (called Penelope, apparently after the long-suffering wife of Odysseus) Buying Eudora 6.2.4 is not rational at this point. For people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something else is a problem, but it is very hard for me to encourage anyone else to switch to Eudora as it stands. The Penelope project might yield something worthwhile, or it may not, but buying the last commercial Eudora doesn't seem to make sense. One other place to look that is likely to meet the above features is Mulberry, a formerly-commercial cross-platform mailer that is now free and is in the process of being open-sourced. SignatureClues for the blacklisted: <http://www.scconsult.com/bill/dnsblhelp.html> Current Peeve: People who poke at the trolls and regularly post wildly offtopic who still think others are being rude by auto-ignoring them [snip careful and thorough explanations] > One unsolicited note: Mac Eudora is a moribund product. Qualcomm is no > longer developing it as a free-standing program, but has instead tasked [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Mulberry, a formerly-commercial cross-platform mailer that is now free > and is in the process of being open-sourced. Again, thanks for your explanations, and especially for your caveat. I had already downloaded Mulberry, and will try it out. I will also try the ones you mentioned in another post. SignatureWolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine) > Buying Eudora 6.2.4 is not rational at this point. For > people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something > else is a problem, but it is very hard for me to encourage anyone else > to switch to Eudora as it stands. The Penelope project might yield > something worthwhile, or it may not, but buying the last commercial > Eudora doesn't seem to make sense. I agree that BUYING Eudora is not rational. But of course one does not have to buy it. The sponsored mode has almost all the fatures of the paid mode, is free, and now that Qualcomm has stopped serving ads, its only weakness is that there is a grey box that used to contain ads and can't be removed (though its position can be changed). Signaturehttp://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:38:15 -0500: [about the rationality of buying Eudora now] Buying is no less rational now than for someone who purchased whatever version was current several years ago and has kept on using that version ever since, without buying any later version to replace it, given that things have remained pretty stable for a long time. If you desire the complete feature set, you can buy that and keep using it for just as long, but since now it's at less than half price, it may be even more rational now than it used to be, in some people's eyes. If the free features suffice (or if you use someone else's registration), then of course you can have it free. Some people may even care to compensate Qualcomm for all the years of free product, by offering the small amount for a perpetual, fully-featured final version, sans now-empty ad window. It's all "in the eye of the beholder." -[ ]- > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:38:15 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > without buying any later version to replace it, > given that things have remained pretty stable for a long time. [...] > It's all "in the eye of the beholder." Yes, but since I was the one who first pronounced the heresy, I'll explain the view... Right now there are 5 reasonable alternatives to Mail.app on MacOS for people who want a powerful GUI mailer: Mulberry, Thunderbird, PowerMail, Eudora, and Entourage. All of those have shortcomings, as does Mail.app. All except Eudora have at least a hypothetical hope of their shortcomings being addressed in future versions. As for rewarding Qualcomm for years of support, I think most Mac Eudora users have already more than done their share in that area, particularly given the past 2 years and the repeated assurances of a Eudora 7 to come with specific fixes/features. That may read as more bitter than I feel. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... [lots of good information snipped] > Overall, the handling of text/html messages and parts is pretty poor but > at least it is not dangerous. You also have the option of displaying html messages in your default browser for those occasions when the Eudora display is unsatisfactory. SignatureKathy - If you're reading this in your web browser from Google or similar forum, NNTP "newsreaders" are a better way to access the content. <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/how-it-works.html> Links to NNTP newsreaders at <http://www.newsreaders.co > [lots of good information snipped] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You also have the option of displaying html messages in your default > browser for those occasions when the Eudora display is unsatisfactory. Which is something of a trade-off. Frankly, I've never seen Eudora get HTML rendering significantly wrong on a message I would trust to open in a full-featured browser. Lots of spam gets mishandled, but that is mail that shouldn't exist to begin with. What is more annoying to me than the rendering weakness is the discarding of text/plain parts in multipart/alternative messages and the wrapping of HTML in the confusing and usually unnecessary "stuff-for-pete" tags that could and should have been implemented as additional message metadata rather than done by modifying message data. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... > For > people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something > else is a problem I wholeheartedly agree with that. Last week I did the switch from Eudora to Thunderbird. I still need to get used to it and miss some of the features of Eudora but since Eudora is essentially dead I had to take the plunge sometime anyway. If anyone else attempts the switch: Eudora Mailbox Cleaner did a good job in moving my 84000+ Mails from the last 10 Years to TB. Greetings from Germany, Bernd Fröhlich > > For > > people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If anyone else attempts the switch: Eudora Mailbox Cleaner did a good > job in moving my 84000+ Mails from the last 10 Years to TB. And how did it worked with filters, mailboxes and addresses ? Theo SignatureFrom the heather in the Nord of Belgium > > > For > > > people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And how did it worked with filters, mailboxes and addresses ? and have you tried the Penelope plugin or whatever it is? > and have you tried the Penelope plugin or whatever it is? AFAIK Penelope is still in the making. > > If anyone else attempts the switch: Eudora Mailbox Cleaner did a good > > job in moving my 84000+ Mails from the last 10 Years to TB. > > And how did it worked with filters, mailboxes and addresses ? Mailboxes and addresses were no problem with the Mailbox Cleaner (TB crashed while trying to import directly). I had to recreate my filters (about a dozen). No big deal. > > For > > people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but since Eudora is essentially dead I had to take the plunge sometime > anyway. I don't get that. I figure that Eudora is working for me now, and, as far as I can determine, working better than anything else out there. If it stops working (i.e., if there is an OS on which it will not run well), then I'll start casting around for alternatives. And hopefully by then, there will be Penelope or something else equal or better than Eudora. Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I don't get that. I figure that Eudora is working for me now, and, as > far as I can determine, working better than anything else out there. If > it stops working (i.e., if there is an OS on which it will not run > well), then I'll start casting around for alternatives. And hopefully > by then, there will be Penelope or something else equal or better than > Eudora. Of course you are right with that. My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. I do check my mail (several accounts) quite often and Eudora took a rather long "nap" after checking before I could use it again. Maybe some sort of corruption, maybe something else - I don´t know. That was my main reason to switch. And I sure hope that Penelope is out soon and brings the best of TB and Eudora together. > My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be > updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. I > do check my mail (several accounts) quite often and Eudora took a rather > long "nap" after checking before I could use it again. Maybe some sort > of corruption, maybe something else - I don´t know. That was my main > reason to switch. That's very strange behaviour- and I'd have thought, not a real reason to switch. It must be fixable. SignaturePeter > > My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be > > updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's very strange behaviour- and I'd have thought, not a real reason > to switch. It must be fixable. I am getting this, too, with Mac Eudora. And for no particular reason I sometimes get a "couldn't open xxx, mail may be delayed but will show up eventually" message in the progress window. The other day this caused some mail to only show up a few hours later. At work I use Win-Eudora which I like as I can dock everything together and it seems to handle thousands of mails OK. Stick at home with the flu and trying to keep up with some work, I don't find Mac Eudora as convenient - too many damn windows. And these odd pauses. > At work I use Win-Eudora which I like as I can dock everything together > and it seems to handle thousands of mails OK. Stick at home with the flu > and trying to keep up with some work, I don't find Mac Eudora as > convenient - too many damn windows. And these odd pauses. The windows are a Mac thing; I infinitely prefer being able to arrange them the way I like rather than the way Billy's geeks decided. But the pauses are certainly not part of my experience with Eudora on the Mac. Sounds more like an ISP question. SignaturePeter > > At work I use Win-Eudora which I like as I can dock everything together > > and it seems to handle thousands of mails OK. Stick at home with the flu [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The windows are a Mac thing; I infinitely prefer being able to arrange > them the way I like rather than the way Billy's geeks decided. I suppose what I am saying is I don't want 20 windows open just because I have 20 mailboxes or e-mails open. I prefer the tabs that win-eudora has - I can predictably and reliably switch between them. I *never* minimise them within the parent window, can't see the point of that. With 20 windows open on the Mac I just lose track of which is which. > But the pauses are certainly not part of my experience with Eudora on > the Mac. Sounds more like an ISP question. No, it's e.g. when the transfer is complete and some mails come in. There may be a perceptible delay before my New Mail sound kicks off and the mail appears. Sometimes its 20 secs or so. ISP is not involved at this point, according to the progress window. > No, it's e.g. when the transfer is complete and some mails come in. > There may be a perceptible delay before my New Mail sound kicks off and > the mail appears. Sometimes its 20 secs or so. ISP is not involved at > this point, according to the progress window. Do you have a lot of filters? Sounds like a filtering issue. I try to keep my filters in a most used --> least used order, to the extent that I can. But I do remember that after an upgrade (I don't remember which one) Eudora's filtering became noticeably slower. It's not so much a "pause" (I can do other things in Eudora) as it is a "wait." For me, it's on the scale of "mildly annoying." I usually just find other things to do in the meantime (like read a newsgroup) -- god forbid I waste my 20 secs. :) Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > No, it's e.g. when the transfer is complete and some mails come in. > > There may be a perceptible delay before my New Mail sound kicks off and > > the mail appears. Sometimes its 20 secs or so. ISP is not involved at > > this point, according to the progress window. > > Do you have a lot of filters? No more than two or three. > > > No, it's e.g. when the transfer is complete and some mails come in. > > > There may be a perceptible delay before my New Mail sound kicks off and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No more than two or three. Hunh, that's hardly any. I always assumed that it was because I have a lot of filters. Do any of your filters look through your address book(s), and if so, do you have a lot of addresses? Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > > No, it's e.g. when the transfer is complete and some mails come in. > > > > There may be a perceptible delay before my New Mail sound kicks off and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lot of filters. Do any of your filters look through your address > book(s), and if so, do you have a lot of addresses? No, they're all of the form "if from = 'wiggy' transfer to xxx-box and skip rest" And there exactly 4. > > But the pauses are certainly not part of my experience with Eudora on > > the Mac. Sounds more like an ISP question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the mail appears. Sometimes its 20 secs or so. ISP is not involved at > this point, according to the progress window. Yep. Same behaviour over here. Have not seen this behavior here... yet Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote: > > But the pauses are certainly not part of my experience with Eudora on > > the Mac. Sounds more like an ISP question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the mail appears. Sometimes its 20 secs or so. ISP is not involved at > this point, according to the progress window. Yep. Same behaviour over here. > > But the pauses are certainly not part of my experience with Eudora on > > the Mac. Sounds more like an ISP question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the mail appears. Sometimes its 20 secs or so. ISP is not involved at > this point, according to the progress window. What happens if you change the settings under Threading? (You'll need to activate the Esoteric Settings plugin if you haven't already.) SignatureKathy - If you're reading this in your web browser from Google or similar forum, NNTP "newsreaders" are a better way to access the content. <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/how-it-works.html> Links to NNTP newsreaders at <http://www.newsreaders.com/> > What happens if you change the settings under Threading? (You'll need > to activate the Esoteric Settings plugin if you haven't already.) Oh. My. God. There is a setting for "Wait time before delivering" ????? I never noticed that. Why would ANYONE want to WAIT before their mail was delivered??? Mine was set to 10. Now it's at 0. It certainly seems faster, but I'll have a better idea in the morning when I've got a bunch of mail coming in. In the meantime: WTF ?? Can you tell I am PO'ed that I have been putting up with this (what I recently called a) "minor annoyance" for years? ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Roberta P.S. Kathy, before you start to feel like the messenger who brought bad news -- thank you, thank you. I guess I should focus on the fact that (hopefully) this problem will now be gone. I appreciate your help! SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Oh. My. God. > > There is a setting for "Wait time before delivering" ????? > > I never noticed that. Why would ANYONE want to WAIT before their mail > was delivered??? Mine was set to 10. Hmmm, 10 seems to be the default. It was set to 10 here too and I also never noticed that. I am sure though, that some time ago there was no delay. Maybe that setting only is set when you activate the esoteric settings? Doesn´t matter to me anymore :-) > I am sure though, that some time ago there was no > delay. Maybe that setting only is set when you activate the esoteric > settings? I'm using (very happily) Eudora 6.1.1, with Esoteric Settings enabled, and it looks as though you are right; there seems to be no delay setting available in my version. SignaturePeter > I'm using (very happily) Eudora 6.1.1, with Esoteric Settings enabled, > and it looks as though you are right; there seems to be no delay setting > available in my version. D'oh. Of course there was. Settings->threading->wait time before delivering, set to 10. I've set it to zero, although I don't see how it can make much difference as I never saw any delay in the first place. SignaturePeter > Settings->threading->wait time before delivering, set to 10. > > I've set it to zero, although I don't see how it can make > much difference, as I never saw any delay in the first place. If it only "kicks in" when something tells Eudora that the user is currently doing something else, then it might not happen when everything is completely idle, but start delaying when a busy "power user" keeps doing everything at the same time, or when Eudora thinks that's happening, perhaps to due to other circumstances. Page 234 of 6.2.4 Mac manual also seems to indicate that doing mail sending and checking in "background" is optional, and controlled by standard settings(?): "You can send, receive, and compose mail all at the same time, and you can perform other operations simultaneously as well. Eudora will even send and check mail while you work in other applications. To instruct Eudora to check mail in the background, turn on the 'Use background threading' option in the Checking Mail settings. To instruct Eudora to send mail in the background, turn on the 'Use separate thread for sending' option in the Sending Mail settings. See Checking Mail on page 322 and Sending Mail on page 327." -[ ]- > To instruct Eudora to check mail in the background, > turn on the 'Use background threading' option in the Checking Mail > settings. Yes. I've had that enabled for a very long time. It's true, though, that if you are doing a load of other tasks as Eudora downloads mail (which I do quite often) Eudora sems to wait for *you* to pause before distributing the mail via filters... Setting that wait time to 0 seems, so far, to make little difference. But I'll need to try some more. Of course, the fact that I'm doing something else means I'm not ready to view the mails before I pause anyway. And I can see the activity in the background. SignaturePeter > > Settings->threading->wait time before delivering, set to 10. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > in the Sending Mail settings. > See Checking Mail on page 322 and Sending Mail on page 327." This sounds like OS9 settings rather than OS X, at a time where the assumption might have been that one didn't want progs doing things if they weren't in the foreground. > > Settings->threading->wait time before delivering, set to 10. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or when Eudora thinks that's happening, > perhaps to due to other circumstances. The tooltip actually says: Time in seconds Eudora must be idle before taking control from user So if you are typing an e-mail say, it is going to wait until you pause for 10 seconds before filtering and delivering the new e-mail. If you are in some other application, Eudora will be idle. It may wait for another 10 seconds before filtering and delivering, although it may count itself as idle while it is retrieving the mail and therefore deliver immediately. Yet another extremely user-friendly feature of Eudora! David > > What happens if you change the settings under Threading? (You'll need > > to activate the Esoteric Settings plugin if you haven't already.) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > seems faster, but I'll have a better idea in the morning when I've got a > bunch of mail coming in. I just checked mine, it's set to 1. But 1 what - what are the units? I'll try setting to 0. > I just checked mine, it's set to 1. But 1 what - what are the units? > I'll try setting to 0. The units are seconds, as I found by leacing my mouse on the item until the tooltip came up. Signaturehttp://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read > > I just checked mine, it's set to 1. But 1 what - what are the units? > > I'll try setting to 0. > > The units are seconds, as I found by leacing my mouse on the item until > the tooltip came up. That's for the wait time. The two hog-times are in ticks. Kathy Morgan (apparent Guardian Angel of the Eudora Mac newsgroup, like Katrina Knight of the Eudora Windows newsgroup) wrote: > What happens if you change the settings under Threading? (You'll need > to activate the Esoteric Settings plugin if you haven't already.) On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:23:40 -0500, Roberta Millstein wrote: > Mine was set to 10. Now it's at 0. > Why would ANYONE want to WAIT before their mail was delivered??? It may be analogous to a standard option in a "Background Tasks" category in the Windows versions: "Wait [nn] seconds of user inactivity before processing/filtering downloaded messages" which is provided to avoid rudely stealing the processor (and/or the focus) from the user who may be typing something at the moment that "background" downloading is finished; some Windows users have been surprised to find that this has been set to 20 (seconds), and have long suffered the same sort of frustration as Roberta (Qualcomm often suggests five seconds as reasonable, rather than zero, but some wag once suggested increasing it to 300 seconds, in order to find an excuse to go for a coffeee break on each mail check :) Windows' "Esoteric > Threading" section also has a check-box: "[ ] Ignore idle time wait on manual check/sends" which distinguishes the (probably desirable) idle time wait for automatically-inititated ("every [nn] minutes") mail checks from user-initiated mail checks, when the user may have initiated the check expressly to hurry up and see any new mail ASAP. Yikes! -- Qualcomm actually has an "answer card" on this whole thing (just found while searching the clue "esoteric" just provided by Kathy): "Incoming Mail Disappears - Mail Never Delivered" http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/1881hq.html There is something a bit weird about the "mail will be delivered, eventually" message, however (after some file can't be created), which remains unexplained (to me, anyway). What are the odds that "Penelope" will *ever* offer all of the astounding range of control (and consequent potential pitfalls) that Eudora has developed over its long evolution into so highly evolved a system? Maybe all development should be left to Microsoft types, who would rather leave the user only one "On/Off" button to control everything in the computer, if only they could :) -[ ]- > Oh. My. God. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > news -- thank you, thank you. I guess I should focus on the fact that > (hopefully) this problem will now be gone. I appreciate your help! <laugh> I feel a bit hypocritical mentioning it. I've been aware of it forever and been afraid to change it because I had no idea why anyone would want to wait before their mail was delivered. It seemed so stupid that there had to be some hidden reason and I'd better not mess with it. John Meyers explanation makes sense. SignatureKathy > > > My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be > > > updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and trying to keep up with some work, I don't find Mac Eudora as > convenient - too many damn windows. And these odd pauses. If you don't like all the windows, why don't you keep it as one window and a drawer? List of emails on top, view emails on the bottom, drawer on left or right? When you want to see a different mailbox, click into it from the drawer? Everything all in one window (+ drawer). In article <magdalenabung-F36E6B.17030921032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, > > > > My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be > > > > updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > on left or right? When you want to see a different mailbox, click into > it from the drawer? Everything all in one window (+ drawer). Yeah, I do that. But I would rilly, rilly like to dock the progress window and the tool bar to it so I can move the lot as one item to another screen. I also thought it might be smart to have mailbox buttons on the toolbar but each of these opens in a separate window rats rats rats. In short I want V7 :-) Bernd Fröhlich wrote: > My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be > updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. > I do check my mail (several accounts) quite often and Eudora > took a rather long "nap" after checking before I could use it again. The following is a very long (and old, perhaps obsolete?) thread on Eudora under Mac OS X Tiger, which contained bits of info on Eudora performance when used with "Spotlight" and with "Application Enhancer," and suggesting tweaks for reducing delays: http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=3351 > In short I want V7 :-) Apparently it was still in progress: http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showpost.php?p=24283&postcount=44 [2006-06-03] "Still in the works... I spoke to Eudora Sales yesterday. They told me 6.2.4 (or they may just call it 6.3) will be out this month. At that time, they will give more details on when Eudora 7 will see the light of day. She did say that 7's still in development (not abandoned) and will get released, just she can't give a time frame at this point." But perhaps killed by the "October surprise" of 2006 (the announcement of "final" Eudora, that is): [2006-10-11] http://eudora.com/faq/ If you've got an Intel-based Mac, however, can you meanwhile run Windows Eudora v7 on it? :-) Other old "news you can't use": http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php?story=20051213052139695 http://web.archive.org/web/20060530075020/http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2654h q.html http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2654hq.html (the latter original was removed by Qualcomm) -[ ]- > Bernd Fröhlich wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and suggesting tweaks for reducing delays: > http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=3351 Hmmm... I'm still running Panther, so something else is causing the "pause" on my system. Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > The following is a very long (and old, perhaps obsolete?) > > thread on Eudora under Mac OS X Tiger, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hmmm... I'm still running Panther, so something else is causing the > "pause" on my system. I have disabled Spotlight, so it must have been another problem here also. > for no particular reason I sometimes get a > "couldn't open xxx, mail may be delayed > but will show up eventually" message in the progress window. > The other day this caused some mail to only show up a few hours later. Referring to the other thread containing the same report (with links to similar reports in Qualcomm Eudora Mac forums): http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.eudora.mac/browse_thread/thread/59033fe 73ed17fe2 -[ ]- > My reason for switching was not only that Eudora will no longer be > updated but that it had some behaviour that got on my nerves lately. I > do check my mail (several accounts) quite often and Eudora took a rather > long "nap" after checking before I could use it again. Maybe some sort > of corruption, maybe something else - I don´t know. That was my main > reason to switch. Sounds like it is processing all your received e-mails against all your filters. This has been happening for years for me, and got steadily worse as I added more filters. It is a useful exercise to look at your filters and note all those with a dinosaur next to them, ie, they have not been used for some time. There will be some wonderful gems there that you had forgotten about years ago. Cheers David > > > For > > > people like me with 15+ years of using Eudora, switching to something [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't get that. I figure that Eudora is working for me now, and, as > far as I can determine, working better than anything else out there. That's the deciding factor. Eudora has actually become less functional for me over time, both because of things I need to be able to do that I did not need to do significantly 5 years ago (e.g. work with signed and encrypted mail) and because Qualcomm has made some bad changes over the years (e.g. forcing filter termination with mailbox transfers) and have failed to maintain features that existed in prior versions on prior OS's. Is Eudora the best thing for me right now? I think so, although I can no longer use it as my sole mailer and that has cascading effects because multiple mailers means IMAP and IMAP makes Eudora look even worse. SignatureNow where did I hide that website... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.