Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87556
Return-Path: <me@stephencoakley.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 66295 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2015 00:26:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2015 00:26:20 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 68.118.157.39 68-118-157-39.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com  
Received: from [68.118.157.39] ([68.118.157.39:20580] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 3E/50-64118-B25BEB55 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:26:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3E.50.64118.B25BEB55@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:23:05 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGbiJu-No6nmVt6O05e6oiEJ1jBD-T2fXxLJSMpksf2CE_9HJw@mail.gmail.com> <D8.E0.09373.6CD0EB55@pb1.pair.com> <CANUQDCjzk14=ZFHTdVF1s3sz+nmjoFQoZbhfVvC6w=JpH-gV-w@mail.gmail.com> <41.B2.09373.B881EB55@pb1.pair.com> <E5.B0.40707.3769EB55@pb1.pair.com> <B330FA44-13B8-495A-A945-6F26090C67DA@gmail.com> <B9.F2.40707.0BC9EB55@pb1.pair.com> <55BEAA53.3070201@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <55BEAA53.3070201@lsces.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Posted-By: 68.118.157.39
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Move internals discussion to a better medium
From: me@stephencoakley.com (Stephen Coakley)

On 08/02/2015 06:40 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/08/15 23:41, Stephen Coakley wrote:
>> Thunderbird works great for reading nested replies and past archives,
>> but replying has about a 50% chance of success for me. Oh well.
>
> I'm up to 24Gb of history over some 20 years and despite attempts by
> some developers to mess it up, Thunderbird does the job reasonably well.
> I'd prefer to be back on Seamonkey, but that has lost the ability to
> handle so big an archive, and in trying to 'keep up' with Firefox and
> Thunderbird it's no longer providing what a single suite used to
> provide. But then my Linux desktop fills in the gaps so I don't need
> Thunderbird to have a bloody calendar or Firefox to muscle in on the
> same space. Thunderbird does reliably handle emails in and emails out
> without a problem, and I don't need to go on-line to read the traffic,
> ore scan the history ...
>

I don't mean to sound rude, but when have you ever *needed* to access a 
really old message while simultaneously not having Internet access? I 
just can't imagine needing to do such a thing. Not saying it's wrong for 
you to do so.

-- 
Stephen Coakley