Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87556 Return-Path: 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 ; 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: <41.B2.09373.B881EB55@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