As Ron K. had suggested above,

I can vouch that this is a confirmed fix for users experiencing this
issue in Thunderbird. (I'm using 2.0.0.14)

I was receiving this error shortly after browsing through several imap
folder, and as I was receiving the error, I went to...

Tools > Options > Advanced > Config Editor

Copy and paste "mail.imap.max_cached_connections" into the filter
field. Double click the option, and you can now change the default
value from 10, to whatever you want. I chose 100. After pressing okay,
and closing the config editor, I started browsing through my imap
folders, and did not receive the error anymore.

Finally.... got my thunderbird love back ^_^

ezhivalyuk@gmail.com wrote:
> As Ron K. had suggested above,
>
> I can vouch that this is a confirmed fix for users experiencing this
> issue in Thunderbird. (I'm using 2.0.0.14)


What issue?
>
> I was receiving this error shortly after browsing through several imap
> folder, and as I was receiving the error, I went to...


What error?
>
> Tools > Options > Advanced > Config Editor
>
> Copy and paste "mail.imap.max_cached_connections" into the filter
> field. Double click the option, and you can now change the default
> value from 10, to whatever you want. I chose 100. After pressing okay,
> and closing the config editor, I started browsing through my imap
> folders, and did not receive the error anymore.
>
> Finally.... got my thunderbird love back ^_^

Please take care to reply to the thread in question. You have my
curiosity peaked, but I can't figure out what thread you are talking about.
--
Dave T.

Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a
person to use the internet and they won't bother you for
weeks.

ezhivalyuk@gmail.com wrote:
> As Ron K. had suggested above,

Above what? You started a new thread with the first line referring to
something "above". It would help if you quoted something to give people
a clue what you are talking about. A thread with all the messages
having been read will not be visible if the news reader is set up the
way most people do it.

EE wrote:
> ezhivalyuk@gmail.com wrote:
>> As Ron K. had suggested above,
>
> Above what? You started a new thread with the first line referring to
> something "above".

So that I don't have to scroll down to see the most recent, I have
messages sorted in descending order such that the most recent is on top.
Hence for all the folks with settings as mine, your "above" is then
actually "below". In the case of a user with settings such as mine and
using "above" will also be my "above", ergo their usage should be curtailed.

> It would help if you quoted something to give people
> a clue what you are talking about.

So instead of "above" or "below", indicating by message title with date,
or an actual link? OTOH, for users such as you, I can see that a quoted
portion would be desired.

> A thread with all the messages
> having been read will not be visible if the news reader is set up the
> way most people do it.

I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted once
read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded and for
deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more common,
however, I get your point.

--
Gus

On 20/07/2008 19:07, ezhivalyuk@gmail.com wrote:
> As Ron K. had suggested above,
>
> I can vouch that this is a confirmed fix for users experiencing this
> issue in Thunderbird. (I'm using 2.0.0.14)
>
> I was receiving this error shortly after browsing through several imap
> folder, and as I was receiving the error, I went to...
>
> Tools > Options > Advanced > Config Editor
>
> Copy and paste "mail.imap.max_cached_connections" into the filter
> field. Double click the option, and you can now change the default
> value from 10, to whatever you want. I chose 100. After pressing okay,
> and closing the config editor, I started browsing through my imap
> folders, and did not receive the error anymore.
>
> Finally.... got my thunderbird love back ^_^

Which of Ron K's 1300+ posts are you referring to?

--
wtwjgc (Joe)

Gus Richter wrote:

> I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted once
> read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded and for
> deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more common,
> however, I get your point.
>

Don't have a clue what other people do. If you are reading these forums
on-line you don't have a prob. I can't imagine why anyone would want to
deal with these forums on-line, but I (and I think most people) am using
a news reader (I use Thunderbird) that is set to show only "Threads with
unread". Therefore, posting a reply as a new thread shows only the
reply, and nothing else. Common sense says that a reply should be posted
as a reply. Furthermore, when I saw this post I made one click which
displayed the last 500 posts to this NG and was unable to find a post
which seemed to relate to this one. Admittedly, I chose not to spend a
great deal of my time trying to search it out.
--
Dave T.

Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a
person to use the internet and they won't bother you for
weeks.

Dave T. wrote:
> Gus Richter wrote:
>
>> I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted
>> once read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded
>> and for deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more
>> common, however, I get your point.
>>
>
> Don't have a clue what other people do. If you are reading these forums
> on-line you don't have a prob. I can't imagine why anyone would want to
> deal with these forums on-line, but I (and I think most people) am using
> a news reader (I use Thunderbird) that is set to show only "Threads with
> unread".

I also use Thunderbird as you can see in my header. I show "All". I have
no idea why you, or anyone else, use your preference but we all have
choices, right or wrong. Right for one - wrong for the other.

> Therefore, posting a reply as a new thread shows only the
> reply, and nothing else. Common sense says that a reply should be posted
> as a reply.

I don't understand what you mean. A reply is always a reply. I see it,
and everything related, as a thread. You don't. I could not live with it
your way.

> Furthermore, when I saw this post I made one click which
> displayed the last 500 posts to this NG and was unable to find a post
> which seemed to relate to this one. Admittedly, I chose not to spend a
> great deal of my time trying to search it out.

Therein is your problem. You're unable to review the subject thread for
information or refreshing of memory, since all previous messages in the
thread are gone. You should be careful when responding to postings in
case you get flamed for being ignorant of previous posting content in a
given subject matter.

BTW, depending on the newsgroup, and I follow a few other than those by
Mozilla, I have some set to retain all messages and some that I retain
only for xx days.

--
Gus

ezhivalyuk@gmail.com keyboarded, On 7/20/2008 2:07 PM :
> As Ron K. had suggested above,
>
> I can vouch that this is a confirmed fix for users experiencing this
> issue in Thunderbird. (I'm using 2.0.0.14)
>
> I was receiving this error shortly after browsing through several imap
> folder, and as I was receiving the error, I went to...
>
> Tools > Options > Advanced > Config Editor
>
> Copy and paste "mail.imap.max_cached_connections" into the filter
> field. Double click the option, and you can now change the default
> value from 10, to whatever you want. I chose 100. After pressing okay,
> and closing the config editor, I started browsing through my imap
> folders, and did not receive the error anymore.
>
> Finally.... got my thunderbird love back ^_^
>

Which of my posts is this in reference to?

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

Gus Richter wrote:
> Dave T. wrote:
>> Gus Richter wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted
>>> once read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded
>>> and for deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more
>>> common, however, I get your point.
>>>
>>
>> Don't have a clue what other people do. If you are reading these
>> forums on-line you don't have a prob. I can't imagine why anyone would
>> want to deal with these forums on-line, but I (and I think most
>> people) am using a news reader (I use Thunderbird) that is set to show
>> only "Threads with unread".
>
> I also use Thunderbird as you can see in my header. I show "All". I have
> no idea why you, or anyone else, use your preference but we all have
> choices, right or wrong. Right for one - wrong for the other.
>
>> Therefore, posting a reply as a new thread shows only the reply, and
>> nothing else. Common sense says that a reply should be posted as a reply.

What I mean is that a reply posted as a new thread is not a reply, but a
new thread.


> I don't understand what you mean. A reply is always a reply. I see it,
> and everything related, as a thread. You don't. I could not live with it
> your way.
>
>> Furthermore, when I saw this post I made one click which displayed the
>> last 500 posts to this NG and was unable to find a post which seemed
>> to relate to this one. Admittedly, I chose not to spend a great deal
>> of my time trying to search it out.
>
> Therein is your problem. You're unable to review the subject thread for
> information or refreshing of memory, since all previous messages in the
> thread are gone. You should be careful when responding to postings in
> case you get flamed for being ignorant of previous posting content in a
> given subject matter.

Yeah, it's my problem. If you are a T-bird user, you should know that
the posts are not deleted, just not displayed. as I said, in this case I
displayed all the previous posts, but was unable to determine which post
he was referring to. Furthermore, I get what you are hinting at. If you
are trying to be a troll by insinuating that I'm stupid because a post
was put on this NG that showed NO QUOTES and gave NO REFERENCE as to
what the poster was talking about, well all I can say is...

listen carefully...


Can you hear it?


(Plonk)


--
Dave T.

Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a
person to use the internet and they won't bother you for
weeks.

Gus Richter, 2008/07/20 10:07 PM:
> Dave T. wrote:
>> Gus Richter wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that most people set it up so that messages will be deleted
>>> once read. I suspect the more practical method is to set it threaded
>>> and for deletion after xx days, as I use it and believe to be more
>>> common, however, I get your point.
>>>
>>
>> Don't have a clue what other people do. If you are reading these
>> forums on-line you don't have a prob. I can't imagine why anyone
>> would want to deal with these forums on-line, but I (and I think most
>> people) am using a news reader (I use Thunderbird) that is set to
>> show only "Threads with unread".
>
> I also use Thunderbird as you can see in my header. I show "All". I
> have no idea why you, or anyone else, use your preference but we all
> have choices, right or wrong. Right for one - wrong for the other.
>
>> Therefore, posting a reply as a new thread shows only the reply, and
>> nothing else. Common sense says that a reply should be posted as a
>> reply.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. A reply is always a reply. I see it,
> and everything related, as a thread. You don't. I could not live with
> it your way.

A reply is not a reply when it is posted as a new subject without any
reference to the post it is in response to. If you had looked at the
headers in the original message in this thread you would have noticed
that there are no "In-Reply-To" or "References" headers. Thus the
original message in this thread is not a reply. I do not know – as
others have stated – what thread he is posting this message in reply to.
Perhaps you should look at the headers before spouting off.
>
>> Furthermore, when I saw this post I made one click which displayed
>> the last 500 posts to this NG and was unable to find a post which
>> seemed to relate to this one. Admittedly, I chose not to spend a
>> great deal of my time trying to search it out.
>
> Therein is your problem. You're unable to review the subject thread
> for information or refreshing of memory, since all previous messages
> in the thread are gone. You should be careful when responding to
> postings in case you get flamed for being ignorant of previous posting
> content in a given subject matter.

He could not review the subject thread because it is a new subject, not
a reply in a previous thread. Read the headers.

> BTW, depending on the newsgroup, and I follow a few other than those
> by Mozilla, I have some set to retain all messages and some that I
> retain only for xx days.

Irrelevant and of no help in this case