Mailbox Full error message

[TOM BLACKWELL]

When starting TB, I get a message that the mailbox is full and can't
receive any more messages. I have several EMail addresses and several
folders, and they appear to download the pending messages from the
server OK.

How can I find which of the several EMail accounts is reporting the
"full" message?

What size (or number of messages) makes an account "full" ?


--


Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[Mike Easter]

mailbox full sounds like a message from a mail provider, not Tbird.

Your From says sbcglobal. When I read at ATT/Yahoo/sbcglobal, the info
says there is no mailbox size limits
http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB401685&cv=804&title=What+are+my+email+storage+space+and+message+count+limits%3F#fbid=wF8ped4UECu


I would visit the webmail system for each of my mail accounts and see if
you have an account with a full mailbox - running out of space.


--
Mike Easter

[TOM BLACKWELL]

Mike, none of the EMail accounts have the 'leave messages on server'
function checked. They are removed from the server each time I download
them.

The error message appears to be from TB.

It says: "The folder Inbox is full, and can't hold any more messages. To
make room for more messages, delete any old or unwanted mail and compact
the folder."

It would also help me to know the size (or number of messages) that
makes a TB account "full."

Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[Paul S Wolf]

Make sure the INBOX files in your profile (normally hidden files) are
not marked READ ONLY.

Please bottom post in this group.

--
Paul S. Wolf, PE, FITE mailto:paul....@alum.wpi.edu
Fellow, Institute of Transportation Engineers

[Ron Hunter]

I don't know of any way that a mailbox could be full unless it has grown
so large that it exceeds the ability of your OS to process a file that
large, or the ability of the Mbox format (.msf file) to index it. The
more likely scenario is that your server has been accumulating messages
and doesn't have room in your allocated space to store any more.

[Ron Hunter]

On 11/19/2011 3:36 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
> Mike, none of the EMail accounts have the 'leave messages on server'
> function checked. They are removed from the server each time I download
> them.
>
> The error message appears to be from TB.
>
> It says: "The folder Inbox is full, and can't hold any more messages. To
> make room for more messages, delete any old or unwanted mail and compact
> the folder."
>
> It would also help me to know the size (or number of messages) that
> makes a TB account "full."
>
>
>

I see you are using TB 2.0.0.4, which is very old. What OS are you
using? This information might help.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/19/2011 1:55 PM:

> When starting TB, I get a message
> that the mailbox is full and can't receive any more messages.

A "talked about" error message
can not be searched for quite as well as
a _copied and pasted_ (or precisely hand-transcribed) message,
including its "window title," error number, or whatever else you can see.

This is a general principle for all research and problem solving.

Have you perchance received a "bounce message"
(an incoming email message)
regarding something that you emailed to someone else,
informing you that THEIR mailbox (at THEIR ISP)
is currently using its full quota of storage space?

Such a message sometimes contains a copy of what you mailed,
but it is about THEIR mailbox being "full" -- not yours.

Whatever it be, it takes a chain of events
leading from your eyes to a full and clear description on this forum
to clarify what's going on at your end, starting from the point
where you first read the entire message yourself (perhaps more than one time)
to see whether its meaning can be fathomed by what it actually says,
and then relaying all pertinent content to potential helpers here,
if a thorough reading does not yet furnish the explanation.


Not reading one incoming mail could be tragic:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Sand_and_Fog_(novel)>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Sand_and_Fog_(film)>

--

[John H Meyers]

On 11/19/2011 3:36 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:

> The error message appears to be from TB.

> It says: "The folder Inbox is full, and can't hold any more messages.
> To make room for more messages, delete any old or unwanted mail
> and compact the folder."

NOW you have enough to search on, and get your answers from Google:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=Inbox+full+delete+old+unwanted+mail+compact>

Some results:

<http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=1007315&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a>

<http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/in_box_failure>

And a "bug" report :)
<http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/in_box_failure>

Just find a 4GB file named "Inbox" ;-)

--

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

1st, click on each of your email service providers, esp, in turn, to hilite.
press <alt+f>,<f> to compact all folders. repeat for "Local Folders".

2nd, select 1 esp, send yourself an email to other esp's 1 at a time,
waiting for email to arrive before sending to next esp.

3rd, select another esp, send yourself an email to esp you used in '2nd'.


wait 5/10 minutes, if you get a message back that an esp is full, it is
your esp. else it is thunderbird and you need to move messages to another
folder.

if it is thunderbird, and you are using filters to file new emails in,
look in 'Inbox' of each esp to see what emails are not being filtered.


hth.
--
peace out.

tc, hago.

walking the walk. long live tux.

g
.

*please reply "plain text" only. "html text" are deleted*

[TOM BLACKWELL]

John H Meyers wrote:

Answers are below - -

> On 11/19/2011 1:55 PM:
>
>> When starting TB, I get a message
>> that the mailbox is full and can't receive any more messages.
>
> A "talked about" error message
> can not be searched for quite as well as
> a _copied and pasted_ (or precisely hand-transcribed) message,
> including its "window title," error number, or whatever else you can see.
>
> This is a general principle for all research and problem solving.

The error message is from TB. While I can not 'cut and paste it,' it says:

"Alert"

<!>

"The folder Inbox is full, and can't hold any more messages. To
make room for more messages, delete any old or unwanted mail and compact
the folder."

(The ! is displayed in a triangle.)

>
> Have you perchance received a "bounce message"
> (an incoming email message)
> regarding something that you emailed to someone else,
> informing you that THEIR mailbox (at THEIR ISP)
> is currently using its full quota of storage space?

No, there were no 'bounce messages' like that

TB continues to add messages into the Inbox of each Email address, even
after stopping to send the above error message.

Further compacting of the Inbox folders does not appear to make any
difference.

>
> Such a message sometimes contains a copy of what you mailed,
> but it is about THEIR mailbox being "full" -- not yours.
>
> Whatever it be, it takes a chain of events
> leading from your eyes to a full and clear description on this forum
> to clarify what's going on at your end, starting from the point
> where you first read the entire message yourself (perhaps more than one time)
> to see whether its meaning can be fathomed by what it actually says,
> and then relaying all pertinent content to potential helpers here,
> if a thorough reading does not yet furnish the explanation.
>
>
> Not reading one incoming mail could be tragic:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Sand_and_Fog_(novel)>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Sand_and_Fog_(film)>
>


--

Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[TOM BLACKWELL]

I have XP-Pro. I have found TB 2.0.0.4 to be reliable otherwise. By
using it I avoid some changes that appeared in later versions that I
found annoying.

The above message is the text that appears from TB. I am convinced it
does not come from a server.

While I can not 'cut and paste it,' it says:

"Alert"

<!>

"The folder Inbox is full, and can't hold any more messages. To
make room for more messages, delete any old or unwanted mail and compact
the folder."

(The ! is displayed in a triangle.)

Yet TB appears to download and display additional messages in each Inbox.

--


Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[Christian Riechers]

On 11/20/2011 01:09 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> I see you are using TB 2.0.0.4, which is very old. What OS are you
>> using? This information might help.
>
> I have XP-Pro. I have found TB 2.0.0.4 to be reliable otherwise. By
> using it I avoid some changes that appeared in later versions that I
> found annoying.
>
> The above message is the text that appears from TB. I am convinced it
> does not come from a server.
>
> While I can not 'cut and paste it,' it says:
>
> "Alert"
>
> <!>
>
> "The folder Inbox is full, and can't hold any more messages. To
> make room for more messages, delete any old or unwanted mail and compact
> the folder."
>
> (The ! is displayed in a triangle.)
>
> Yet TB appears to download and display additional messages in each Inbox.
>

Check the size of the Inbox mail file in your profile. With TB2 the max.
file size is 2 GB.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Limits_-_Thunderbird#Folders_and_messages
I'd expect the same kind of error when TB can't write to the Inbox file,
e.g. due to the file being write protected, disk full, etc.
Make sure none of that is the case.

--
Christian

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/20/2011 12:09 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
<>

> (The ! is displayed in a triangle.)

that being case, it is thunderbird giving message.

> Yet TB appears to download and display additional messages in each Inbox.

send yourself emails to each esp, 1 at a time as explained in other post.

you will find which is giving problem.

[MikeR]

TB 8 (or an add-on?) now pops up a dialog (titled 'Monitor Email Folders Results')
when I start it that says 'Email folders that are larger than 200 megabytes. The
following email folders may be getting too large for Thunderbird to handle properly.
You should reduce their size by either deleting unneeded items or by creating
sub-folders and moving rarely referenced items into them. If there is substantial
space recoverable by compacting a folder, right click that folder in Thunderbird's
left pane and choose compact.'

Followed by a list of the overfull folders with sizes.

So someone thinks the max safe size is 200MB. I can't imagine why that would be.
Archiving, BTW, may not be a good strategy to reduce the folder size, as this dialog
lists those folders also.

[Dave Pyles]

MikeR wrote:

> TB 8 (or an add-on?) now pops up a dialog (titled 'Monitor Email Folders
> Results') when I start it that says 'Email folders that are larger than
> 200 megabytes. The following email folders may be getting too large for
> Thunderbird to handle properly. You should reduce their size by either
> deleting unneeded items or by creating sub-folders and moving rarely
> referenced items into them. If there is substantial space recoverable by
> compacting a folder, right click that folder in Thunderbird's left pane
> and choose compact.'
>
> Followed by a list of the overfull folders with sizes.
>
> So someone thinks the max safe size is 200MB. I can't imagine why that
> would be. Archiving, BTW, may not be a good strategy to reduce the
> folder size, as this dialog lists those folders also.

That warning is coming from the Thunderplunger extension. Right click
on the Thinderplunger icon, or find Thunderplunger in the addons and
select options. Unselect "Enable warn on startup if email folders
exceed NNNN megabytes in size" (where NNNN is a number) in the "Other"
section of the options window, or increase the number.
Dave Pyles

[Mike Easter]

Dave Pyles wrote:

> That warning is coming from the Thunderplunger extension.

This thread is another reminder for us to consider 'what version of
Tbird are you using? what plugins do you have?'

... where 'us' is initially/primarily the OP and secondarily those who
would try to figure out what is going on.


--
Mike Easter

[ajwh]

On 20/11/2011 01:22, gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/2011 07:55 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
>> When starting TB, I get a message that the mailbox is full and can't
>> receive any more messages. I have several EMail addresses and several
>> folders, and they appear to download the pending messages from the
>> server OK.
>>
>> How can I find which of the several EMail accounts is reporting the
>> "full" message?
>>
>> What size (or number of messages) makes an account "full" ?
>
> 1st, click on each of your email service providers, esp, in turn, to hilite.
> press<alt+f>,<f> to compact all folders. repeat for "Local Folders".
>
> 2nd, select 1 esp, send yourself an email to other esp's 1 at a time,
> waiting for email to arrive before sending to next esp.
>
> 3rd, select another esp, send yourself an email to esp you used in '2nd'.
>
>
> wait 5/10 minutes, if you get a message back that an esp is full, it is
> your esp. else it is thunderbird and you need to move messages to another
> folder.
>
> if it is thunderbird, and you are using filters to file new emails in,
> look in 'Inbox' of each esp to see what emails are not being filtered.
>
>
> hth.

There is another possibility....

When TB "MOVES" a message to a local folder using a rule, it doesn't
delete it from a POP3 mailbox.

I would have thought that "MOVE" would do a "COPY" then a "DELETE" - but
it doesn't if invoked by a rule.

I regularly have to go to my ISP and delete messages from the inbox
which a rule has moved to a local folder.

Andrew

[Greywolf]

On 20/11/2011 11:18 AM, ajwh wrote:
> There is another possibility....
>
> When TB "MOVES" a message to a local folder using a rule, it doesn't
> delete it from a POP3 mailbox.
>
> I would have thought that "MOVE" would do a "COPY" then a "DELETE" - but
> it doesn't if invoked by a rule.

Yes, one would think so, but it's not the case. See last paragraph for
the explanation.

"Delete" doesn't delete. It just updates the *.msf file so that the
"deleted" message will not be listed/displayed. "Move" is a Copy plus a
Delete, so a copy of the Moved message remains behind.

That's why Compacting folders at regular intervals is important. It
rewrites the message file without the Deleted/Moved messages, and
updates the *.msf file.

> I regularly have to go to my ISP and delete messages from the inbox
> which a rule has moved to a local folder.

??? This suggests to me that you are under the impression that TB
doesn't store any mails locally. In fact it downloads e-mail (but not
news group) messages by default. Deleting a message locally has no
effect on the mail-server, as TB will not send a "delete" message to
the mail when you Delete (or Move) a message locally. TB sends a
generic message about purging the mail-server's storage at whatever
interval you've set, including "never", in which case your ISP's purge
policy kicks in (they may not want to store your mail forever.) IMAP
works differently, but I'm fuzzy on the details as I don't use it.

The oversize mailboxes problem is a side effect of using the mbox system
of storing messages: Tbird adds incoming messages to the end of a file,
instead of storing them individually. This goes back to the days when
storage was expensive (remember when 10MB hard disk cost $4000?). But
these days it's an obsolete method. IMO, e-mail clients should store
messages with filenames derived from the Subject and date/time (so that
threads/conversations will be stored with related names). Why isn't it
done in this logical way? Major reason IMO is inertia: programmers hate
changing ancient design/coding habits. Minor reason is backward
compatibility: e-mail clients would have to have a way of reading the
existing mboxes and converting the messages stored in them to the new
convention.

HTH
Wolf K.

[Keith Nuttle]

I am using Yahoo mail provided by ATT. A one time when you set TB to
download email, they would be delete from the server. Recently Yahoo
has changed (the settings in TB have been the same for years and passed
from version to version) the way they handle email.

The way it works to day when TB downloads email, Yahoo transfers them
to trash. I assume that it is eventually deleted but I did not find the
parameter to change the period for deletion.

Point if you are using Yahoo and have not accessed it through the web
mail you may have a large number of emails sitting in trash that is
causing your problem.

[Anthony Buckland]

On 20/11/2011 4:09 AM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:

> ...

> The above message is the text that appears from TB. I am convinced it
> does not come from a server.
>
> While I can not 'cut and paste it,' it says:

> ...

You can always in effect cut and paste what you see.
Alt-PrtSc (alt-print screen) will always put on your
clipboard the contents of the current window. Paste
the clipboard contents into some image program or
other (I use Corel Photo-Paint, but that's just a
personal choice for convenience), and save or send it
or whatever. That way you preserve every detail,
such as arrangement, symbols, background, etc.

[Greywolf]

On 20/11/2011 2:04 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
[snip]

> I am using Yahoo mail provided by ATT. A one time when you set TB to
> download email, they would be delete from the server. Recently Yahoo
> has changed (the settings in TB have been the same for years and passed
> from version to version) the way they handle email.
>
> The way it works to day when TB downloads email, Yahoo transfers them
> to trash. I assume that it is eventually deleted but I did not find the
> parameter to change the period for deletion.
>
> Point if you are using Yahoo and have not accessed it through the web
> mail you may have a large number of emails sitting in trash that is
> causing your problem.

Well, if you are using Yahoo, all bets are off. Yahoo is notorious for
its, um, quirky way of doing things, to use polite language. ;-)

Wolf K.

[MikeR]

Thanks Dave. Since the warning size is user settable, I think I would consider the
option sorta bogus.

[Dave Pyles]

I like Thunderplunger, but I think that particular setting is pretty
useless, too.
Dave Pyles

[TOM BLACKWELL]

New info, below

gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:


> On 11/20/2011 12:09 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
> <>
>
>> (The ! is displayed in a triangle.)
>
> that being case, it is thunderbird giving message.
>
>
>> Yet TB appears to download and display additional messages in each Inbox.
>
> send yourself emails to each esp, 1 at a time as explained in other post.
>
> you will find which is giving problem.
>
>

Looking at the files and folders where the messages are stored, I see
one folder - - Profiles, Mail, pop-name.net

It contains a file Inbox that is > 4,000,000 kb, associated with
Inbox.msf that is > 12,000 kb in size. There's a sub-folder with it
with the name Inbox.sbd. The sub-folder contains files I backed up of
old messages I'm saving, where each has an Inbox-custom named file
associated with Inbox-custom named file.msf These are all much smaller
than 4,000,000 kb

I haven't finished with this yet, but may have discovered the problem.
It appears I will need to divide up the messages stored in Inbox further.


--


Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/21/2011 02:57 AM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
<>

> Looking at the files and folders where the messages are stored, I see
> one folder - - Profiles, Mail, pop-name.net
>
> It contains a file Inbox that is > 4,000,000 kb, associated with
> Inbox.msf that is > 12,000 kb in size. There's a sub-folder with it
> with the name Inbox.sbd. The sub-folder contains files I backed up of
> old messages I'm saving, where each has an Inbox-custom named file
> associated with Inbox-custom named file.msf These are all much smaller
> than 4,000,000 kb
>
> I haven't finished with this yet, but may have discovered the problem.
> It appears I will need to divide up the messages stored in Inbox further.

you may very well be correct about this problem.

because of what has happened in passed versions/releases of thunderbird
and "Inbox", i will make this suggestion before anything else to see if
your problem corrects.

with thunderbird open, 'drag and drop' folder below isp "Inbox" to a place
under "Local Folders".

*never again* create folders under *any* "Inbox", or under any of the
'main' folders under isp/mail server accounts.

tho not fully necessary, but can clear problems, close thunderbird.

with a file browser in 'details mode', locate your profile directory,
delete 'panacea.dat', restart thunderbird.

run email download, or send yourself emails to various accounts. post
back results.

you are on right trail, apoligies in not asking you from start about
"Inbox" and folders below them.

there will be yea/na about sub folders. my response to the 'na';

"cyoa" - cover your own ass.

do not do was has caused problems. 8-)

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/20/2011 04:18 PM, ajwh wrote:
<> On 20/11/2011 01:22, gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:

> There is another possibility....
>
> When TB "MOVES" a message to a local folder using a rule, it doesn't
> delete it from a POP3 mailbox.

---

that is a half & half.

thunderbird does not delete *anything* at isp/email server. thunderbird
can be configed to notify isp/email server to delete or move them
depending on isp/email server client. ;)

> I would have thought that "MOVE" would do a "COPY" then a "DELETE" - but
> it doesn't if invoked by a rule.

in regard to what happens with in thunderbird and email files, *all* emails
are 'copied' and *flagged* for deletion during "compact".

> I regularly have to go to my ISP and delete messages from the inbox
> which a rule has moved to a local folder.

this depends on how your isp email client is configed.

[ajwh]

On 21/11/2011 03:46, gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 04:18 PM, ajwh wrote:
> <> On 20/11/2011 01:22, gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:
>
>> There is another possibility....
>>
>> When TB "MOVES" a message to a local folder using a rule, it doesn't
>> delete it from a POP3 mailbox.
> ---
>

> that is a half& half.

>
> thunderbird does not delete *anything* at isp/email server. thunderbird
> can be configed to notify isp/email server to delete or move them
> depending on isp/email server client. ;)
>
>
>> I would have thought that "MOVE" would do a "COPY" then a "DELETE" - but
>> it doesn't if invoked by a rule.
>
> in regard to what happens with in thunderbird and email files, *all* emails
> are 'copied' and *flagged* for deletion during "compact".
>
>
>> I regularly have to go to my ISP and delete messages from the inbox
>> which a rule has moved to a local folder.
>
> this depends on how your isp email client is configed.
>
>

My TB setting for this account is "Leave messages on server until I
delete them", and when I DELETE then from the inbox they go from the
POP3 server.
If I COPY them to a local folder, they remain on the server.
If I MOVE them to a local folder manually, they are deleted from the server.
If I MOVE them them to a local folder using a rule, they remain on the
server.

Andrew

[Arivald]

W dniu 2011-11-21 03:57, TOM BLACKWELL pisze:

> New info, below
>
> gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:
>
>
>> On 11/20/2011 12:09 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
>> <>
>>
>>> (The ! is displayed in a triangle.)
>>
>> that being case, it is thunderbird giving message.
>>
>>
>>> Yet TB appears to download and display additional messages in each
>>> Inbox.
>>
>> send yourself emails to each esp, 1 at a time as explained in other post.
>>
>> you will find which is giving problem.
>>
>>
>
>
> Looking at the files and folders where the messages are stored, I see
> one folder - - Profiles, Mail, pop-name.net
>
> It contains a file Inbox that is > 4,000,000 kb, associated with

4GB is limit for inbox file size, it is reason of this error.
It is similar 2/4GB limit in some filesystems, simply 32-bit pointer can
address max 4GB (unsigned int) or 2GB (signed int).


So possible are 2 cases:

1) you have a lot of mails (with big attachments) and it all really take
4 GB

2) You have small amount of mails, but You also have compacting disabled.


In case 2), just turn on compacting (eventually adjust size that trigger
auto-compactiing, I use 50 MB), or at least invoke compacting from menu
(focus Inbox, menu File/Compact...). Be aware that compaction so large
file may take some time.

Compacting remove "holes", created by deleting messages. Standard delete
action only marks message as deleted, but not reclaim space. Only
compaction can do it.


In case 1) You must either remove old messages, or just move old
messages somewhere else.
I personally have folder in Inbox (named "Attic"), and there i have one
folder for each year. At end of year I move all messages from this year
to folder.
After You done with deleting or moving, run compacting to make sure
Inbox file has been compacted.

--
Arivald

[Ron Hunter]

You have nicely described how IMAP servers work, but not how POP3
servers work.

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/21/2011 03:42 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
<>

> You have nicely described how IMAP servers work, but not how POP3
> servers work.

thank you. you worded that nicely. i was undecided how to reply.

[ajwh]

I do know the difference - I've been using computers since 1967 (which
certainly puts me in the BOF category).
This behaviour is on a POP3 system.
That's why I find it odd that MOVE using a rule doesn't delete from the
server - there's no difference between MOVE and COPY to a local folder.

[Ron Hunter]

I have used POP3 servers for many years, on at least 3 service
providers, and I have never seen it delete an email from the server
unless I had the server set to delete messages when transmitted to me.
I have always set up my laptop to leave mail on the server, and the
desktop to delete it after downloading, and wouldn't recommend anyone
just leave email on a POP3 server as most of them fill up the allocated
space rather quickly if you have friends who like to send videos, rather
than just links to them.
I currently have IMAP set up on my smartphone (iPhone), and laptop and
desktop. I REALLY don't like it, but it lets me use all three at once,
if I want to. Deleting an email on any system moves it to the 'deleted
messages' folder. Frankly, this makes no sense to me. But this is
exactly what you are describing, with variation. I have never seen this
with a POP server. Perhaps you can check with your service provider for
clarification.

[ajwh]

Ok - let me clarify.
On my laptop, I download all messages from the POP3 server. I don't run
message filters. I may delete an unwanted message, and it also then goes
from the POP3 server.

On my PC, I download all messages from the server. I then run a series
of filters against them, as many (eg newsletters) can be moved to local
folders for later reading. I also forward some to my wife's e-mail.
I then read the new mail in the inbox. I may delete some - and they go
from the server as well. Some I move manually to local folders, and they
go from the server. However the ones which have been moved by message
filters aren't removed from the server - I have to use web access to go
the server directly to delete them.

Does that explain the issue?

[Ron Hunter]

It is clear to me what you are seeing, but it is NOT the way POP3
servers normally work. I have never seen any evidence that sending a
delete from TB does anything to a POP server, but then your server may
have an advanced version of POP. If you don't like going to webmail to
delete messages, you can use something like Poptray to do this job right
from your taskbar.

[Greywolf]

On 22/11/2011 2:40 PM, ajwh wrote:
[...]

> Ok - let me clarify.
> On my laptop, I download all messages from the POP3 server. I don't run
> message filters. I may delete an unwanted message, and it also then goes
> from the POP3 server.
>
> On my PC, I download all messages from the server. I then run a series
> of filters against them, as many (eg newsletters) can be moved to local
> folders for later reading. I also forward some to my wife's e-mail.
> I then read the new mail in the inbox. I may delete some - and they go
> from the server as well. Some I move manually to local folders, and they
> go from the server. However the ones which have been moved by message
> filters aren't removed from the server - I have to use web access to go
> the server directly to delete them.
>
> Does that explain the issue?

No, because you haven't said how you know they're gone from the server.

Wolf K.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/20/2011 12:38 PM, Greywolf wrote:

> The oversize mailboxes problem is a side effect
> of using the mbox system of storing messages:
> Tbird adds incoming messages to the end of a file,
> instead of storing them individually.
> This goes back to the days when storage was expensive
> (remember when 10MB hard disk cost $4000?).
> But these days it's an obsolete method.

The last time I used Opera, it stored every message
in a separate file, as you suggest -- I didn't, however,
particularly like having tens of thousands of files
appearing in every directory, nor having to spend eons of time
processing every such individual file for every backup
(which sometimes even overflows "archivers" ability
to pack more than 32K or so files in one archive),
which are other factors to think of before recommending
any other approach that sounds nice but merely has its own
very bad effects to replace those you think you can get rid of.

This same principle takes place in politics, where, every few years,
one party drives the dominant party out of power for doing everything wrong,
then presides over another period leading to catastrophe,
after which they get again thrown out themselves.

Other clients (e.g. Microsoft's) use proprietary databases,
some of which themselves cause complete loss of all messages
when they hit their own inherent size limit or capacity.

The safest system of all, IMO, is an MBOX consisting of
concatenated, original format rfc-822 messages,
which is so simple to handle, and manageable if an
"automatically compact when [suitable condition]" policy is set up,
or if simple "compact all" is periodically performed,
like brushing one's teeth or having a dental cleaning now and then,
without which periodic attention some problem is sure to develop over time.

> IMO, e-mail clients should store messages with filenames
> derived from the Subject and date/time
> (so that threads/conversations will be stored with related names).
> Why isn't it done in this logical way?

Perhaps because "Question" (or an empty subject) is not an indication
that all such messages having the same such meaningless subject are related.

Perhaps because subjects can be changed during threads.

Perhaps because time alone is no true indicator of proper threading.

Perhaps because "References:" headers actually define threading
in a superior and precise manner.

As to a part of this thread which refers to mail left on servers
(which I suggested as one initial possibility, before the complete
error message clarified that it wasn't relevant), the default for POP
is to tell POP servers to delete all mail just downloaded.

After initial fetching, moving messages around locally never influences
a POP server, but a combination of "leave on server" with "delete
from server when emptied from Trash" (or similar wording)
can cause delayed "delete" commands to finally be issued to POP servers
when local messages are deleted.

Only one client that I've ever used (Eudora) always knows and displays,
in a mailbox column, which messages are still on any POP server,
and permits individual decisions to be made on some or all messages
at any time, to instruct the client to either fetch, delete from server,
or fetch then delete any combination of such messages at any time.

TB has the internal info (popstate.dat) to make it possible
to do the same, but has never thought to do anything so useful with it.

--

[TOM BLACKWELL]

I believe it has been resolved.

I moved more and more of the messages from the Inbox folder to a folder
with a different name. The size of the Inbox folder remained large,
when examined with Windows Explorer. Then I moved all the messages to a
folder with a different name, and found the Inbox folder was still
large. Then I deleted the Inbox folders entirely. This started
everything over and TB created a new Inbox folder and again allowed
downloading of new messages. I no longer see the error message when
starting TB. (I do wish the error message had told me which of the mail
accounts it was reporting.)

Thanks for all the responses.

Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/24/2011 01:53 AM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
> I believe it has been resolved.
>
> I moved more and more of the messages from the Inbox folder to a folder
> with a different name. The size of the Inbox folder remained large,
> when examined with Windows Explorer. Then I moved all the messages to a
> folder with a different name, and found the Inbox folder was still
> large.

did you compact folder? doing so should have dropped size.

> Then I deleted the Inbox folders entirely. This started everything over and
> TB created a new Inbox folder and again allowed downloading of new messages.

a 'last resort', but it does work.

> I no longer see the error message when starting TB. (I do wish the error
> message had told me which of the mail accounts it was reporting.)

---

this would be nice. i guess devs did not feel it would ever be necessary. ;)

i am using v/r 2.0.0.24 (20111108), only time i have seen a report of
server name is when i do a 'get all new messages' with 'get mail' button
or use <ctrl+shift+t>. it shows 'timed out', 'eof', 'busy', and such.


as a suggestion to prevent problems again, i would suggest creating
folders under "Local Folders" and leave account folders minimal as
they are from default.

i create filters for all my accounts, for various email types and
send them to various folders under "Local Folders". ie, tech support,
mail list, family, friends, chat groups, utility notices, bank, returned
email.

under "Local Folders" i have a folder for each account to catch emails
that are new and to my isp email 'name@address'.

for last filter in each account, i use "(*) Match all messages" to catch
emails that do not have my correct name, and they are sent to a folder
"all-other".

this tends to catch junk/spam emails and having used this for some time,
junk/spam filters usually pick up the emails and moves them to 'Junk'
folder.
these folders
i do my own archiving. i have a folder "archive" with sub folders for
past 3 years, then the months under each of them. around 10th of each
month, i go thru high volume folders and move previous month's emails
to their associated month folder. for rest of folders, i archive them
every 4 to 6 months and yearly, depending on how they fill, and are
archived to a same name folder under each year.

this has taken some thought for layout and from time to time, i will
modify filters and reposition folders to better define emails. tho it
has been over 2 years that i have made any major changing.

by setting up this way, i have yet had any email or folder problems.


hth.

> Thanks for all the responses.

welcome, very much.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/20/2011 9:36 PM, glad2be... wrote:

> *never again* create folders under *any* "Inbox", or under
> any of the 'main' folders under isp/mail server accounts.

> there will be yea/na about sub folders.

Subfolders really are sub-folders,
and any such mail is really in separate files,
which make no contribution to the maximum size of a single file.

However, a file and folder "tree" in which one name represents
both a mailbox file and a subfolder at the same time
is not compatible across all clients,
should thought of potential future migration (and import)
suggest following a more universal and compatible
file and folder organization.

--

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/24/2011 05:10 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 9:36 PM, glad2be... wrote:
>
>> *never again* create folders under *any* "Inbox", or under
>> any of the 'main' folders under isp/mail server accounts.
>
>> there will be yea/na about sub folders.
>
> Subfolders really are sub-folders, and any such mail is really in separate
> files, which make no contribution to the maximum size of a single file.

true, sub folders are sub folders and do not contribute to folder file size.
*but*, they do contribute to what is held with in folder.msf file, which
can/may contribute to possibility of problems.

_no_, i can not explain the potential problems, only that i do know that
when one does not build sub folders under "Inbox" folders, there is less
problem.

there is a mozilla page that recommends not building sub folders under
"Inbox" folder, and has been mentioned in past threads.

> However, a file and folder "tree" in which one name represents both a
> mailbox file and a subfolder at the same time is not compatible across
> all clients,

this thread is not related to other clients, nor migration.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/23/2011 11:57 PM:

> this thread is not related to other clients, nor migration.

Well, it ought to be, because any really good client
could cause a tidal wave of migration, so plan ahead :)

Subfolders are also not strictly related.

"Never think outside the current box,
because you might then want to head for the exit" :)

--

[Peter]

I do the same: filter some incoming messages and move others to
subfolders that are not subbed to the Inbox. When I occasionally check
my messages via Webmail, that Inbox is empty.

[Greywolf]

On 23/11/2011 8:53 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
> I believe it has been resolved.
>
> I moved more and more of the messages from the Inbox folder to a folder
> with a different name. The size of the Inbox folder remained large,
> when examined with Windows Explorer. Then I moved all the messages to a
> folder with a different name, and found the Inbox folder was still
> large. Then I deleted the Inbox folders entirely. This started
> everything over and TB created a new Inbox folder and again allowed
> downloading of new messages. I no longer see the error message when
> starting TB. (I do wish the error message had told me which of the mail
> accounts it was reporting.)
>
> Thanks for all the responses.

Use Compact Folders instead. You can set TB to do this for you whenever
doing so will open some predetermined amount of disk space. Look in the
Tools > Options sub menus until you find it. (I'm not telling you where
it is, because I think you should become familiar with what's in there.
That's the teacher in me talking, sorry about that. ;-))

Wolf K.

[Greywolf]

Not here (which has saved my butt a couple of times, since I have the
same accounts on two machines: whatever I've annihilated on one machine
is still accessible by the other.)

I have Leave Messages on Server set. If you haven't, then TB will send a
Delete message to the server.

Wolf K.

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/24/2011 09:32 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 11:57 PM:
>
>> this thread is not related to other clients, nor migration.
>
> Well, it ought to be, because any really good client
> could cause a tidal wave of migration, so plan ahead :)

i am planning ahead. that is why i use and support mozilla.

> Subfolders are also not strictly related.

strange comment to make. how about elaborating in moz.gen.

> "Never think outside the current box,
> because you might then want to head for the exit" :)

makes very little sense. so do not even bother to elaborate.


fup -> moz.gen

[TOM BLACKWELL]

gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:

> On 11/24/2011 01:53 AM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
>> I believe it has been resolved.
>>
>> I moved more and more of the messages from the Inbox folder to a folder
>> with a different name. The size of the Inbox folder remained large,
>> when examined with Windows Explorer. Then I moved all the messages to a
>> folder with a different name, and found the Inbox folder was still
>> large.
>
> did you compact folder? doing so should have dropped size.

Yes. It did not seem to make any difference.

Everything is working for now - - but I may reorganize this as a
sub-folder if there is some advantage.

Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/24/2011 09:17 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:

> gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:
<>
>> did you compact folder? doing so should have dropped size.
>
> Yes. It did not seem to make any difference.

---

this i can believe and do not doubt. from what i have seen on clients
and friends ms windows and some linux systems, building sub folders
under "Inbox" is nothing but asking for problems. as mentioned in last
post, even mozilla says not to. (snipped from below)

> Everything is working for now

---

'magic words' "for now".

> but I may reorganize this as a sub-folder if there is some advantage.

---

if you consider not having problems an advantage. ;)

an additional suggestion, build folders under "Local Folders". by doing,
you are not bound to any isp/email server should you change later.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/24/2011 6:15 PM:

> building sub folders under "Inbox" is nothing but asking for problems,

> as mentioned in last post, even mozilla says not to.

A specific reference to where "Mozilla says" would be appreciated.

Subfolders go under separate ".sbd" directories;
how would that affect any other files?

--

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/25/2011 10:23 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 6:15 PM:
>
>> building sub folders under "Inbox" is nothing but asking for problems,
>> as mentioned in last post, even mozilla says not to.
>
> A specific reference to where "Mozilla says" would be appreciated.

i will let chris ilias answer that one for you. there is a lot of removing
of the 'kb-mozillazine' pages with the creating of 'support.mozilla' pages.
a lot of the old pages are getting dropped because the new pages are supposed
to cover what was in old pages. problem is that page author's are leaving out]
a lot of the pertinent information.

it may show up with a google advanced search

> Subfolders go under separate ".sbd" directories;

this is true.

> how would that affect any other files?

it affects the .msf file and in so doing, it may be what is causes the
corruption problems. especially when you have a lot of files in "Inbox".

you do not have to take my word for it, but if you continue building under
"Inbox" and have more problems, all i will say is that i advised you not
to do so.

if you want to play 'russian roulette' with 3 chambers loaded, go ahead.
i will not play the game with 1 chamber loaded. ;)

[John H Meyers]

On 11/25/2011 8:47 PM:

> i will let chris ilias answer that one for you. there is a lot of removing
> of the 'kb-mozillazine' pages with the creating of 'support.mozilla' pages.
> a lot of the old pages are getting dropped because the new pages are supposed

> to cover what was in old pages. problem is that page authors are leaving out

> a lot of the pertinent information.

For Chris & Company,
I hope that they are setting "301" (permanent) re-directs
from any dropped old pages to new pages;
otherwise the established search engine results
for high-ranking old pages will be lost:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=93633

http://www.webconfs.com/how-to-redirect-a-webpage.php

I have always been impressed with the value and thoroughness
of Mozillazine pages, and it would be a shame
if their complete content were not preserved.

--

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/26/2011 04:27 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
<>

> For Chris & Company,
> I hope that they are setting "301" (permanent) re-directs
> from any dropped old pages to new pages;
> otherwise the established search engine results
> for high-ranking old pages will be lost:

i agree. unfortunately, i have many old bookmarks that are no longer
active.

> I have always been impressed with the value and thoroughness of Mozillazine
> pages, and it would be a shame if their complete content were not preserved.

i agree with this also. but those in power would rather build the fancy new
pages that are growing in 'support.mozilla'.

it would not be so bad if there was indexing like what is in 'kb.mozillazine'.
but i fear even those pages are soon to go.

seems that page authors are getting like firefox and thunderbird devs,

if it is broken, has a bug, or needs update patches, do not fix it.
write something new and add more bells and whistles.


i guess main of problem is they need more hard disk space to hold and
keep up with all the beta and new releases. ;)

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-11-25 9:47 PM, gla...@linuxuser.iam wrote:
> On 11/25/2011 10:23 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
>> On 11/24/2011 6:15 PM:
>>
>>> building sub folders under "Inbox" is nothing but asking for problems,
>>> as mentioned in last post, even mozilla says not to.
>>
>> A specific reference to where "Mozilla says" would be appreciated.
>
> i will let chris ilias answer that one for you.

Mozilla doesn't say that. ;)

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-11-25 11:27 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
> For Chris& Company,

> I hope that they are setting "301" (permanent) re-directs
> from any dropped old pages to new pages;
> otherwise the established search engine results
> for high-ranking old pages will be lost:
>
> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=93633
>
> http://www.webconfs.com/how-to-redirect-a-webpage.php
>
> I have always been impressed with the value and thoroughness
> of Mozillazine pages, and it would be a shame
> if their complete content were not preserved.

MozillaZine is separate from Mozilla.
See <http://www.mozillazine.org/about/>
If you have any issues with MZ, you can report/discuss it at
<http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=11>.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/26/2011 1:07 AM, Chris Ilias [newsgroup moderator] wrote:

> On 11-11-25 9:47 PM, glad2be... wrote:
>> On 11/25/2011 10:23 PM, John H Meyers wrote:
>>> On 11/24/2011 6:15 PM:
>>>

>>>glad2be> building sub folders under "Inbox" is nothing but asking for problems,
>>>glad2be> as mentioned in last post, even mozilla says not to.
>>>
>>jhm> A specific reference to where "Mozilla says" would be appreciated.
>>
>glad2be> i will let chris ilias answer that one for you.

Chris> Mozilla doesn't say that. ;)

Together with "MozillaZine is separate from Mozilla" (also quoting Chris),
it would appear that the person currently posting as "glad2be..."
(and having a signature also used in other "posting personas")
is offering a series of misleading statements,
which should henceforth be filtered through a thorough fact check.

--

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/26/2011 10:07 AM, John H Meyers wrote:
<>

> Together with "MozillaZine is separate from Mozilla" (also quoting Chris),
> it would appear that the person currently posting as "glad2be..."
> (and having a signature also used in other "posting personas")
> is offering a series of misleading statements,
> which should henceforth be filtered through a thorough fact check.

---

ok, so mozilla and mozillazine are two entities, this does not change fact
that building sub folders is correct, proper, and with out possibility of
any problems.


i have not found mozillazine page i am looking for yet, but there are
a few things you can look at if you wish.

they do not directly support what i am saying, but they do show that there
can be problems when you build sub directories under inbox.

+++
for problems related to "Inbox" and subfolders, see these links;

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=%22inbox%2Bsubfolder%22+site%3Amozilla.org+-printing

26 hits, bug related.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22inbox%2Bsubfolder%22+site%3Amozillazine.org

63 hits, forums post related.

among these, see;

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=454043
+++

it is your system. you will do with it as you wish.

i will say this, if/when you have problems, you are the one who 'loaded
3 chambers'.


much luck to you. ;)

[ajwh]

By looking at the server directly using web access...
Messages moved by filters are still there....

A

[TOM BLACKWELL]

OK - So if I want to create a folder named "Archive" and move the
subfolders that now reside in the Inbox folder to this new Archive
folder, what is the best way to proceed? (I don't see functions in TB
for moving these folders around.)


--


Regards, TOM BLACKWELL

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

On 11/27/2011 08:42 PM, TOM BLACKWELL wrote:
<>

> OK - So if I want to create a folder named "Archive" and move the
> subfolders that now reside in the Inbox folder to this new Archive
> folder, what is the best way to proceed? (I don't see functions in TB
> for moving these folders around.)

hilite folder to be moved, 'drag and drop' to new position.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/26/2011 1:57 PM

> [various searches and URLs]

> they do not directly support what i am saying

Amen :)

Nothing to do with "mailbox full";
all related to completely different things (and causes).

--

[John H Meyers]

On 11/21/2011 3:51 AM, ajwh (Andrew) wrote:

> My TB setting for this account is "Leave messages on server until I delete them",
> and when I DELETE then from the inbox they go from the POP3 server.

That's what "until I delete them" means,
and normally represents an interpretation
that you do not want to keep messages on a POP server
which you have deleted from your own computer,
which therefore causes the following to be suspicious:

> [a] If I COPY them to a local folder, they remain on the server.
> [b] If I MOVE them to a local folder manually, they are deleted from the server.
> [c] If I MOVE them them to a local folder using a rule, they remain on the server.

Item [b] above is rather unexpected, and I would call it a bug.

For POP accounts, _all folders are local_ (to the given computer);
you may mean to some folder under the "Local Folders" pseudo-account,
but such mailboxes are no different in character than any other mailbox,
and merely moving messages between places where you are still KEEPING them
should NOT cause deletion from a POP server.

> That's why I find it odd that MOVE using a rule doesn't delete from the server -
> there's no difference between MOVE and COPY to a local folder.

Only a complete deletion from YOUR COMPUTER should affect a POP server
(and then only when the "until I delete them" option is chosen).

The notion that "moving to a local folder" might delete messages
from a server could make sense to me only for an IMAP account.

If this is really a POP account then I'd consider item [b] to be a bug.

Who else has an opinion on this specific point?

Perhaps the effect on a POP server of item [b]
should be carefully checked to see whether it's true
and then file a bug report if so :)

If a 4GB "full" mailbox (apparently only for older TB versions)
indirectly causes item [b] to occur, then that could itself
be a sort of bug, but it would no longer be relevant
to versions of TB which have removed the 4GB limit.

--

[ajwh]

I fully understand how POP3 mailboxes work. Lets work through this
slowly - I'm obviously not communicating well.

If I have a message on the server, copied to the "Inbox" folder on my
PC, I have several options.

(1) I can read it, and then delete it from the Inbox on my PC, and with
my account settings of "Leave messages on server until I delete them",it
is deleted from the POP3 server.

OR
(2)I can "COPY" it to a local TB folder, which, assuming that the
terminology is standard, puts a copy of the message in the appropriate
local folder, leaving the original message in the Inbox and therefore on
the server (because it hasn't been deleted).

OR
(3) I can "MOVE" it by selecting it and right-clicking and select the
"move to..." option, and selecting a local folder. This does what I
would expect it to do by analogy with every other operating system I've
used since DOS on a PDP-11 in 1975. It writes a copy of the message to
the designated local folder, then deletes it from the account Inbox, and
it is deleted from the server.

OR
(4) I can have a message filter which identifies the message and is
instructed to MOVE the message to the destination folder. I would expect
this to behave as (3), and it does write a copy to the local folder,
then delete it from the local Inbox folder, but it ISN'T deleted from
the server. I know this because I can access the POP3 server via Web
access or via TB from my laptop, and the message is still there, but it
isn't in scenarios (1) or (3)

If (3) is not correct, then what is the difference between MOVE and COPY?
If it is, then behaviour (4) is faulty, and, coming back to the original
question, may fill up the POP3 server mailbox with messages which should
have been deleted.

[Greywolf]

Curious. All messages stay on my ISP's server for 30 days, since that
what I set it for. Doesn't matter whether I Delete etc a message
locally, or even whether a spam that got through to me was marked as
Junk here.

I have Leave messages on server set for "At least 30 days", and have
"Until I delete them" unchecked. If yours is unchecked, try checking it,
restarting TB, unchecking it, and restarting TB again., Sometimes this
makes a setting stick as intended.

Good luck,
Wolf K.

[Ron Hunter]

Moving, traditionally, makes a copy of the file (message), and then
deletes the original. It seems this isn't enough to cause the program
to send a delete this message indication to the server. Since you
didn't really delete the message, this could be considered then intended
action, however, I rather agree with you that it should delete it from
the server, or ask if you intend that.
Of course, if you just elected to delete all messages from the server
when you download them, this problem would never come up, which explains
why many of us have never considered this way of doing things.

[gla...@linuxuser.iam]

---

and in total, i would tend to consider them enough reason not
to build folders under Inbox.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/29/2011 9:26 AM, ajwh wrote:

>>> [a] If I COPY them to a local folder, they remain on the server.
>>> [b] If I MOVE them to a local folder manually, they are deleted from the server.
>>> [c] If I MOVE them them to a local folder using a rule, they remain on the server.

JHM:

>> Item [b] above is rather unexpected, and I would call it a bug.

> If I have a message on the server, copied to the "Inbox" folder on my PC, I have several options.

> (3) I can "MOVE" it by selecting it and right-clicking and select the "move to..." option,
> and selecting a local folder. This does what I would expect it to do by analogy with
> every other operating system I've used since DOS on a PDP-11 in 1975.
> It writes a copy of the message to the designated local folder,
> then deletes it from the account Inbox, and it is deleted from the server.

"Move to" is no different from simply dragging a message to another mailbox
within the same system of client mailboxes -- this can be either to another
mailbox associated with the same email account, or another email account,
or a "Local Folder" account -- any such transfer KEEPS the message,
and does not "delete" it from Thunderbird, even though all such transfers
certainly remove the message from its original [POP] mailbox,
while appending that same message to some other mailbox.

This has nothing to do with any operating system -- it is simply
a transfer of a message from your [POP] Inbox to another mailbox,
and I have yet to encounter any email client which considers this
to be "deleting" the message -- it makes no difference whether
such a transfer is automatic (by "rule" or "filter") or manual
(by dragging or "move to") -- the results of [b] or [c]
must be the same, and if you can cite any example
of any mail client where simply transferring mail
between POP mailboxes which appear at the same time,
in the same client, is considered a "deletion,"
please post that citation.

The only case I can think of for arguing to the contrary
is when one of the mailboxes involved in a "move"
is on an IMAP server, while the other is on the client system.

> If (3) is not correct, then what is the difference between MOVE and COPY?

For purposes of defining an action to delete from a POP server
when a message is deleted from a client, the meaning of "delete"
is normally only when a message no longer appears anywhere
in the client-side set of mailboxes (and in Eudora, it's when further
"deleted from the Trash mailbox," because even when a message
is simply transferred to a Trash mailbox, it remains recoverable
on the client side (perhaps it was dropped into Trash only by accident),
until the further irrevocable action of emptying the Trash finally occurs,
much the same as it so happens even some operating systems work.

If you are saying that [b] and [c] should behave identically,
then I agree with you, but I say that as long as the message
remains within the current set of client-side mailboxes
defined by the current settings,
it has not been "deleted" from the client.

It seems that a provision is made, however, for you to tell TB
that you want to treat "move" the same as "delete,"
which would modify the meaning of "until I delete them"
to "until I move or delete them":

<http://superuser.com/questions/48950/thunderbird-does-not-delete-messages-from-the-pop-server>

<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Mail_and_news_settings>

Are you happy now?

Well, there are still dissatisfied customers:
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47297>

--

[John H Meyers]

To specifically identify the TB internal setting that I mentioned,
look for specific setting "mail.pop3.deleteFromServerOnMove" in
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Mail_and_news_settings>

Copying verbatim here:

Setting name:
mail.pop3.deleteFromServerOnMove

True:
Delete the copy of the message on the POP3 server if you move or delete the message.

False(default):
Only delete the copy of the message on the POP3 server if you delete the message.


A bug report (started even before TB2) is also referred to,
whose comments seem, upon my first reading,
to fall into two broad categories:

o Wanting the "or on move from Inbox" alternative, as provided above.

o Wanting something like a clearly visible individual message status (is it still
on the server or not) and an individual message action (delete any message
at will from the POP server), as is fully provided by Eudora
(and possibly by other mentioned clients).

Eudora has a "server status" column where you can see that status
for every message, and you can also mark, per message, to
fetch, delete, or "fetch then delete" the message from the POP server
upon the next "check for new mail."

Eudora also offers a special "new mail" optional action
to "fetch all message headers from server" at any time,
which is like what happens in TB's newsgroups, and suppresses filtering --
its purpose is as a prelude to reviewing the entire set of
"left on server" messages, choosing which to download and which
to delete, obviating such extras as a "mailwasher" add-on
or having to go to some "webmail" to review and selectively delete messages
(hey, this can even relate to the original "mailbox full" subject,
except on the server side, even for POP accounts!)

In TB's history,
evidently the "on delete or move from Inbox" wish was fulfilled,
while the wish for a built-in equivalent to a more detailed
"mailwasher" or "webmail" reviewer (for POP accounts)
fell by the wayside.

Read all the comments for a historical perspective:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47297

The earlier report of a difference in behavior in current TB,
depending on whether a "move from inbox" occurs because of
manual action vs. filtering rules, would be yet another bug,
of the sort that can occur when a product does not have
such a clear and orderly design that it turns into
"spaghetti code" or other unmanageable heap,
as I presume is a familiar experience, to all who have
extensive experience in system design and programming,
where a project, a product, or even a government or civilization,
built by an ever changing committee which has
no long-term, top-down, insightful and far-seeing leadership,
often deteriorates into this sort of thing, over time.

--

[John H Meyers]

On 11/29/2011 6:55 PM, John H Meyers wrote:

> Read all the comments for a historical perspective:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47297

And some more recent history, about another branch
to the development and enhancement of TB by Qualcomm,
a company whose Eudora division people were instrumental
in defining quite a number of key RFCs for email,
as well as having created a once most popular email client:

<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360963>

In 2006 or 2007, six top Eudora developers,
including above bug assignee Jeff Beckley and Matt Dudziak,
started working with TB developers, and at least two of those six
have been seen mentioned in what used to be a "credits" section
in TB's own "About" area (what happened to that?)

The result was apparently intended to be two-fold:

o To leave Eudora users with a forward path via TB.

o To advance TB by incorporating best features of Eudora.

So, how far did that ever get?

"Lost at sea," it looks like to me :-(

--

[ajwh]

On 30/11/2011 00:55, John H Meyers wrote:
> To specifically identify the TB internal setting that I mentioned,
> look for specific setting "mail.pop3.deleteFromServerOnMove" in
> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Mail_and_news_settings>
>
> Copying verbatim here:
>
> Setting name:
> mail.pop3.deleteFromServerOnMove
>
> True:
> Delete the copy of the message on the POP3 server if you move or delete the message.
>
> False(default):
> Only delete the copy of the message on the POP3 server if you delete the message.
>
>
> A bug report (started even before TB2) is also referred to,
> whose comments seem, upon my first reading,
> to fall into two broad categories:
>
> o Wanting the "or on move from Inbox" alternative, as provided above.
>

> In TB's history,
> evidently the "on delete or move from Inbox" wish was fulfilled,
> while the wish for a built-in equivalent to a more detailed
> "mailwasher" or "webmail" reviewer (for POP accounts)
> fell by the wayside.
>
> Read all the comments for a historical perspective:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47297
>
> The earlier report of a difference in behavior in current TB,
> depending on whether a "move from inbox" occurs because of
> manual action vs. filtering rules, would be yet another bug,
> of the sort that can occur when a product does not have
> such a clear and orderly design that it turns into
> "spaghetti code" or other unmanageable heap,
> as I presume is a familiar experience, to all who have
> extensive experience in system design and programming,
> where a project, a product, or even a government or civilization,
> built by an ever changing committee which has
> no long-term, top-down, insightful and far-seeing leadership,
> often deteriorates into this sort of thing, over time.
>

I already have this option set to "true" - I do do my research.

I am NOT talking about moving a message to a local folder related to the
POP£ account.

My TB reads three e-mail accounts (POP3 and IMAP), each of which has a
set of "inbox, "draft","junk" etc.

I then have under LOCAL FOLDERS containing about 300 folders and
sub-folders, into which I move incoming messages I wish to keep. For
instance, I have a set of folders relating to a committee I organise,
and this is divided into years.
These are NOT server-related folders.

I've added a comment to the Bugzilla thread!

[John H Meyers]

On 11/29/2011 7:30 PM, ajwh wrote:

> I already have this option set to "true" - I do do my research.

Oh, you just forgot to mention it, then,
thus providing no expressed basis for your earlier statements,
and wasting the time of anyone working to help you.

> I am NOT talking about moving a message to a local folder related to the POP account.

Without the aforesaid option, it would make no difference whether you consider
any mailbox "related" or not -- the only issue in the normal, default case
being whether a message has been DELETED from being stored in this instance of TB
or not, on this computer (some might argue to drop even those last words,
it being ultimately difficult to resolve any other special cases),
and certainly not as to where any message has been moved around to,
even if for nothing more than making sure that Inbox does not grow gigantic,
disallowing even any archiving,
out of fear that messages would otherwise be deleted from server.

The already-provided option to change "until I delete"
to "until I move or delete" takes care of everything else,
again not requiring any such notion of "related."

There is no AI which could possibly know, anyway,
whether the user of this instance of TB is using a mailbox in a "related"
or "unrelated" manner -- only that a message has been _deleted_ from TB or not
or whether it has been _moved_ from an Inbox or not (what about removed
from an Inbox in LF, for an account using LF instead of separate mailboxes?);
in particular, any account can be configured to use _some_ mailboxes
under the LF account, including via "Copies & Folders" & Junk settings,
so only a deep drilling into your brain could resolve that ultimate question.

The very fact that you move a message from one Inbox to ANY other mailbox
could also be regarded as evidence that you DO "relate" them, by that very act!

> I've added a comment to the Bugzilla thread!

And not even bothered to say which bug, or post a link,
consistent with the level of your earlier regard for other people's time.

Two legitimate further directions can be pursued,
one being that _how_ moving is induced (by filtering rule or manually)
should make no difference, yet you claim that it does,
and the other being the further development of "server status" display
by individual message, and actions to perform server-side actions
on individually selected messages (or groups of messages)
at the expressed will of the user, there being no way
to otherwise legitimize any irrational thinking that you have put forth.

--

[John H Meyers]

One more bit of nonsense:

> These are NOT server-related folders.

No folders in TB, outside of those representing IMAP,
are "server-related," not even any Inbox! -- that's what POP is about,
the normal action of every normal POP client
being to delete from server upon download,
instantly breaking any relationship
between locally stored messages and where they were once parked,
awaiting a pickup and transport to their actual final destination.

The purpose of "leave on server" is also basically
to let other clients and computers download the same mail,
and the purpose of "delete from server when deleted locally"
is to save those other clients and computers
the bother of downloading unwanted mail,
only to have to be deleted again on the other client or computer.

As all those "strict constructionists" or "original intent" people
(and even "religious purists")
will be glad to tell you, the complete loss of remembering
the original intent and purpose of why things were created
is to open a "slippery slope" into hell,
which is where this has clearly been heading all along ;-)

--

[John H Meyers]

On 11/30/2011 12:53 AM, John H Meyers wrote:

> The purpose of "leave on server" is also basically
> to let other clients and computers download the same mail,
> and the purpose of "delete from server when deleted locally"
> is to save those other clients and computers
> the bother of downloading unwanted mail,
> only to have to be deleted again on the other client or computer.

In other words, the entire original intent
of both "leave on server" and "until I delete them"
was to help users maintain "home and office" computers
(or two POP users in the same office needing to work on the same mail)
in approximately the same state, or something analogous to that.

Now imagine that we've set an option
so that merely "filing" an incoming POP message,
on machine #1, in a folder relevant to its subject,
will cause the ultimate deletion of it anyway on the POP server,
because where we "file it" is not in the original "Inbox"

Now we go to our second, separate client machine
and download all new mail.

Do we get a copy of that same mail on machine #2?

No, because merely "filing it" on machine #1
will have made it unavailable to download to machine #2.

That's why the option in question,
rephrase-able in "POP speak" as "until I delete or even file them,"
is not the default, to say the least :)

That option is pretty much a confusion of IMAP with POP,
is how I see it.

Some server-side systems do exist in which
the same original IMAP "Inbox" on an incoming server
can also be accessed via POP protocol,
causing the moving of the message by an IMAP client
to make it unavailable to a POP client,
which seems to be how some deep thinkers may have concluded
to talk TB devs into providing an option
that makes some POP client have the same effect as another IMAP client,
however totally different these usually are, with IMAP clients
normally performing "move" _only_ at the server end of things,
while POP clients normally perform "move" _only_ on the client side,
far away from (and having no effect upon) any POP server.

Why didn't the mere existence of the unusual option,
which he not only knew of but had already set,
not satisfy the OP completely?

If it was because a case where a _manual_ "move" [case b]
between local mailboxes produced different results than
a "filtering move" between local mailboxes [case c],
then fine, this should have been the focus of the complaint,
but nowhere can I see where comparing to "copying" [case a],
where a message is simply filed in two places instead of one,
has any bearing on the matter, other than obviously not having
"moved" the original out of the "Inbox," which matters only
when the unusual option has been set.

In actual implementation of common options to "delete mail
left on a POP server if it's already been locally deleted,"
the information signifying "it was deleted"
is probably most often left in a simple database
equivalent to "popstate.dat" in TB, which remembers things
by means of "server-side message ids received by virtue of
a UIDL pop command" (not to be confused with "Message-ID"s
which come in message headers, which are completely unrelated :)

The most clever of clients takes note of messages being
actually finally deleted from a "Trash" mailbox,
and rushes over to change their status in "popstate.dat"
(hopefully made possible by the UIDL ids having been also remembered
in the .msf files which accompany all mailboxes including Trash),
so that upon the next contact with any POP server
("hey, do I have any new mail"?) there's a note in "popstate.dat"
which reminds TB to send the POP server a DELE command for those messages,
if indeed a brand new UIDL command has just listed their uids again,
even though all trace of those particular messages has otherwise
vanished from all other internal local storage files,
as "deleted" normally means.

This entire system naturally opens another opportunity for surprises
if a user has made any copies of some incoming messages,
or has "filed them in two or more places," to put it another way,
or has "downloaded all message headers" [again] to see what's
still hanging around on the POP server, and reviews that list,
to subsequently do Eudora-like things such as manually pick and choose
any of those to be [re]fetched or deleted now,
without regard to aging or anything else.

Suppose we have "filed the same message in two or more places" in TB,
and have NOT even set the unusual "delete if not still in Inbox" option,
and now we get an inexplicable urge to "eliminate duplicates" from TB.

If we forget having set even the "until I delete them" option,
our mere elimination of _duplicates_ in our local files
will end up inexorably causing "popstate.dat" to collect notes
to tell our old POP server to wipe those same messages off the server anyway,
even though we have _not really deleted them_ locally (we have only
deleted _duplicates_, if you're following this), and if we do all this
before we go home and check mail on our second computer,
or our co-worker comes back from lunch and checks mail on her computer,
then she's out of luck, because we weren't paying total attention
to the subtle implications of what we were doing!

If you are enjoying this post and haven't got a headache from reading it,
then hopefully what you can learn from it is that if you've routinely
been using "leave on server" and also have "until I delete them" set,
then remember to turn off "until I delete them" before you go around
deleting any duplicates (or even partially downloaded or "headers-only"
sorts of duplicates), because otherwise you'll have defeated "leave on server"
for all the messages you've just trimmed down to "I still have one copy
of that very important message in my mailboxes here,
so I presume that they're still on the server too" :)

The very safest thing to do, especially on Friday,
when "TGIF" is inclined to cause mental lapses
even worse than "texting while operating an email client,"
is to leave "until I delete them" off when not really sure
that you are focusing on work,
and pay the small price (a/k/a "insurance premium")
of (carefully) deleting them again on your other POP client :)

I've had to console workers who didn't find this out in time,
so take advantage of this free class in "Professional POPping,"
my fellow TB'ers :)


Oh darn, there's "just one more thing," as "Lieutenant Columbo"
(played by Peter Falk) used to say -- if your "POP server"
(and potentially also IMAP server) is provided by Gmail
(to which some ISPs even outsource their email systems),
then "moving out of Inbox" on the _server_ side
does _not_ stop POP from downloading it anyway,
unless you've moved it all the way to "Spam" or "Trash" or "Delete Forever";
in fact, so much is different about Gmail, as opposed to what "normal" POP
(or IMAP) servers do, that you should not even think about it until a Monday :)

--

[Ron Hunter]

Frankly, I got a headache before I was halfway through your rather
lengthy post.
I find neither IMAP, nor POP3 to be the mythical 'ideal' email server
setup. Something new, or a modification of the old, is needed to keep
up with the mulitplicity of ways users now use email. I find that when
I delete an IMAP email from my desktop machine (TB9 beta), it goes to
'trash on the IMAP server, and on my computer, but when I delete an
email on my iPhone, it goes to 'deleted messages', which are still
available on my desktop machine, but the messages I deleted on my
desktop machine are then deleted from my iPhone. Now my headache is worse.

[ajwh]

HEY!!!!

I know all this - and if you read my previous messages, you will see
that the set-up to which I am referring has a PC which is my "reference"
system, where I file my messages (partially using filters), and a
lap-top, where I deliberately only delete unwanted or junk messages, and
do no moving or filtering.

I'm not referring to GMail. I'm talking about "classic" POP3, and
several POP3 systems over the years.

I started this because the OP was possibly having a problem with his
POP3 server inbox filling up. It remains a fact that moving an-e-mail
using a filter leaves the message on the server, moving it does not.
This may cause the inbox to become full.