What about the e-mail part of Agent?

[Jesper Dybdal‏]

I have used Agent since the time when it did not support reading of
e-mail.

Then Agent began to include e-mail support and I realized the advantages
of having a common database for archiving news and mail. Since then
I've used it for mail also.

I would very much like to avoid the trouble of changing to another
e-mail client - my Agent database contains my e-mail archive since 1996.

But having read the release notes for Agent 7.0 and noticed that there
is absolutely no development of the e-mail part, I wonder whether Forté
has forgotten that mail is part of the product.

In particular, I miss IMAP support, and if it does arrive reasonably
soon I will probably have to take the trouble to change to another
e-mail client. But I would really prefer Forté to take the e-mail part
of their product seriously.
--
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark.
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

[Ralph Fox‏]

I would not expect Agent to get IMAP quickly. IMAP is a large piece
of work to implement.

• It is easy enough to move your emails back and forth between
Agent and Thunderbird, and .
• Thunderbird does IMAP.

If you need IMAP now then I would suggest that you use Thunderbird
for email until such time as Agent may get IMAP. When that happens
you can move your mail back into Agent.



--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Jesper Dybdal‏]

Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:

>I would not expect Agent to get IMAP quickly. IMAP is a large piece
>of work to implement.

Indeed it is. But it has also been quite a few years, and several Agent
releases, since the major mail clients learned to use IMAP.

>If you need IMAP now then I would suggest that you use Thunderbird
>for email until such time as Agent may get IMAP. When that happens
>you can move your mail back into Agent.

Thanks for the suggestion (and for your always extremely helpful and
complete responses to just about every possible Agent question).

Thunderbird is what I have been considering to change to when my
irritation over Agent's lack of IMAP gets bad enough. If I do that, it
of course remains to be seen whether I will ever move back to Agent.

[Polly the Parrott‏]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:34:54 +0200, Jesper Dybdal
<jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:

>Thunderbird is what I have been considering to change to when my
>irritation over Agent's lack of IMAP gets bad enough. If I do that, it
>of course remains to be seen whether I will ever move back to Agent.

Thunderbird has very poor implementation of USENET, IMO.

[Stephen Wolstenholme‏]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:00:29 +0200, Jesper Dybdal
<jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:

>In particular, I miss IMAP support, and if it does arrive reasonably
>soon I will probably have to take the trouble to change to another
>e-mail client. But I would really prefer Forté to take the e-mail part
>of their product seriously.

I have yet to see any advantage of IMAP over POP3. What am I missing?

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[Jaimie Vandenbergh‏]

[Default] On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:28:12 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme

<st...@npsl1.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:00:29 +0200, Jesper Dybdal
><jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:
>
>>In particular, I miss IMAP support, and if it does arrive reasonably
>>soon I will probably have to take the trouble to change to another
>>e-mail client. But I would really prefer Forté to take the e-mail part
>>of their product seriously.
>
>I have yet to see any advantage of IMAP over POP3. What am I missing?

POP3 is fine and sufficient if you have just one client to download
your mail into.

IMAP stores the mail first on the server, and lets you download/view
it from anywhere, syncing read/unread, deletes, folders, filing etc
across all clients. You can copy (or move) mail off the server to
local folders, too.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy;
if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates

[Stephen Wolstenholme‏]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:48:41 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

>[Default] On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:28:12 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
><st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:00:29 +0200, Jesper Dybdal
>><jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>In particular, I miss IMAP support, and if it does arrive reasonably
>>>soon I will probably have to take the trouble to change to another
>>>e-mail client. But I would really prefer Forté to take the e-mail part
>>>of their product seriously.
>>
>>I have yet to see any advantage of IMAP over POP3. What am I missing?
>
>POP3 is fine and sufficient if you have just one client to download
>your mail into.
>
>IMAP stores the mail first on the server, and lets you download/view
>it from anywhere, syncing read/unread, deletes, folders, filing etc
>across all clients. You can copy (or move) mail off the server to
>local folders, too.
>

That's why I don't see any advantage. I'm not mobile and so only need
to use one client though, when I was mobile, I don't remember any
problems using two or three Agent installations.

[Ralph Fox‏]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:28:12 +0100, in message <rfims7ldnq32f68t7...@4ax.com>
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

> On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:00:29 +0200, Jesper Dybdal
> <jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:
>
> >In particular, I miss IMAP support, and if it does arrive reasonably
> >soon I will probably have to take the trouble to change to another
> >e-mail client. But I would really prefer Forté to take the e-mail part
> >of their product seriously.
>
> I have yet to see any advantage of IMAP over POP3. What am I missing?

With POP, only your Inbox is on the server.

With IMAP, all your mail folders are on the server. If you have
multiple devices you can manage, sort and reply to your mail from
any one of those devices, and all the other devices will be kept
in sync via IMAP. IMAP mail clients like Thunderbird download
and cache your mail locally, so you can read it offline and you
won't lose everything if the server becomes unavailable to you.

If one is using only a single computer and a single mail client,
then there would not be much advantage for IMAP over POP.


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[DevilsPGD‏]

In the last episode of <3d7ms75qe28d4b0gn...@4ax.com>,
Martin <m...@address.invalid> said:

>On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:34:54 +0200, Jesper Dybdal
><jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:
>
>>Thunderbird is what I have been considering to change to when my
>>irritation over Agent's lack of IMAP gets bad enough. If I do that, it
>>of course remains to be seen whether I will ever move back to Agent.
>

>If and when it happens how do you move your mail back to Agent?

This isn't a problem with IMAP, in fact, one of the big perks of using
IMAP is that your mail is available to multiple clients, and multiple
devices at once, so you can easily move between clients based on their
different strengths.

--
This signature was randomly selected

[DevilsPGD‏]

In the last episode of <b4mns7d2buuaee3tr...@4ax.com>,

There are a few other minor differences in the underlying protocols as
well. IMAP allows messages to be downloaded in parts, so you can
reasonably download headers and bodies but not attachments in advance
and only download attachments as needed. This makes a huge difference
for bandwidth-limited situations.

IMAP (with the IDLE extension) allows mail to be delivered in real-time
rather than having the mail client constantly polling.

With server-side filtering (server-dependant and not really a part of
IMAP itself) you can pre-filter your mail into folders on the server so
that your Inbox will populate with important messages first, and
unimportant stuff can download in the background later, so your
click-to-start-application to able-to-see-all-new-mail-in-Inbox time is
dramatically cut down if you're a heavy mailing list user.

IMAP also allows server-side searches, so if your local client doesn't
have an entire folder cached locally (Mobile devices being the best
example) you can quickly find what you want without pulling all mail
down.

Finally, IMAP can handle massive folders whereas the POP3 protocol has
some design limits (namely that you can only request lists of all
messages, no granularity), so once you get beyond a few hundred
messages, POP3 starts to bog down.

[DevilsPGD‏]

In the last episode of <5vbms758be9j6jev1...@4ax.com>,

It does. Luckily enough, one can use Thunderbird's excellent mail
support and Agent's excellent usenet support without using the mediocre
sides of either application.

[h...@h-gee.co.uk‏]

The main problem with IMAP is that you have no control over your private and sensitive
mail or documents.

If the server goes down or is hacked then everything can be LOST for ever.

I know if you own computer goes down it can also be lost but that's down to YOU and you
are not relying on someone else or a faceless company in the middle of a third world
corrupt regime.

Hugh of Bognor

--
I used to be an Egotistical Megalomaniac - but now I'm just perfect!

Hugh Gundersen
h...@h-gee.co.uk

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

[Stephen Wolstenholme‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:53:11 +0100, h...@h-gee.co.uk wrote:

>The main problem with IMAP is that you have no control over your private and sensitive
>mail or documents.
>
>If the server goes down or is hacked then everything can be LOST for ever.
>
>I know if you own computer goes down it can also be lost but that's down to YOU and you
>are not relying on someone else or a faceless company in the middle of a third world
>corrupt regime.

Is there only one server with IMAP?

[p-0^0-h the cat‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:53:11 +0100, h...@h-gee.co.uk wrote:

>The main problem with IMAP is that you have no control over your private and sensitive
>mail or documents.

Email is really no place for anything private or sensitive.

>If the server goes down or is hacked then everything can be LOST for ever.

You have a locally cached copy.

>I know if you own computer goes down it can also be lost but that's down to YOU and you
>are not relying on someone else or a faceless company in the middle of a third world
>corrupt regime.

Well run you own IMAP server then. Certainly you should never use any
server outside of your home countries legal duristriction, which most
likely includes 'cloud services'

--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker

[p-0^0-h the cat‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:06:11 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@npsl1.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:53:11 +0100, h...@h-gee.co.uk wrote:
>
>>The main problem with IMAP is that you have no control over your private and sensitive
>>mail or documents.
>>
>>If the server goes down or is hacked then everything can be LOST for ever.
>>
>>I know if you own computer goes down it can also be lost but that's down to YOU and you
>>are not relying on someone else or a faceless company in the middle of a third world
>>corrupt regime.
>
>Is there only one server with IMAP?

I'm assuming you are asking if you use IMAP to post? Nope, you still use
SMTP to post.

Not so simple answer, but unusual
http://luxsci.com/blog/sending-outbound-email-via-imap.html

[Ralph Fox‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:53:11 +0100, in message <a5jos7pfg5s5dpf48...@4ax.com>
h...@h-gee.co.uk wrote:

> > > IMAP mail clients like Thunderbird download
> > > and cache your mail locally, so you can read it offline and you
> > > won't lose everything if the server becomes unavailable to you.
> > >

...

>
> The main problem with IMAP is that you have no control over your private and sensitive
> mail or documents.
>
> If the server goes down or is hacked then everything can be LOST for ever.

Let me repeat it once again for Hugh

IMAP mail clients like Thunderbird download and cache your mail locally,

so you won't lose everything if the server becomes unavailable.


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[h...@h-gee.co.uk‏]

What have you got against me Ralph. Everything I mention lately you seem to pick holes in.
Perhaps you should be a judge on X-factor?

I want the world and Mars too and what's wrong with that?

So you think something else is more important than IMAP or full header filtering. I'd like
an auto drop down window list for the address book.

I can see the benefit of IMAP is I was in say Spain or Germany but then I can log into my
Clara.net Web Mail account from anywhere whether in Bognor, Orlando, Alicante or New
Zealand. I use POP3 to download or get my email from Clara.net but I can use IMAP with
T-bird or outlook.

I know Clara.net keep my mail on their servers - if I don't download - so I can use the
web mail or IMAP but as 90% of the time I am at home I use POP3 with AGENT.

That is not to say I am happy with my emails being on Clara.net's servers but then I would
trust them more than I would M$ or Yahoo or Gmail (Google) or any other toy town big name
kiddy company.

I say that because those I mention seem to be like pop songs - flavour of the month style
only. One minute it's cloud next its mobile phone emails next it's TV on the phone or
iPad.

If I want to watch TV I switch a real one on - Ok so there is one fitted as standard equip
to my BMW but the reception is crap and now probably non existent!

[dgra...@pc-fx.fsnet.co.uk‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:21:28 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>If you route your e-mail via Gmail.com, it is possible to have both
>IMAP and POP access.

POP clients usually download emails from the server and then remove
them, meaning that email is now only available on your own local
machine.

IMAP usually leaves the email on the server; most people now use
webmail which similarly leaves emails on the server.

Those are the default actions. Depending on which client you use, you
can have copies locally or the server or both.

The situation most people need to avoid is downloading their emails in
Bognor or wherever then being unable to read them later when on
holiday in Torremolinos. That's usually the case when people use pop
combined with Outlook or Outlook Express out of the box: when you
create a connection these products will hoover stuff off your server
and drop it in a database locally.

Derek

[Ralph Fox‏]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:34:54 +0200, in message <kjfks79gqe0og84vv...@nuser.dybdal.dk>
Jesper Dybdal wrote:

> Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I would not expect Agent to get IMAP quickly. IMAP is a large piece
> >of work to implement.
>
> Indeed it is. But it has also been quite a few years, and several Agent
> releases, since the major mail clients learned to use IMAP.

That's just reading a calendar. Show us the money. It has been a
few years since Qualcomm gave up trying to make money out of Eudora.

> >If you need IMAP now then I would suggest that you use Thunderbird
> >for email until such time as Agent may get IMAP. When that happens
> >you can move your mail back into Agent.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion (and for your always extremely helpful and
> complete responses to just about every possible Agent question).
>
> Thunderbird is what I have been considering to change to when my
> irritation over Agent's lack of IMAP gets bad enough. If I do that, it
> of course remains to be seen whether I will ever move back to Agent.

Again, show us the money.

One $19 upgrade, after allowing for other overheads, would pay for
only a couple of minutes of developer time. It would take several
man-months to implement IMAP. How many minutes are there in several
man-months?


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Jesper Dybdal‏]

Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:

>> Thunderbird is what I have been considering to change to when my
>> irritation over Agent's lack of IMAP gets bad enough. If I do that, it
>> of course remains to be seen whether I will ever move back to Agent.
>
>Again, show us the money.

It seems that mail clients such as Outlook and Thunderbird can find the
necessary money to implement IMAP. I'd be happy to pay a lot more than
19 USD for an Agent upgrade with a good implementation of IMAP, and I am
probably not the only one. But I will not pay for the new features in
Agent 7, since none of them have any value at all for me.

>One $19 upgrade, after allowing for other overheads, would pay for
>only a couple of minutes of developer time. It would take several
>man-months to implement IMAP. How many minutes are there in several
>man-months?

Many. Your (considerably exaggerated) man-month argument is an argument
against ever making significant improvements to Agent; but if Forté
never spends the necessary man-months to implement significant
improvements, then Agent will die. The early versions of Agent probably
cost much more than "several man-months" to develop; by your argument,
Agent should never have existed. The point is that as long as Agent is
good at what it does, it will have many customers (perhaps even more
than there are minutes in several man-months), but when it is no longer
good, the customers will disappear.

Forté has spent many man-months creating an excellent implementation of
MIME, of personas, of kill filters - just to name a few of the valuable
features of Agent as a mail client. These are the features that have
caused me to buy some of the upgrades.

But if they do not keep up the good work and keep Agent reasonably
up-to-date as a an e-mail client, then they risk losing customers. In
the specific case, they'll probably lose me unless they implement IMAP
quite soon (well, I'll almost certainly continue using Agent 4.2 for
news, but that won't make Forté rich).

What I'm trying to say is that Forté seems to have dropped their desire
to provide a first-class mail client. They seem to be focusing purely
on news, and to a considerable degree only on aspects of news that I
don't really need (binaries, performance). IMO that is a pity. But
perhaps they can get by without customers like me.

[dgra...@pc-fx.fsnet.co.uk‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:23:32 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>POP clients usually download emails from the server and then remove
>>them, meaning that email is now only available on your own local
>>machine.
>

>Agent gives you the choice.

Very true. And the people who frequent this group are technically
literate. The problem is the huddled masses who have no
understanding of POP or IMAP or anything else - they want 'an email
program that works' and they don't want Sh*t when email seems to
disappear.
In a previous incarnation I provided support for 1000 people who used
mostly Outlook at work and mostly webmail at home and most [despite
being intelligent people] coudn't change email client without help.
Usually it was a phone call about 10 pm saying 'all my email has just
disappeared'. Panic. The requests asking 'can my email look
pretty' or asking why someone else couldn't open the email they'd just
sent tended to come during the day.

WHy witter on about this? Because Forte can only develop hefty
modifications or extensions if they have a large enough customer base,
and this group isn't that. Catch 22.

Derek

[Alex Heney‏]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:58:38 +0100, Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk>
wrote:

>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (p-0^0-h the cat) wrote in
><da2ps7hej8odusdqv...@4ax.com>::

>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:53:11 +0100, h...@h-gee.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>The main problem with IMAP is that you have no control over your private and sensitive
>>>mail or documents.
>>
>>Email is really no place for anything private or sensitive.
>

>... or urgent. I try to impress this on my clients; I tell them not to
>entrust anything to email that they would not put on a postcard.
>
>Yet still, they persist in behaving as thought email were:
>
>- Secure;
>- Instant;
>- Ubiquitous.

It is much closer to all of those than any other form of non face to
face communication apart from a phone call.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If idiots could fly, this would be an airport.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Ralph Fox‏]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:19:30 +0200, in message <3d7ms75qe28d4b0gn...@4ax.com>
Martin wrote:

>> Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > I would not expect Agent to get IMAP quickly. IMAP is a large piece
>> > of work to implement.
>>

>> > If you need IMAP now then I would suggest that you use Thunderbird
>> > for email until such time as Agent may get IMAP. When that happens
>> > you can move your mail back into Agent.
>

> If and when it happens how do you move your mail back to Agent?

How to import a mail folder from Thunderbird into Agent:
--------------------------------------------------------

A. If the Thunderbird folder is in Thunderbird's "Local Folders"

1. Go to "Tools >> Account Settings >> Local Folders"
and note down the setting for "Local Directory"

2. In Windows Explorer, go to the location from "Local Directory"
and look for the two files associated with the mail folder.

For example, if the Thunderbird folder is named "Skiing", then
there should be two files

"Skiing" (no file extension)
"Skiing.msf" (".msf" extension)

If you see a hard drive folder named "Skiing.sbd", that contains
the files for any nested folders inside "Skiing".

3. In Agent, create a new folder named "Skiing"

Folder >> New Folder

4. In Agent, import the file "Skiing" (no file extension) into the
new folder named "Skiing" which you just created.

File >> Import and Export >> Import Messages

( ) File according to inbound message filters «--- NOT SELECTED
(•) Put all messages in folder «--- SELECTED

[ ] If a message contains an X-Folder field... «--- NOT SELECTED

Do NOT try to import the file with a ".msf" file extension.


5. Finally, occasionally the import does not work perfectly.

If this happens to you, then read this thread for the fix:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/browse_frm/thread/a46785d8cccc95d1/7fbd124cde9337aa?tvc=1
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/pGeF2MzMldE/qjeT3kwSvX8J

Get the latest version of "Import/export message file converter"
from here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/site53/Agent/Tools.html


B. If the Thunderbird folder is inside a _POP_ account in Thunderbird

1. Go to "Tools >> Account Settings >> (*select POP account*) >> Server Settings"
and note down the setting for "Local Directory"

The other steps are the same as for 'A' Local Folders.


C. If the Thunderbird folder is inside an _IMAP_ account in Thunderbird

I'm not sure whether the above will work. You are welcome to try it.

If it doesn't work, you can always copy/move the mail into a folder
in Local Folders and import from Local Folders into Agent.


D. If the Thunderbird folder is inside an NEWS SERVER account in Thunderbird

The above definitely will not work. Instead, move or copy the
messages into a folder in Local Folders and import from there




--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Ralph Fox‏]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:07:16 +0100, in message <njovs7tko558rfl4b...@4ax.com>
Marc Wilson wrote:

> I'd happily pay $100 for Agent with IMAP.


At a rough guess, scope definition, design, development, testing,
documentation, marketing and support would cost somewhere in six
figures. This may grow depending on which parts of the IMAP
feature set are to be implemented.

If you can get 500 other people who will put their $100 in escrow,
you might have a start. This is not the same as finding 500 others
who merely say they would be interested in a $100 Agent with IMAP
(without any commitment to hand over real money).


> 7 is not worth 19 bucks to
> me.


No doubt not to you. But:
(1) Usenet today is over 99% paid for by binary users getting their
gigs. 7 is for these users.
(2) The free email clients have undercut the market for a paid email
client.


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Polly the Parrott‏]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:07:16 +0100, in message
njovs7tko558rfl4b...@4ax.com> Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> I'd happily pay $100 for Agent with IMAP.

Really?

Why?

[Ralph Fox‏]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:12:06 +0100, in message <496gv7pq4n3si4pa4...@4ax.com>
Marc Wilson wrote:

> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ralph Fox) wrote in
> <u99fv75aca9824ub8...@4ax.com>::

>
> >On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:07:16 +0100, in message <njovs7tko558rfl4b...@4ax.com>
> >Marc Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> I'd happily pay $100 for Agent with IMAP.
> >
> >
> >At a rough guess, scope definition, design, development, testing,
> >documentation, marketing and support would cost somewhere in six
> >figures. This may grow depending on which parts of the IMAP
> >feature set are to be implemented.
> >
> >If you can get 500 other people who will put their $100 in escrow,
> >you might have a start. This is not the same as finding 500 others
> >who merely say they would be interested in a $100 Agent with IMAP
> >(without any commitment to hand over real money).
>

> I understand all that. However, increasingly lack of IMAP support will
> render Agent less relevant; it really is something they should have on
> their roadmap.

Only if it pays more than it costs.

* These days, email IS webmail to many people.
* For those left, Agent would need more than just IMAP to attract
email users. Read: more costs.
* And it is too easy to pirate software like Agent; the money is
to be made in server-side services which cannot be pirated as
easily.

> >> 7 is not worth 19 bucks to
> >> me.
> >
> >
> >No doubt not to you. But:
> >(1) Usenet today is over 99% paid for by binary users getting their
> > gigs. 7 is for these users.
> >(2) The free email clients have undercut the market for a paid email
> > client.
>

> Understand that too. It'll be a sad day when I ditch Agent, but I *can*
> see it happening.


Qualcomm stopped trying to make money out of its email client Eudora,
five years ago.

Nothing lasts forever. The future computing environment will be quite
different to the past. Agent is a fat client, and the future will have
more thin clients.

And BTW have you read the latest news? Mozilla is taking 'resources'
(paid staff) off Thunderbird and putting them into projects like B2G
(Boot to Gecko). Not that Mozilla had many 'resources' on Thunderbird
anyway. Most Thunderbird developers were unpaid volunteers and not
paid Mozilla staff.



--
Kind regards
Ralph