Re: lenny & thunderbird filters
On 11/05/2010 04:15 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> Mmm... so you have a folder with no unread messages but still stating
> there is (1) unread messages (marked in bold) in the folder's pane. Right?
correct.
> Could it be that you are applying some kind of rules for displaying only
> messages that matches a common pattern (like showing just today's ones,
> coming from a concrete sender or so)?
no rules that I applied on purpose.. and it isn't all folders, it
"seems" random.. and not every time.
> Also, you can try (just in case) to "rebuild index" and/or "compacting"
> the offending folder. Thunderbird (Icedove) sometimes can go nuts with
> its internal bd and hides e-mails or does weird things :-)
I see the compact folders menu item, but not rebuild index... where do
you find that one.
ah, I think I found it under folder properties.. repair Folder?
> (make a full backup of you Thunderbird profile before performing a
> rebuild of index)
>
nah, I make daily backups:)
>>> >> Does it happen while using a threaded view/plain view for messages or
>>> >> both? What type of folders view (smart-unified/all folders...) are you
>>> >> using?
>>> >>
>> > ack, no idea what you mean. I use the tipical 3-panel view, folders to
>> > the left, message headers up top, and body of email below. I use
>> > threaded view, but I'm not sure I changed it in ALL the folders, only
>> > the ones I noticed had threads, and it wasn't threading. all folders, no
>> > "special effects"..
> Thunderbird allows to select what folders you want to see in the folder's
> pane (most used, all folders, smart folders...). In addition, it allows
> you to select what kind of message view you want for each folder (show
> unread e-mails, received today e-mails, tagged e-mails...). Just be sure
> you are not applying any of these options and all folders/e-mails are
> being displayed.
yeah, I imagine that could cause LOTS of problems, people forgetting
what view they have set & can't find messages..
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Reply to: