[pmmail-list] Message Receive Interval [Was: PMMail mystery process pegs CPU]

[Stanley Sidlov]

I would have to agree with Carl, here,  I have DSL, and I'm up as long as the ISP is up and functional --  I generally use from 2 minutes to 10 
minutes, and I want to keep it that way,  I think Carl has the right idea,  give us a checkbox to mark the increment type 
(sec/min/hours/days/weeks) and a entry box or list to put in the numeric amount of that increment of time.


On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 13:12:00 -0400 (EDT), Carl Gehr wrote:

>Just for the record:
>	I *STRONGLY DISAGREE* with this proposal!
>	Just because YOU do not need a short interval,
>	does NOT mean it is appropriate for everyone!
>
>While I have a single PMMail/2 instance, I have the interval set to
>FOUR MINUTES!  I do this for three reasons:
>
>1)  It tends to keep my ADSL connection active enough so that the ISP
>does not force it to inactive.  [They look for activity over a FIVE
>MINUTE period!]
>2)  I never have to actually sit down at this system to see if I have
>mail waiting.  I have two systems, only one of which collects mail.  I
>am quite often using my other system.  A simple glance at the PMMail/2
>window, which is virtually always open and on top, and the icon for the
>account and/or InBox lets me see if there is mail that I need to look
>at.  If all the icons are 'off' then I can ignore them.  
>3) Likewise, I have PMMail/2 set to 'beep' if new mail is received on
>my primary business account.  If I hear the beep, then I can
>immediately check to see what is there.  
>
>I pride myself in trying to respond to my customers in a short period
>of time.  Changing the interval to multiples of hours could
>theoretically increase my response time from about TEN MINUTES [If I
>respond on the first beep.] to almost TWO HOURS under the same
>circumstances.  And, a message that arrives near the end of the day
>might be delayed overnight.  [Not necessarily overnight for me, but
>over night for the person asking the question, depending on their time
>zone.  e.g., A question asked by someone at 4:00PM, who leaves work at
>4:30PM, might not have their response until almost 6:00PM.  From my
>perspective, this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, when I might have been able to get
>a response to them by 4:15PM.]
>
>NO!  If this change were to be made, I would immediately request a
>patch to put the value back to minutes!  I would certainly have no
>objection to either an OPTION to specify minutes or hours, or even days
>for those so inclined.  But DO NOT MAKE THE MINIMUM TIME MORE THAN ONE
>MINUTE!  And, I can actually understand why someone might want seconds.
> If I had a large number of accounts I might try to set them on some
>cycle that would create a staggered retrieval.  But, that's not my
>case.  I use four minutes on each of three accounts.  A fourth one [for
>personal messages], I retrieve manually since I likely will not respond
>to most of those messages other than off hours.
>
>Carl
>
>
>On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 15:20:01 -0400 (EDT), quaero@myrealbox.com wrote:
>
>>
>>The max value of "Check For New Mail Every XXX Seconds" be changed to
>>hours instead.  I find this particular feature of MR/2 Ice to be very
>>sensible.  I should think that most users with multiple accounts do not
>>need all of their accounts to be checked within every hour. 
>
>- pmmail-list - The PMMail Discussion List ---------------------------
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to mdaemon@bmtmicro.com with the first 
>line of the message body being...
>UNSUBSCRIBE pmmail-list@blueprintsoftwareworks.com
>
>



- pmmail-list - The PMMail Discussion List ---------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to mdaemon@bmtmicro.com with the first 
line of the message body being...
UNSUBSCRIBE pmmail-list@blueprintsoftwareworks.com