On 05/10/2023 15:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/10/2023 11:43, alan_m wrote:
>> On 05/10/2023 10:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well its a complete rewrite. I would suggest using version 102.
>>>
>>> Keep using horses too?
>>
>> Just because something has been updated it doesn't make it better.
>>
>> With software it seems to be common that something that works well is
>> often updated or given a new GUI and never seems to work well ever again.
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of programs that I've ditched because of
>> this in the past 30 years.
>>
>>
> Well, yes.
> In the case of thunderbird it was a dogs breakfast that had been hacked
> so many times that it was un-maintainable, and I sort of applaud the
> decisions to 'start again' with the user interface.
> But as will all these major overhauls it will take a year before it
> settles down

I'd be quite happy with 115, except that it runs painfully slowly for
me. switching from reading email to news takes 30 to 45 seconds.
Switching news to show unread items only can take a minute. Something is
decidedly wrong.

On 10/5/2023 3:49 PM, SteveW wrote:
> On 05/10/2023 15:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/10/2023 11:43, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2023 10:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well its a complete rewrite. I would suggest using version 102.
>>>>
>>>> Keep using horses too?
>>>
>>> Just because something has been updated it doesn't make it better.
>>>
>>> With software it seems to be common that something that works well is often updated or given a new GUI and never seems to work well ever again.
>>>
>>> I've lost count of the number of programs that I've ditched because of this in the past 30 years.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, yes.
>> In the case of thunderbird it was a dogs breakfast that had been hacked so many times that it was un-maintainable, and I sort of applaud the decisions to 'start again' with the user interface.
>> But as will all these major overhauls it will take a year before it settles down
>
> I'd be quite happy with 115, except that it runs painfully slowly for me. switching from reading email to news takes 30 to 45 seconds. Switching news to show unread items only can take a minute. Something is decidedly wrong.
>

Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.

If you watch with ProcMon on windows (sysinternals.com) , you can
watch what files it "touches" at startup. Someone noticed it
sniffing everything in there. If you have left moribund materials
in a profile folder, which could better live elsewhere, maybe moving
them out of the way would help.

Or at least, your ProcMon adventure (filter on CreateFile and ReadFile),
will give you time stamps and filenames, so you can tell what was
sniffed, and how long it is taking for that sniff.

Linux has strace and truss and the like, which shows the access of
file handles, but not in the same way as the Windows utility (which
uses ETW subsystem).

*******

Some changes to the viewing format of newsgroups, requires re-writing
the Mork file for the group. The Mork files may not necessarily be
all that big, so that's not really a good excuse. Changing from threaded
to unthreaded or vice versa, might cause file re-writing. A file is
re-written, with the expectation it speeds up the presentation of the
new format, the next time the program is opened. Mork files are parsed
character by character, so there might be efficiency issues with the
handling of it.

I have a test install of 115.3 for Linux on the other machine.
The files are text for the most part, even if they don't make sense.
The large file here, is optional, and I used Offline/Sync mode with
USENET, to collect that file containing a thousand messages of Thai Spam.
I did that to test the filtering capabilities. Of the thousand messages,
only four of the messages were not spam. This is an ongoing flood in C.L.C.
thanks to Google Groups.

bullwinkle@CRUISE:~/.thunderbird/4c8w8ja4.default-release/News/freenews.netfront.net$ ls -al
total 18440
-rw------- 1 bullwinkle bullwinkle 17160873 Oct 5 04:30 comp.lang.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bullwinkle bullwinkle 130 Oct 5 04:24 comp.lang.c.dat
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bullwinkle bullwinkle 436961 Oct 5 04:30 comp.lang.c.htm
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bullwinkle bullwinkle 158906 Oct 5 04:39 comp.lang.c.msf
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bullwinkle bullwinkle 1101792 Oct 5 04:06 hostinfo.dat
-rw-r--r-- 1 bullwinkle bullwinkle 25 Oct 5 04:05 msgFilterRules.dat

bullwinkle@CRUISE:~/.thunderbird/4c8w8ja4.default-release/News/freenews.netfront.net$ file *
comp.lang.c: Unicode text, UTF-8 text
comp.lang.c.dat: ASCII text
comp.lang.c.htm: HTML document, Unicode text, UTF-8 text, with very long lines (373)
comp.lang.c.msf: Mozilla Mork database, version 1.4
hostinfo.dat: ASCII text
msgFilterRules.dat: ASCII text

Two of the files are server-wide, four of the files are newsgroup-specific. With the
..htm being out of place and perhaps an exhortation to donate money or something,
to the Thunderbird project ? In any case, you can try examining these files with
a text editor, and make your own notes.

Paul

On 10/5/2023 10:30 AM, Andy Bennett wrote:
> On 05/10/2023 13:40, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 05/10/2023 12:08, Andy Bennett wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2023 10:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Christ, what a dogs breakfast, Nothing works like it did.
>>>>
>>>> But I have managed to get a consistent set of fonts, usable colours and download an old fashioned icon set.
>>>>
>>>> And make it use default identities. I no longer need an add-on to do the identity managing and the extension was fucking the inbuilt method.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone needing  help I *might* be able to aid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm still on 78! If it aint broke etc etc .....
>>
>> I take it you are ignoring the 217 known vulnerabilities in 78 then?
>>
>> https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-452/product_id-3678/version_id-1247168/Mozilla-Thunderbird-78.15.html
>>
>
> Yup, sure am!
>

Turning off HTML rendering, in USENET, and using it as a USENET
reader only, should prune some of that.

Paul

Paul wrote:

> Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.

As a datapoint, my profile folder in 3.7GB, I have zero issues with
speed in TB (115.x or prior) ... yes TB can be quite memory hungry, eats
the best part of 1GB

On 10/5/2023 4:41 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.
>
> As a datapoint, my profile folder in 3.7GB, I have zero issues
> with speed in TB (115.x or prior) ... yes TB can be quite memory hungry,
> eats the best part of 1GB

It actually eats, as much as it needs :-)

Try feeding it some pathological mail boxes and
watch the fun :-)

It's no problem for it to use 16GB of RAM. But
nobody is likely to have files that big in the
first place. I had to make those test mail boxes
programmatically (in C).

Paul

On 05/10/2023 21:35, Paul wrote:
> On 10/5/2023 3:49 PM, SteveW wrote:
>> On 05/10/2023 15:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2023 11:43, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 05/10/2023 10:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well its a complete rewrite. I would suggest using version 102.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep using horses too?
>>>>
>>>> Just because something has been updated it doesn't make it better.
>>>>
>>>> With software it seems to be common that something that works well is often updated or given a new GUI and never seems to work well ever again.
>>>>
>>>> I've lost count of the number of programs that I've ditched because of this in the past 30 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, yes.
>>> In the case of thunderbird it was a dogs breakfast that had been hacked so many times that it was un-maintainable, and I sort of applaud the decisions to 'start again' with the user interface.
>>> But as will all these major overhauls it will take a year before it settles down
>>
>> I'd be quite happy with 115, except that it runs painfully slowly for me. switching from reading email to news takes 30 to 45 seconds. Switching news to show unread items only can take a minute. Something is decidedly wrong.
>>
>
> Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.
>
> If you watch with ProcMon on windows (sysinternals.com) , you can
> watch what files it "touches" at startup. Someone noticed it
> sniffing everything in there. If you have left moribund materials
> in a profile folder, which could better live elsewhere, maybe moving
> them out of the way would help.

It shouldn't be that. I only put 115 on as it was a fresh install after
a clean install of Windows 11, following uogradinf with a new
motherboard, processor and memory and wiping the SSD.

After installing it repopulated the emails from my home IMAP server and
download headers from here.

I have tried deleting and rebuilding the profiles, with no improvement.

Previously, on the old system, I was running a slightly older version of
TB with no problems - connecting to the same servers.

On 05/10/2023 21:41, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.
>
> As a datapoint, my profile folder in 3.7GB, I have zero issues with
> speed in TB (115.x or prior) ... yes TB can be quite memory hungry, eats
> the best part of 1GB

The profiles folder, with 5 user profiles is less than 14MB!

SteveW wrote:

> I only put 115 on as it was a fresh install after a clean install of
> Windows 11

I have heard other people, in other places say that fresh profiles run
slow, but upgraded profiles are ok, can't explain why, or even know if
it's correct ...

On 05/10/2023 21:41, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.
>
> As a datapoint, my profile folder in 3.7GB, I have zero issues with
> speed in TB (115.x or prior) ... yes TB can be quite memory hungry, eats
> the best part of 1GB

FWIW mine is 3.3GB, and for some reason today TB (102.15.1) has been
running really slowly. For browsing, PM has also been running a lot
slower than usual, but FF isn't too bad. A speedtest for download didn't
reveal any obvious problem.

--

Jeff

On 10/5/2023 5:18 PM, SteveW wrote:
> On 05/10/2023 21:35, Paul wrote:
>> On 10/5/2023 3:49 PM, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2023 15:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/10/2023 11:43, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 05/10/2023 10:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>> Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well its a complete rewrite. I would suggest using version 102.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep using horses too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because something has been updated it doesn't make it better.
>>>>>
>>>>> With software it seems to be common that something that works well is often updated or given a new GUI and never seems to work well ever again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've lost count of the number of programs that I've ditched because of this in the past 30 years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, yes.
>>>> In the case of thunderbird it was a dogs breakfast that had been hacked so many times that it was un-maintainable, and I sort of applaud the decisions to 'start again' with the user interface.
>>>> But as will all these major overhauls it will take a year before it settles down
>>>
>>> I'd be quite happy with 115, except that it runs painfully slowly for me. switching from reading email to news takes 30 to 45 seconds. Switching news to show unread items only can take a minute. Something is decidedly wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Best guess, your Profile Folder is gigabytes in size.
>>
>> If you watch with ProcMon on windows (sysinternals.com) , you can
>> watch what files it "touches" at startup. Someone noticed it
>> sniffing everything in there. If you have left moribund materials
>> in a profile folder, which could better live elsewhere, maybe moving
>> them out of the way would help.
>
> It shouldn't be that. I only put 115 on as it was a fresh install after a clean install of Windows 11, following uogradinf with a new motherboard, processor and memory and wiping the SSD.
>
> After installing it repopulated the emails from my home IMAP server and download headers from here.
>
> I have tried deleting and rebuilding the profiles, with no improvement.
>
> Previously, on the old system, I was running a slightly older version of TB with no problems - connecting to the same servers.

Is it continually pulling info from your IMAP server ?

I tried some tests here, and it did seem to be a bit slow to
"Mark all read" for USENET posts, which seemed to involve re-writing the Mork file.

On a Linux TB115, "top" said it was using 3.5GB of RAM.
On Windows, TB115 was in the low hundreds of megabytes of RAM.
This means there are some differences on whether RAM use
is explicit or implicit.

On my 3.4GHz ageing Intel, it seems to manage to read the Mork
at 33MB/sec to 40MB/sec or so. It may be relying on the System Read Cache
in Windows for some of its performance, instead of MMaping files or
keeping them in "charged RAM" that Task Manager can track. The old
Thunderbird used to juggle Mork files in RAM, keeping them open if
they were being used, and closing them during periods of idleness.

My initial impression, is Mork is a real bottleneck, and some
of the features of the new program are silly (summarizing a thread
by washing back and forth through the HTML engine).

It does not seem to respond to the HTML rendering setting. I want
the damn HTML switched off ENTIRELY as an attack surface. I don't
want the tool puttering around with incoming data and doing stuff.
It's fine that the entire three-pane view is made from HTML, as
that is sanitized internal data. But doing wretched things with
the posted messages, isn't a good idea. Take making a summary of
the BASE64 Thai spam for example. Is that safe ? I just don't
like the possibilities there.

Summary: Yes, it's slow. And the Mork used to be a bottleneck, and
it now seems to be even more of a bottleneck. They have an
architect now ? My ass :-/ The reason I am harsh in judgment,
is the new architect threw shade on the work of his predecessors,
yet what he brings us, is not a Sparkle Pony, but more of a
swayback nag. "The Mork handler should be written in Assembler" :-)
Software people love it, when the user audience sez that :-)
Well, they de-optimized it, and now they can fucking well
fix it again. The previous Thunderbird effort, they struggled
to get as far as they did, in the Mork handling.

Mork is handled character by character, as far as I know. And
like a Run Length Encoded compressor, handling a character at
a time, brings processors to their knees.

Paul

On 06/10/2023 15:24, Paul wrote:
> On a Linux TB115, "top" said it was using 3.5GB of RAM.
How did you get top to show that? mine says 5.7%

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
>> On a Linux TB115, "top" said it was using 3.5GB of RAM.
> How did you get top to show that? mine says  5.7%

'm' toggles through several memory display styles

On 06/10/2023 17:31, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> On a Linux TB115, "top" said it was using 3.5GB of RAM.
>> How did you get top to show that? mine says  5.7%
>
> 'm' toggles through several memory display styles
>

29Mbytes here.

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

On 05-Oct-23 11:43, alan_m wrote:
> On 05/10/2023 10:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> Well its a complete rewrite. I would suggest using version 102.
>>
>> Keep using horses too?
>
> Just because something has been updated it doesn't make it better.
>
> With software it seems to be common that something that works well is
> often updated or given a new GUI and never seems to work well ever again.
>
> I've lost count of the number of programs that I've ditched because of
> this in the past 30 years.

It's odd that "Verschlimmbesserung" was pretty much unknown in English -
until software started to play a big role in our lives.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 10/6/2023 1:09 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/10/2023 17:31, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a Linux TB115, "top" said it was using 3.5GB of RAM.
>>> How did you get top to show that? mine says  5.7%
>>
>> 'm' toggles through several memory display styles
>>
>
> 29Mbytes here.
>

At this point, we need Steve to have a look at what
he is doing, and spot the slow bit of it. I'm not
reproducing his setup really, and I just wanted to do
a general check of the thing.

Here's a picture of a "top" from a run on Linux Mint 21.2 TB115.3.
I used SimpleScreenRecorder, to shoot video, because my keyboard
doesn't have a PrintScreen. The machine has a second keyboard (PS/2)
with a PrintScreen, but I have to walk over to use it, and by then,
a fleeting moment could be past. So I just shot some vid to get this,
then picked out a frame that was composed enough so you could read it.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/Gh6qMwMS/a009210.gif

The virtual is high, but not a lot is resident. About 570MB resident.
The tool is in the process of marking a newsgroup "All read" and
the CPU is railed on a core for a number of seconds before it is done
with it. It's the same on the Windows version. Walking a Mork takes time.
And yet, it's the Mork, because I can see that in ProcMon.

By applying memory pressure to Linux, we can shrink down that virtual,
but what's the point ? We know that isn't all that interesting
a phenomenon, so move on.

Paul

On 07/10/2023 02:30, Paul wrote:
> On 10/6/2023 1:09 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/10/2023 17:31, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a Linux TB115, "top" said it was using 3.5GB of RAM.
>>>> How did you get top to show that? mine says  5.7%
>>>
>>> 'm' toggles through several memory display styles
>>>
>>
>> 29Mbytes here.
>>
>
> At this point, we need Steve to have a look at what
> he is doing, and spot the slow bit of it. I'm not
> reproducing his setup really, and I just wanted to do
> a general check of the thing.

It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an older
version. As all our email is stored on our home server, all the emails
will still be there just by pointing the client at the server.

Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>
> It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an older
> version.

That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.

--
Ottavio Caruso

In message <ug0i5l$3q7ma$2@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>> It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an
>>older version.
>
>That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.

Might be worth it!

My version is currently timing out on sending mail:-(
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 09/10/2023 15:32, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <ug0i5l$3q7ma$2@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>>  It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an
>>> older  version.
>>
>> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.
>
> Might be worth it!
>
> My version is currently timing out on sending mail:-(
>>
>

I was starting to get that on 102 if I took too long composing a Usenet
reply. If I replied quickly after reading a post there was no problem
sending it. If i took longer it sat there and then complained of a
timeout. I had to close down TB which gave me the option to save or
discard the message. Saving put it drafts folder. On restarting TB I
could always select the draft and post/send it.

This problem hasn't been seen with 115

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In message <koiql9Fb330U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
<junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On 09/10/2023 15:32, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <ug0i5l$3q7ma$2@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
>><ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>>> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>>>  It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an
>>>>older  version.
>>>
>>> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.
>> Might be worth it!
>> My version is currently timing out on sending mail:-(
>>>
>>
>
>I was starting to get that on 102 if I took too long composing a Usenet
>reply. If I replied quickly after reading a post there was no problem
>sending it. If i took longer it sat there and then complained of a
>timeout. I had to close down TB which gave me the option to save or
>discard the message. Saving put it drafts folder. On restarting TB I
>could always select the draft and post/send it.
>
>This problem hasn't been seen with 115

Hmm. I'm not using it for Usenet.

Current problem is not collecting posts I know are on the server and
timing out on sending mail:-)

I may not have helped by installing the current version in an attempt to
fix things.

What would a *corrupted profile* do to saved mail messages?
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 09/10/2023 18:13, alan_m wrote:
> On 09/10/2023 15:32, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <ug0i5l$3q7ma$2@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>>> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>>>  It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an
>>>> older  version.
>>>
>>> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.
>>
>> Might be worth it!
>>
>> My version is currently timing out on sending mail:-(
>>>
>>
>
> I was starting to get that on 102 if I took too long composing a Usenet
> reply.  If I replied quickly after reading a post there was no problem
> sending it. If i took longer it sat there and then complained of a
> timeout. I had to close down TB which gave me the option to save or
> discard the message. Saving put it drafts folder. On restarting TB I
> could always select the draft and post/send it.
>
> This problem hasn't been seen with 115
>
I have had this on 115. I found that fetching new messages and then
re-sending fixed it..

Dave

On 09/10/2023 10:46, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>
>> It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an older
>> version.
>
> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.

I'm not bothered about that. It takes minutes to create a new profile
and the emails (going back decades) are all on our home server, so
Thunderbird will simply download them again from there.

On 09/10/2023 22:53, David Wade wrote:
> On 09/10/2023 18:13, alan_m wrote:
>> On 09/10/2023 15:32, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>> In message <ug0i5l$3q7ma$2@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
>>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>>>> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>>>>  It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an
>>>>> older  version.
>>>>
>>>> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.
>>>
>>> Might be worth it!
>>>
>>> My version is currently timing out on sending mail:-(
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I was starting to get that on 102 if I took too long composing a
>> Usenet reply.  If I replied quickly after reading a post there was no
>> problem sending it. If i took longer it sat there and then complained
>> of a timeout. I had to close down TB which gave me the option to save
>> or discard the message. Saving put it drafts folder. On restarting TB
>> I could always select the draft and post/send it.
>>
>> This problem hasn't been seen with 115
>>
> I have had this on 115. I found that fetching new messages and then
> re-sending fixed it..
>
> Dave
I think I had it on the previous version too

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

Am 09/10/2023 um 23:23 schrieb SteveW:
> On 09/10/2023 10:46, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>>
>>> It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an older
>>> version.
>>
>> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.
>
> I'm not bothered about that. It takes minutes to create a new profile
> and the emails (going back decades) are all on our home server, so
> Thunderbird will simply download them again from there.
>

If it's only for emails, ok, but I have 100s of newsgroups. I haven't
found a reliable way to copy all the settings from one profile to
another. Firefox can do that, not Thunderbird, but if anybody knows how
to do that, I'll be glad to know.

I am also thinking of migrating from Thunderbird to Alpine.

--
Ottavio Caruso

In message <ug360k$126ln$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>Am 09/10/2023 um 23:23 schrieb SteveW:
>> On 09/10/2023 10:46, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>> Am 07/10/2023 um 22:47 schrieb SteveW:
>>>>
>>>> It may be simpler for me to remove it completely and install an
>>>>older version.
>>>
>>> That might corrupt your Thunderbird profile.
>> I'm not bothered about that. It takes minutes to create a new
>>profile and the emails (going back decades) are all on our home
>>server, so Thunderbird will simply download them again from there.
>>
>
>If it's only for emails, ok, but I have 100s of newsgroups. I haven't
>found a reliable way to copy all the settings from one profile to
>another. Firefox can do that, not Thunderbird, but if anybody knows how
>to do that, I'll be glad to know.
>
>I am also thinking of migrating from Thunderbird to Alpine.

Well that was a total waste of my time!

I decided to bite the bullet and revert to 102.13.0 before all this crap
started. Sadly my available roll back options took me back nearly 2
months.

Strangely both Firefox and T Bird came up as possibly virus contaminated
or deleted so I had to use Chrome to find some downloads for W7.

Got Firefox back and went looking for T Bird 102.13.0 found a site and
got 115 again!

Grr! The current issue is new mail being displayed briefly and discarded
before I have time to read or file:-(
>
>

--
Tim Lamb