On 24-02-2023 07:52 Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:

>> And no, I'm not a lawyer. This is personal email where "some" of it I'd
>> want to save, but it would take a long time to weed through every message.
>
> Sorry, i really don't want to offend you. But for me that's a typical behavior
> of a "messie". You wanted to save 'some' of these mails but now they grew
> to the 15GB-limit of your gmail account and it's already too much for you
> to 'weed' it out. You've lost the oversight.

Yup. I'm not disagreeing that I'm a 'messie' in that the mail started years
ago and just grew. Sort of like how bamboo grew past my neighbor's fence.

> If you don't start to delete many of those mails now, there will be a day
> when you can't receieve any new mails - just because the storage limit is
> reached.

Yup. I know. I've known this for months. I made it worse by blind cc'ing
myself on every mail I sent out too. I'm a messie. Shoot me. :)

> This is no problem of thunderbird or any other software. It's a problem of
> your mindset.
>
> just my 2 cent

Yup. But still, Thunderbird should handle the Google limits since I can't
be the only one who is using the full free limit of what Google provides.

I'm sure some people are paying for extended amounts so TB should do it.

BTW, I've been importing the Thunderbird into emClient for a while now.
https://i.postimg.cc/GpRBB3zL/emclient.jpg

It's not clear to me, from the message, if it's waiting just for a
password, or if it's actually importing anything but I figured I'd try it
out since wasbit suggested it - and it's not necessarily off topic for this
newsgroup because the first step is an import of "data & settings" from TB.

If it takes more than a few hours, then I'll have to kill it though.
But what I'd really want is a MUA that can read the Google takeout file!

On 2/23/2023 9:09 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 2/23/2023 8:26 PM, mike wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there an easy way to set up mail tests without a bona fide email
>> account
>> to test it against?
>
> It's not an easy way exactly, but hmailserver for Windows is available.
>
>    https://www.hmailserver.com/
>
>    https://www.hmailserver.com/download
>
> I have one in a VM right now, but it's broken because I cannot figure
> out how to fix some certificate in it. It may be faster to reinstall
> it or something.
>
> You can automate the filling of the thing, via a scripted email session.
>
> To put 15GB of messages into hmailserver, would take a script
> which is 15GB in size. You can mechanically generate the script
> with AWK or PERL. You don't type 15GB of crap. Just repeat
> the same subsection of script thousands of times.
>
> Mail servers do not process messages quickly, and this is not
> as easy as the program simply "copying" the 15GB of stuff you
> are shoving into it. It might take all night to eat that much.
> This is why, in corporate setups, you have a hundred Exchange servers :-)
> You need that just for the horsepower.
>
> *******
>
> Check the "News" and "Mail" folders in the profile folder.
>
> https://kb.mozillazine.org/Limits_-_Thunderbird
>
>    Paul
why not just get another free GMail address for testing?

On 2/23/2023 10:19 PM, Zaidy036 wrote:
> On 2/23/2023 9:09 PM, Paul wrote:
>> On 2/23/2023 8:26 PM, mike wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is there an easy way to set up mail tests without a bona fide email
>>> account
>>> to test it against?
>>
>> It's not an easy way exactly, but hmailserver for Windows is available.
>>
>>     https://www.hmailserver.com/
>>
>>     https://www.hmailserver.com/download
>>
>> I have one in a VM right now, but it's broken because I cannot figure
>> out how to fix some certificate in it. It may be faster to reinstall
>> it or something.
>>
>> You can automate the filling of the thing, via a scripted email session.
>>
>> To put 15GB of messages into hmailserver, would take a script
>> which is 15GB in size. You can mechanically generate the script
>> with AWK or PERL. You don't type 15GB of crap. Just repeat
>> the same subsection of script thousands of times.
>>
>> Mail servers do not process messages quickly, and this is not
>> as easy as the program simply "copying" the 15GB of stuff you
>> are shoving into it. It might take all night to eat that much.
>> This is why, in corporate setups, you have a hundred Exchange servers :-)
>> You need that just for the horsepower.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> Check the "News" and "Mail" folders in the profile folder.
>>
>> https://kb.mozillazine.org/Limits_-_Thunderbird
>>
>>     Paul
> why not just get another free GMail address for testing?
and also place an auto forward in your old account so new emails all go
to new one. then if new works OK delete or copy or send to new what you
want from the old one

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:09:23 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>Mail servers do not process messages quickly, and this is not
>as easy as the program simply "copying" the 15GB of stuff you
>are shoving into it. It might take all night to eat that much.
>This is why, in corporate setups, you have a hundred Exchange servers :-)
>You need that just for the horsepower.

If it ever feels like there's a hundred Exchange servers, then my
colleagues and I have done something right when setting up the load
balancers that sit in front of the mail servers. The truth is, though,
there's probably a lot fewer servers than you might think. For some
reason, management never likes to spend money on mail servers, beyond
the essentials. That's really why email is frequently slow, especially
during peak periods in the early morning as people are arriving to work,
and then again right after lunch as people are returning to their desks.
In between those times, the mail servers are usually only lightly
loaded.

If it's a greenfield situation where we're designing and building the
email architecture from scratch, we usually recommend a minimum of 2-3
servers for companies up to about 20k employees, 4-5 servers for 50k-60k
employees, and then another server for every additional 10k employees.
Add a redundant pair, located at a backup facility, just in case.

Compare those numbers to the application servers, where the applications
are generating revenue, and you get pools with many more servers. You
always want to see pools with larger numbers of small servers, rather
than smaller pools of large servers. It's easier and more efficient to
distribute the load across the server pool that way.

On 2/23/2023 8:33 PM, mike wrote:

> Worse, I've done a Google takeout but what comes back is either a bunch of
> 4GB files or a huge 15GB file, but it's in some incomprehensible format.

"Saving your data using Google Takeout won't harm your accounts in any way.
You'll simply receive . zip or . tgz files filled with all your data"

Try putting .zip on the end of the file, if it does not
have an extension.

*******

OK, I was logged into my GMail. Went over to a separate
browser window and used https://takeout.google.com .

The file I got was

takeout-20230224T082142Z-001.zip 20,299,203 bytes

My Takeout is not big enough to span multiple files, but
yours will be big enough for that. The -001 is the filenum
in the series. ZIP allows segmented filesets, so as long
as all the ZIPs are properly numbers, the "content" of the
ZIP (a single MBOX file) can be extracted.

If you need help with that, please post the names of the files.

Sometimes, you open the "last" file in the set, to see the
dialog with the contents. Other times, it might seem like the
"un-numbered" file does the job. ZIP may be dumb enough to do
nothing, if you click the wrong one. Click the "ones nearest
the ends" and it should be visible, at a guess.

Takeout\
archive_browser.html
Mail\
All mail Including Spam and Trash.mbox <=== this name is unwieldy

The .mbox opens in Notepad (because my MBox is small).
A 15GB .mbox is too large for Notepad, which is limited
to at most 900MB.

These are sample header lines in my MBox file. The emails are placed
one after another in the MBox file. These lines will appear
in the Thunderbird header pane when you read the messages.

X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Promotions,Unread
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Updates,Unread

Now, if you go to your profile folder

abcd1234.default\Mail\Local Folders

and then change the filename to "ALL" and drop
the ALL file into "Local Folders", it will show
up in the Local Folders section of your Thunderbird.
Messages with attachments, will have the icon in the
column showing they have an attachment.

Thunderbird will parse the file. This could take a while.
It generates ALL.msf, which is presumably just the headers.
If you are using the x64 version of Thunderbird, it will
be able to malloc as much memory as it needs. I've got lots
of RAM on the computer I tested in, so "no MBOX is too large" :-)

abcd1234.default\Mail\Local Folders
ALL <=== You drop the file in.
ALL.msf <=== Thunderbird creates this

***********************************************

Anyway, I'm now looking at the crapfest in my GMail,
everything jumbled in together. If you selected
individual boxes, maybe the emails would be separated
better. You might be able to write some script and
break up the ALL file into separate box.MBox files.
Because you notice in my sample lines, those
messages were in my Inbox, but my spam folder is
also mentioned.

Remove ALL and ALL.msf (while Thunderbird is shut down),
and ... they're gone from the box list.

It's a good thing that account is small. It made
the exercise painless. It's still a mess though,
but I could script the sorting if I wanted to.
You just have to figure out how messages are delimited,
to break them into "singles" and output them into
separate files. Some email tools, save the email
as separate mbox files. So if you have 10000 email
you have 10000 files, and the file system is sludge-slow.

That's why you should look in the Mail folder, and see
what lurks in there.

Paul

On 2/24/2023 2:16 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:09:23 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mail servers do not process messages quickly, and this is not
>> as easy as the program simply "copying" the 15GB of stuff you
>> are shoving into it. It might take all night to eat that much.
>> This is why, in corporate setups, you have a hundred Exchange servers :-)
>> You need that just for the horsepower.
>
> If it ever feels like there's a hundred Exchange servers, then my
> colleagues and I have done something right when setting up the load
> balancers that sit in front of the mail servers. The truth is, though,
> there's probably a lot fewer servers than you might think. For some
> reason, management never likes to spend money on mail servers, beyond
> the essentials. That's really why email is frequently slow, especially
> during peak periods in the early morning as people are arriving to work,
> and then again right after lunch as people are returning to their desks.
> In between those times, the mail servers are usually only lightly
> loaded.
>
> If it's a greenfield situation where we're designing and building the
> email architecture from scratch, we usually recommend a minimum of 2-3
> servers for companies up to about 20k employees, 4-5 servers for 50k-60k
> employees, and then another server for every additional 10k employees.
> Add a redundant pair, located at a backup facility, just in case.
>
> Compare those numbers to the application servers, where the applications
> are generating revenue, and you get pools with many more servers. You
> always want to see pools with larger numbers of small servers, rather
> than smaller pools of large servers. It's easier and more efficient to
> distribute the load across the server pool that way.
>

I was told that:

1) The message handling speed of a server, was 20 messages per second.
2) There were 100 Exchange servers. There could well have been other
server types besides that.

After an email "outage", we would be told there would be a
12 to 24 hour delay until the backlog was processed. I don't
know if that aligns with your experience or not.

Paul

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:10:42 +0000, Graham J wrote:

> Whatever, you need to get the volume of data stored in the gmail
> account down to a few tens of MBytes and automatically archive or
> delete anything old.

Not useful if you suddenly need contact details for a plumber last
used two years ago!

On 2/23/2023 8:51 PM, Frank Miller wrote:
> Graham J wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> There *is* stuff in the AppData\Thunderbird hierarchy!
>>>> There shouldn't be anything there since I didn't put it there.
>>>
>>> That is where thunderbird puts *everything*
>>>
>>> I would agree with most of keith's recommendations, except I wouldn't be
>>> in a rush to reconnect the 15GB gmail account, it might not be what you
>>> want long term, but just use their webmail for a few days to read email.
>>>
>>> The way gmail works is (despite what it looks like) everything is in one
>>> giant inbox, there might be one item, or the total number of items
>>> that's choking TB, create an throwaway gmail account and use that for
>>> testing first.
>>
>> The problem is almost certainly the 15GB in the gmail account. Any mail
>> client faced with connecting to that will stall for a long time - many
>> hours, or perhaps days. It will appear to be "hanging".
>
> On top of that mike is running Microsoft Defender which probably checks all
> of this 15GB-mess in realtime while connected.
>

This is a known problem. You can add an exception for your
email folder, so it is not scanned. but you *only* do this,
for email tools which place the emails as individual files
like .eml . It's the seeking of hard drives, which suck
for individually packaged email files. Defender just makes
the process so much more "special" :-/

You can also shut off Real Time scanning temporarily.
You're not supposed to dismiss the window with the
slider switch, or Defender starts scanning as soon as the
window is dismissed.

The activity of Defender, and the slider switch, do not
have to agree. Defender can go back to scanning, when the
switch is in the OFF position. The whole thing is the kind
of joke you would expect. It's a little like a child
who has been told they can't have a cookie.

Paul

On 2/23/23 21:33, this is what mike wrote:
> On 24-02-2023 07:52 Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>
>>> And no, I'm not a lawyer. This is personal email where "some" of it I'd
>>> want to save, but it would take a long time to weed through every message.
>>
>> Sorry, i really don't want to offend you. But for me that's a typical behavior
>> of a "messie". You wanted to save 'some' of these mails but now they grew
>> to the 15GB-limit of your gmail account and it's already too much for you
>> to 'weed' it out. You've lost the oversight.
>
> Yup. I'm not disagreeing that I'm a 'messie' in that the mail started years
> ago and just grew. Sort of like how bamboo grew past my neighbor's fence.
>
>> If you don't start to delete many of those mails now, there will be a day
>> when you can't receieve any new mails - just because the storage limit is
>> reached.
>
> Yup. I know. I've known this for months. I made it worse by blind cc'ing
> myself on every mail I sent out too. I'm a messie. Shoot me. :)
>
>> This is no problem of thunderbird or any other software. It's a problem of
>> your mindset.
>>
>> just my 2 cent
>
> Yup. But still, Thunderbird should handle the Google limits since I can't
> be the only one who is using the full free limit of what Google provides.
>
> I'm sure some people are paying for extended amounts so TB should do it.
>
> BTW, I've been importing the Thunderbird into emClient for a while now.
> https://i.postimg.cc/GpRBB3zL/emclient.jpg
>
> It's not clear to me, from the message, if it's waiting just for a
> password, or if it's actually importing anything but I figured I'd try it
> out since wasbit suggested it - and it's not necessarily off topic for this
> newsgroup because the first step is an import of "data & settings" from TB.
>
> If it takes more than a few hours, then I'll have to kill it though.
> But what I'd really want is a MUA that can read the Google takeout file!
If you can get the IMAP email to download into TB, you can sort by sender or such and purge in large quantities. IIRC
shift+del bypasses the trash. I get newsletters from a cruse line and I can delete them all. Same with How-To-Geek
newsletters.

Purging trash might give you a good amount of space maybe. You could do that in webmail. Just remember to select the
Trash folder in TB so TB syncs with Gmail and purges locally.
--
Al

On 2/23/2023 10:23 PM, Zaidy036 wrote:
> On 2/23/2023 10:19 PM, Zaidy036 wrote:
>> On 2/23/2023 9:09 PM, Paul wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2023 8:26 PM, mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there an easy way to set up mail tests without a bona fide email
>>>> account
>>>> to test it against?
>>>
>>> It's not an easy way exactly, but hmailserver for Windows is available.
>>>
>>>     https://www.hmailserver.com/
>>>
>>>     https://www.hmailserver.com/download
>>>
>>> I have one in a VM right now, but it's broken because I cannot figure
>>> out how to fix some certificate in it. It may be faster to reinstall
>>> it or something.
>>>
>>> You can automate the filling of the thing, via a scripted email session.
>>>
>>> To put 15GB of messages into hmailserver, would take a script
>>> which is 15GB in size. You can mechanically generate the script
>>> with AWK or PERL. You don't type 15GB of crap. Just repeat
>>> the same subsection of script thousands of times.
>>>
>>> Mail servers do not process messages quickly, and this is not
>>> as easy as the program simply "copying" the 15GB of stuff you
>>> are shoving into it. It might take all night to eat that much.
>>> This is why, in corporate setups, you have a hundred Exchange servers
>>> :-)
>>> You need that just for the horsepower.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> Check the "News" and "Mail" folders in the profile folder.
>>>
>>> https://kb.mozillazine.org/Limits_-_Thunderbird
>>>
>>>     Paul
>> why not just get another free GMail address for testing?
> and also place an auto forward in your old account so new emails all go
> to new one. then if new works OK delete or copy or send to new what you
> want from the old one
Would one of these help?
<https://www.mailsware.com/blog/how-to-export-selected-emails-from-gmail/>
<https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/e5yxo2/using_gmail_takeout_can_i_download_selected_date/>

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 04:58:12 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/24/2023 2:16 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:09:23 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Mail servers do not process messages quickly, and this is not
>>> as easy as the program simply "copying" the 15GB of stuff you
>>> are shoving into it. It might take all night to eat that much.
>>> This is why, in corporate setups, you have a hundred Exchange servers :-)
>>> You need that just for the horsepower.
>>
>> If it ever feels like there's a hundred Exchange servers, then my
>> colleagues and I have done something right when setting up the load
>> balancers that sit in front of the mail servers. The truth is, though,
>> there's probably a lot fewer servers than you might think. For some
>> reason, management never likes to spend money on mail servers, beyond
>> the essentials. That's really why email is frequently slow, especially
>> during peak periods in the early morning as people are arriving to work,
>> and then again right after lunch as people are returning to their desks.
>> In between those times, the mail servers are usually only lightly
>> loaded.
>>
>> If it's a greenfield situation where we're designing and building the
>> email architecture from scratch, we usually recommend a minimum of 2-3
>> servers for companies up to about 20k employees, 4-5 servers for 50k-60k
>> employees, and then another server for every additional 10k employees.
>> Add a redundant pair, located at a backup facility, just in case.
>>
>> Compare those numbers to the application servers, where the applications
>> are generating revenue, and you get pools with many more servers. You
>> always want to see pools with larger numbers of small servers, rather
>> than smaller pools of large servers. It's easier and more efficient to
>> distribute the load across the server pool that way.
>>
>
>I was told that:
>
>1) The message handling speed of a server, was 20 messages per second.

There are multiple throttling limits, as described here:
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/mail-flow/message-rate-limits?view=exchserver-2019>
Older versions of Exchange could be different. I'm not an Exchange pro,
I just design/implement/configure some of the surrounding
infrastructure.

>2) There were 100 Exchange servers. There could well have been other
> server types besides that.

I've worked at several hundred organizations over the last 5-6 years,
small to large (over 100k employees), and I think the biggest Exchange
pool that I've seen might have been 8 servers. If an org has 100
Exchange servers, it could be that email is their core business.

>After an email "outage", we would be told there would be a
>12 to 24 hour delay until the backlog was processed. I don't
>know if that aligns with your experience or not.

I try not to be around when there are outages but I suppose it would
depend on the type of outage. One of the primary goals of having
multiple servers, besides performance, is redundancy in the face of a
failed server. It's more likely that, as a consultant, I'd be brought in
after the fact to brief management on what they can do to prevent future
outages.

mike wrote:

> I do not yet understand the
> main difference between what Thunderbird puts into these two locations?
>
> C:\Users\mike\AppData\Roaming\Thunderbird\Profiles\
> Account Settings > Server Settings > Message Storage > Local Directory

here, they are both the same location

> I think what you're getting at is that I should use "empty" Thunderbird
> "for a few days" to see if it's something non-mail-related that is causing
> Thunderbird to hang.

yes.

> Is there an easy way to set up mail tests without a bona fide email account
> to test it against?

Don't think so, but it's easy to create "burner" accounts at
outlook/gmail/proton

On 23-02-2023 06:28 mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
After all this time with Thunderbird hanging on me on composition windows,
I think I accidentally got closer to where the thunderbird bug is located.

When I was using Thunderbird (normal & beta) it was Thunderbird 110.0b4
(64-bit) but I kept using the same profile and/or the same user setup.

Multiple times I deleted Thunderbird and installed the latest Windows
version and even the latest beta release, but they all hung up on the
composition window. Every single time. MemoryHogs v1.45 & Nir Sofer
WhatIsHang v1.27 both proved beyond any doubt that it was Thunderbird,
and only Thunderbird, which was hanging up, on the composition window.

But why?

Someone suggested Thunderbird Portable, which I discounted for the longest
time as it's still Thunderbird, isn't it? Anyway, in desperation, I finally
installed the Thunderbird portable, and the hang went away (or so I
thought) so I was happy to proudly declare that TB portable was the fix.

The Thunderbird portable I'm using is 102.10.0 (64-bit) at the moment.

With the Thunderbird portable, using a brand new profile that started out
empty, Thunderbird no longer hung when I was in a composition window.

Success, right?
Well... no.

After a few days of use on Portable with default settings, I turned off the
HTML and went to TEXT and then kaboom! TB hung like before. Every time.

When I switched from HTML back to TEXT, TB stopped hanging.
So I think the bug is Thunderbird composition on TEXT only.

But I need to test it further to be sure of that.

The result is that there is a vicious bug in TB when it is set for TEXT
composition. This nasty bug disappears the moment you switch to HTML
composition.

I do not know how to tell the Thunderbird developers this problem.
Do you?

On 4/25/2023 12:49 PM, mike wrote:
> On 23-02-2023 06:28 mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> After all this time with Thunderbird hanging on me on composition windows,
> I think I accidentally got closer to where the thunderbird bug is located.
>
> When I was using Thunderbird (normal & beta) it was Thunderbird 110.0b4
> (64-bit) but I kept using the same profile and/or the same user setup.
>
> Multiple times I deleted Thunderbird and installed the latest Windows
> version and even the latest beta release, but they all hung up on the
> composition window. Every single time. MemoryHogs v1.45 & Nir Sofer
> WhatIsHang v1.27 both proved beyond any doubt that it was Thunderbird,
> and only Thunderbird, which was hanging up, on the composition window.
>
> But why?
>
> Someone suggested Thunderbird Portable, which I discounted for the longest
> time as it's still Thunderbird, isn't it? Anyway, in desperation, I finally
> installed the Thunderbird portable, and the hang went away (or so I
> thought) so I was happy to proudly declare that TB portable was the fix.
>
> The Thunderbird portable I'm using is 102.10.0 (64-bit) at the moment.
>
> With the Thunderbird portable, using a brand new profile that started out
> empty, Thunderbird no longer hung when I was in a composition window.
>
> Success, right?
> Well... no.
>
> After a few days of use on Portable with default settings, I turned off the
> HTML and went to TEXT and then kaboom! TB hung like before. Every time.
>
> When I switched from HTML back to TEXT, TB stopped hanging.
> So I think the bug is Thunderbird composition on TEXT only.
>
> But I need to test it further to be sure of that.
>
> The result is that there is a vicious bug in TB when it is set for TEXT
> composition. This nasty bug disappears the moment you switch to HTML
> composition.
>
> I do not know how to tell the Thunderbird developers this problem.
> Do you?

Do you think it could be this bug?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1812386

If so, that has been fixed in Betterbird, as mentioned here.
https://www.betterbird.eu/releasenotes/index.html

On 25-04-2023 12:29 AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:

> Do you think it could be this bug?
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1812386

Thank you for locating that Thunderbird text composition bug.
It sure sounds familiar. I don't remember if it was only long texts,
but normally I'm replying to people who replied to others, so the message
is by nature long at the start (although how long is long, I don't know).

This is the bug description, which I think is almost the same as mine.

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/109.0
Steps to reproduce:
Usually, my Thunderbird is configured to show only plain text ("View |
Message Body As | Plain Text" is selected). In a long thread I've received
an email that, when clicking it, it causes TB to hang up. This hang up does
not occur if I hide the message pane using F8 before selecting the message.
That way I managed to save the email as .eml file.
When now opening the .eml file using "File | Open | Saved Message", the
editor opens, but hang up TB again.
I have made an obfuscated version of the .eml file where the hang up also
reproduces. Though, I still don't want it to be publicly available.

The main difference between what but 1812386 and mine is that he's using
("View | Message Body As | Plain Text")
while I'm also using
("Tools | Account Settings | Composition & Addressing | Compose Messages in
HTML format = off).

Funny thing _just_ happened. I had memory hogs running in the background,
and the EXACT MOMENT I set that setting from checked to unchecked,
MemoryHogs popped up saying thunderbird.exe had hung!

It stopped being hung (and MemoryHogs went away) when I checked it again!
It seems like the Thunderbird developers have never tested their software
with the HTML composition turned off - which seems to be reproducible.

All they have to do is load a long message (about a page long) and then
turn the HTML account settings on and off and the hang happens immediately.

> If so, that has been fixed in Betterbird, as mentioned here.
> https://www.betterbird.eu/releasenotes/index.html

I really didn't want to change my mail user agent for the obvious reasons
of finger memory and the like, but I might have to if the developers
haven't even tested their own switches (which is seeming more clear now).

I don't even know what "Betterbird" is, nor "EM client" which wasbit had
suggested as a better Thunderbird replacement (https://www.emclient.com/).

Looking at BetterBird, it seems to be an offshoot of Thunderbird.
https://www.betterbird.eu/index.html

The claims for BetterBird seem to be a bit unbelievable, because if they
have fixes that Thunderbird does not have, I have to wonder why that is so?
"Betterbird is better than Thunderbird in three ways: It contains new
features exclusive to Betterbird, it contains bug fixes exclusive to
Betterbird and it contains fixes that Thunderbird may ship at a later
stage."

Luckily, it says it works off the same profile, so maybe the risk is low.
"You can install Betterbird at the same time as Thunderbird and run them
on the same profile. That means that you can try out Betterbird with zero
hassle, and go back to Thunderbird if you don't like it - which is
unlikely."

I installed it and will test it out alongside Thunderbird as they suggest.
Thank you for that suggestion, where I had NOT looked at any other MUA
until I realize the Thunderbird developers haven't tested Thunderbird with
the HTML switch off. They must have only tested the defaults but not that.

Which means the claim by BetterBird that Thunderbird isn't tested properly
may actually be correct given that this is very easy to reproduce for me.

On 26-04-2023 00:26 mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:

>> If so, that has been fixed in Betterbird, as mentioned here.
>> https://www.betterbird.eu/releasenotes/index.html
>
> Looking at BetterBird, it seems to be an offshoot of Thunderbird.
> https://www.betterbird.eu/index.html

So I install BetterBird, and lo and behold, in one way it _is_ better than
Thunderbird, so I think Thunderbird is a goner for me forever, as I really
don't want to learn another MUA if I don't have to do that just for bugs.

For reasons of simplicity, I opted for the portable TB replacement zip.
https://www.betterbird.eu/downloads/WindowsPortable/BetterbirdPortable-102.10.1-bb34.en-US.win64.zip
Name: BetterbirdPortable-102.10.1-bb34.en-US.win64.zip
Size: 79730830 bytes (76 MiB)
SHA256: 4FDCE96808F100CA482B912ED269E2EFF6D43157E33F17B360EEB6269036854B

When you first run BetterBird, just as it would have been with the
Thunderbird it replaces, Windows 10 will complain twice they MS doesn't
like it. Then it's ok. Then Google will complain about OAuth, but
BetterBird brings up a small web window allowing the OAuth to be created.

For reasons that should be obvious, I opted NOT to re-use the Thunderbird
profile, so now I have _three_ (yes three!) IMAP profiles on my system, one
for the original installed Thunderbird, another for the recent portable
Thunderbird, and now this third profile for the new portable BetterBird.

I had to reload the history.sqlite and abook.sqlite, having to reload them
multiple times because of the confusing versioning names of the format
abook-1.sqlite
abook-1.v2.sqlite
abook-1.v3.sqlite
abook.sqlite
abook.v2.sqlite
abook.v3.sqlite
history.sqlite
history.v2.sqlite
history.v3.sqlite

Why are there so many versions of these files anyway?
Oh well, I loaded them all (what do I know).

Then I ran a few compositions with the HTML setup in the default
configuration of (Tools | Account Settings | Composition & Addressing |
Compose messages in HTML format = checked) and it was nicely fast.

Then, after a while, I switched that to unchecked and it instantly got
noticebly slower during a composition. A lot slower. But it did not HANG!

That's the good news.
It didn't hang when I turned off HTML compositions.
But it did get a LOT slower (if you can notice it, that's a LOT!).

So the bug is still there but it's not as bad in BetterBird than in TB.

I may never use ThunderBird again so maybe what the BetterBird developers
said is true that they don't maintain Thunderbird anymore. I don't know.

I don't know if it matters but I have the defaults set still for BetterBird
(Tools | Settings | Composition | Sending Format = Automatic) as I really
don't care what the SENDING format is. I only care about COMPOSITION.

Right now here's my summary of what seems to be happening.
The latest Thunderbird has a vicious bug which negates TEXT composition.
The latest Betterbird is just a LOT slower when using TEXT composition.
Both are fast when using HTML composition.

That's all I know, but at this point, I think it's over for Thunderbird.

If they don't even bother to ever test the non-default settings, then it's
not the kind of software I want to waste more of my time trying to debug.

Can I still ask for help here if the help is about Betterbird and not TB?

On 26/04/2023 10:30, mike wrote:
> On 26-04-2023 00:26 mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> If so, that has been fixed in Betterbird, as mentioned here.
>>> https://www.betterbird.eu/releasenotes/index.html
>>
>> Looking at BetterBird, it seems to be an offshoot of Thunderbird.
>> https://www.betterbird.eu/index.html
>
> So I install BetterBird, and lo and behold, in one way it _is_ better than
> Thunderbird, so I think Thunderbird is a goner for me forever, as I really
> don't want to learn another MUA if I don't have to do that just for bugs.
>
[SNIP]
>
> Then I ran a few compositions with the HTML setup in the default
> configuration of (Tools | Account Settings | Composition & Addressing |
> Compose messages in HTML format = checked) and it was nicely fast.
>
> Then, after a while, I switched that to unchecked and it instantly got
> noticebly slower during a composition. A lot slower. But it did not HANG!
>
> That's the good news.
> It didn't hang when I turned off HTML compositions.
> But it did get a LOT slower (if you can notice it, that's a LOT!).
>
Nope, I can't see slow composition in Betterbird 102.10.0-bb33 (64-bit)
on my W10 box, but all my accounts have had "Compose messages in HTML
format" un-checked since sometime last century.

So, I wouldn't blame either, it is more likely to be something else on
your system.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On 25-04-2023 22:48 "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

> Nope, I can't see slow composition in Betterbird 102.10.0-bb33 (64-bit)
> on my W10 box, but all my accounts have had "Compose messages in HTML
> format" un-checked since sometime last century.
>
> So, I wouldn't blame either, it is more likely to be something else on
> your system.

It's good to know when you check and uncheck the HTML composition that you
don't see any slowdown/speedup in a long reply composition message.

I'm seeing a HANG in Thunderbird, and a slowdown in Betterbird, and there
is some indication that the HANG in Thunderbird is a bug (1812386).

I extremely doubt it's my system since NOTHING else hangs but Thunderbird.
And when I run Nir Sofer "WhatIsHang" it directly implicates Thunderbird.
So does MemoryHogs directly implicate Thunderbird every time it hangs.

So while it could be the phase of the moon or the alignment of the stars,
there is almost zero chance that it's not a bug in Thunderbird itself.

Now, it could be computer specific, but even then, there's absolutely no
error message from Thunderbird and now way that I know of to obtain a crash
log since Thunderbird doesn't crash. It just hangs. It's so slow as to be
unusable. It's not my fault as far as I can tell. It's just poor coding.

I've been asking for weeks how to debug this and I tried every viable
suggestion, so there isn't much more I can do to try to make TB work.

I think they just never tested Thunderbird outside of the default setup.

Having said that, it no longer matters I think because I'll never use
Thunderbird again, just like they said I would at the Betterbird site.

Now I do have a question about that decision though.
How did the Betterbird developers know that I would choose them over TB?

On 4/26/2023 12:30 AM, mike wrote:

> so there isn't much more I can do to try to make TB work.

Just for the record, HTML is not known for bounded behavior.

It is not the same as DTP. Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer
could allow you to draft your thoughts, with multi-media content,
with bounded behavior and decent (but not stellar) performance.
At work, we routinely did 500 page "books" with neither of the
above, with no trouble at all.

If you open the Yahoo News page and scroll down, at the end,
some of the pictures in the side-bars will be missing. Now,
close the browser. Open the Yahoo News page a second time.
Different pictures will be missing. Now, switch browsers,
open the Yahoo News page. Repeat. Compare your four results.
The four results are *different*.

This doesn't mean much of anything, except to say:

1) A DTP tool uses static constructs in the simplest cases.
This makes it stable and reproducible.
2) An HTML page is a "computer program". It has the potential of
being dynamic. You might have noticed for example, that printing
of dynamic page content fails, with the tool complaining "something
isn't loaded yet". You can't save a dynamic web page as
"Web Page Complete" if some part of it can't or won't load.

MIME email allows dual representations to be stored in the same email.
A text-only section, would work with my ancient Claris Emailer on
the old machine. If I received a mixed-mode email, my old Emailer
would display the text version. On an HTML mail tool, I would
see the HTML version (brown text on a purple background).

Maybe in the case of a mixed-mode composition, a person could
work in HTML space, and then the tool would need to convert
to make a text-only version for MIME construction. But since working
with HTML is "fraught" (the Yahoo News page), just as printing
can be borked, just about any operation can be borked by HTML.

Summary: Be careful what you wish for.
Use the tool for the intended purpose, not triggering
the limits of unbounded behavior. Switch to a DTP with
collaboration features (strike-thrus, doc versioning views)
for better control, send the DTP doc as an attachment to a
brief announcement email with broad change list.

I agree with the complaint that "but software should just work".
However, the HTML standards were designed for advertisers
and scum bags, not for normal people to use. There may be better
ways to get your message across.

If I needed to send my Bookmarks.html to a friend, I would make
an attachment from it. Rather than "plop into body text". This
makes it "ready to consume", outside the email tool.
Pauls-Sample-Bookmarks.html attached.

Seamonkey has Seamonkey Composer in the suite, for working
with HTML. But it is rather old, might be cranky, might not
solve any problems. Still, if you want to experiment, it's
available as a test.

Paul

On 25 Apr 2023, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote in
alt.comp.software.thunderbird:

> On 23-02-2023 06:28 mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> After all this time with Thunderbird hanging on me on composition
> windows, I think I accidentally got closer to where the
> thunderbird bug is located.
>
> When I was using Thunderbird (normal & beta) it was Thunderbird
> 110.0b4 (64-bit) but I kept using the same profile and/or the same
> user setup.
>
> Multiple times I deleted Thunderbird and installed the latest
> Windows version and even the latest beta release, but they all
> hung up on the composition window. Every single time. MemoryHogs
> v1.45 & Nir Sofer WhatIsHang v1.27 both proved beyond any doubt
> that it was Thunderbird, and only Thunderbird, which was hanging
> up, on the composition window.
>
> But why?
>
> Someone suggested Thunderbird Portable, which I discounted for the
> longest time as it's still Thunderbird, isn't it? Anyway, in
> desperation, I finally installed the Thunderbird portable, and the
> hang went away (or so I thought) so I was happy to proudly declare
> that TB portable was the fix.
>
> The Thunderbird portable I'm using is 102.10.0 (64-bit) at the
> moment.
>
> With the Thunderbird portable, using a brand new profile that
> started out empty, Thunderbird no longer hung when I was in a
> composition window.
>
> Success, right?
> Well... no.
>
> After a few days of use on Portable with default settings, I
> turned off the HTML and went to TEXT and then kaboom! TB hung like
> before. Every time.
>
> When I switched from HTML back to TEXT, TB stopped hanging.
> So I think the bug is Thunderbird composition on TEXT only.
>
> But I need to test it further to be sure of that.
>
> The result is that there is a vicious bug in TB when it is set for
> TEXT composition. This nasty bug disappears the moment you switch
> to HTML composition.
>
> I do not know how to tell the Thunderbird developers this problem.
> Do you?

If it's a bug, there must be some other additional extenuating factor,
something peculiar about your system, than just text composition. I
have mine set for text-only composition and have for many years and I
have never had the hangs you describe.