gmane.mail.imap.binc.general archive

365 archived articles, newest first (page 3 of 4). Latest articles →

Re: [binc] problem with 1.2.13 (freebsd port) - core dumped on signal 10
Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:03:16 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3761
Re: [binc] problem with 1.2.13 (freebsd port) - core dumped on signal 10
Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:04:13 +0200
Andrea Riela <[email protected]> • #3760
Re: [binc] problem with 1.2.13 (freebsd port) - core dumped on signal 10
Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:09:07 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3759
[binc] problem with 1.2.13 (freebsd port) - core dumped on signal 10
Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:51:30 +0200
Andrea Riela <[email protected]> • #3758
Re: [binc] Dump files in /tmp
Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:44:50 +0200
Nádaski Dávid <[email protected]> • #3757
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:42:29 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3756
Re: [binc] Dump files in /tmp
Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:36:14 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3755
Re: [binc] Migrating from POP to IMAP
Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:14:39 -0400
John Simpson <[email protected]> • #3754
Re: [binc] Migrating from POP to IMAP
Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:18:43 +0900
David Leangen <[email protected]> • #3753
Re: [binc] Dump files in /tmp
Fri, 2 Sep 2005 23:43:34 +0200
Nádaski Dávid <[email protected]> • #3752
Re: [binc] Dump files in /tmp
Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:45:59 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3751
Re: [binc] Dump files in /tmp
Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:26:04 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3750
[binc] Dump files in /tmp
Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:51:22 +0200
Nádaski Dávid <[email protected]> • #3749
Re: [binc] Migrating from POP to IMAP
Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:16:34 -0400
John Simpson <[email protected]> • #3748
Re: [binc] Migrating from POP to IMAP
Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:14:46 -0400
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3747
[binc] Migrating from POP to IMAP
Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:50:31 +0900
David Leangen <[email protected]> • #3746
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:34:44 +0200 (CEST)
[email protected] • #3745
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:14 -0400
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3744
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:38:10 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3743
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:44:59 -0400
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3742
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:10:58 +0200 (CEST)
[email protected] • #3741
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:45:32 +0200
"Hasse Hagen Johansen" <[email protected]> • #3740
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3739
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:18:15 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3738
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:21:12 -0700
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3737
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:52:46 -0400
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3736
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:42:02 -0500
Gary <[email protected]> • #3735
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:48:12 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3734
Re: [binc] CREATE failed: With a Maildir++
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:35:28 +0200
Gilles <[email protected]> • #3733
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:18:11 -0400
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3732
Re: [binc] My unofficial patches for binc
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:52:55 -0400
"Henry Baragar" <[email protected]> • #3731
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:09:16 +0200
Thomas Schwinge <[email protected]> • #3730
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:28:47 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3729
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:16:08 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3728
Re: [binc] My unofficial patches for binc
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:13:42 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3727
Re: [binc] Binc list protection.
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:07:14 -0400 (EDT)
"Hezekiah M. Carty" <[email protected]> • #3726
[binc] Binc list protection.
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:24:24 -0700
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3725
Re: [binc] My unofficial patches for binc
Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:20:54 +0100
Torgeir Veimo <[email protected]> • #3724
My unofficial patches for binc
Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:13:18 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3723
Re: [binc] CREATE failed: With a Maildir++
Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:33:48 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3722
[binc] CREATE failed: With a Maildir++
Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:23:53 +0200
Gilles <[email protected]> • #3721
[binc] PayPal Account Security Measures.
Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:17:56 -0700
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> • #3720
[binc] Limited Account
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:53:10 -0400
[email protected] • #3719
[binc] spurious login failed message on session timeout
Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:45:02 +1000
Andy Gayton <[email protected]> • #3718
Re: Fw: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:37:04 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3717
Fw: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:14:41 +0800
"Wind Dong" <[email protected]> • #3716
Re: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:40:37 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3715
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:59:00 +1000
Andy Gayton <[email protected]> • #3714
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:56:10 -0400
"Henry Baragar" <[email protected]> • #3713
Re: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:33:18 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3712
Re: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:32:57 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3711
Re: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:41:29 +0800 (CST)
[email protected] • #3710
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:13:48 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3709
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:21:15 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3708
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:01:39 +0200
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> • #3707
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:55:05 -0700
Bob Van Zant <[email protected]> • #3706
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:09:12 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3705
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:27:15 -0700
Bob Van Zant <[email protected]> • #3704
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:04:53 -0700
Bob Van Zant <[email protected]> • #3703
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:37:24 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3702
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:22:50 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3701
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:34:09 -0700
Bob Van Zant <[email protected]> • #3700
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Tue, 9 Aug 2005 02:15:26 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3699
Re: [binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Tue, 9 Aug 2005 02:03:33 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3698
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:57:27 -0700
Bob Van Zant <[email protected]> • #3697
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:07:36 -0400
John Simpson <[email protected]> • #3696
[binc] IMAPdir with qmail-ldap
Tue, 9 Aug 2005 04:48:43 +0800
"wind dong" <[email protected]> • #3695
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:41:49 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3694
Re: [binc] Implementation schedule for 1.4?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:13:55 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3693
Re: [binc] Implementation schedule for 1.4?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:33:03 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3692
Re: [binc] Implementation schedule for 1.4?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:23:27 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3691
Re: [binc] Implementation schedule for 1.4?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:02:05 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3690
Re: [binc] Implementation schedule for 1.4?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:46:35 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3689
[binc] Implementation schedule for 1.4?
Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:38:36 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3688
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:29:32 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3687
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:03:02 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3686
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:05:30 +0200
Peter Stuge <[email protected]> • #3685
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:21:09 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3684
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:11:41 -0700
Bob Van Zant <[email protected]> • #3683
[binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:22:12 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3682
Re: [binc] Re: Message from TiVo
Fri, 5 Aug 2005 21:21:02 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3681
[binc] Re: Message from TiVo
Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:58:03 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3680
Re: [binc] Error - is is client or server?
Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:53:06 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3679
Re: [binc] Error - is is client or server?
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:32:25 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3678
Re: [binc] Error - is is client or server?
Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:35:53 -0700
Jeremy Kitchen <[email protected]> • #3677
Re: [binc] Error - is it client or server?
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:30:31 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3676
[binc] Error - is it client or server?
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:25:56 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3675
[binc] Error - is is client or server?
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:25:48 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3674
Re: [binc] Build from src RPM with ssl/
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:27:13 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3673
Re: [binc] Build from src RPM with ssl/
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:08:01 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3672
Re: [binc] Build from src RPM with ssl/
Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3671
[binc] Build from src RPM with ssl/
Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:49:07 +0100
Robin Bowes <[email protected]> • #3670
Re: [binc] program HOOKS - feature request?
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:10:06 -0400
"Kenneth Lyons" <[email protected]> • #3669
Re: [binc] program HOOKS - feature request?
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:24:29 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3668
Re: [binc] "Lost" folders with Thunderbird [solved]
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:15:17 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3667
Re: [binc] program HOOKS - feature request? (direct)
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:15:00 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3666
Re: [binc] program HOOKS - feature request?
Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:56:38 -0500
Kyle Wheeler <[email protected]> • #3665
Re: [binc] "Lost" folders with Thunderbird [solved]
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:16:38 +0200
Raphael Studer <[email protected]> • #3664
[binc] Re: bincimap 1.2.13final maybe isn't..
Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:31:11 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[email protected]> • #3663
Re: [binc] program HOOKS - feature request?
Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:29:00 +0200
Jerry Lundström <[email protected]> • #3662
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.