[timmerk]

Hi,

Does anyone know if in Mail in 10.4, you can set separate auto checking times for each email account? For example, I have a few emails that I need checked every minute, while I want my gmail account checked every hour.

Thanks!

[SMacTech]

Not that I have seen and why do you need to check an email account every minute ?

[cpac]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
why do you need to check an email account every minute ?

Some places, instant responses are expected. Making somebody wait 5 minutes, before you even read, much less reply to their email can be rude or worse, if timing is important)

[timmerk]

Couple of reasons...

First, I go to school, and in one class, we have to do everything as groups. Sometimes we have emails that need to be addressed ASAP before a class, etc.

Another is I have a boss that expects replies within a minute of his email. He would say things like "call me now" etc. Why he doesn't just call me? I don't know.

[alphasubzero949]

Some departments will actually discipline you if they find out that you're pinging their mail servers more than once within 5 (even 10) minutes. Five minutes is reasonable.

Imagine if everyone had their clients set to check every minute. Not good for the mail servers, wouldn't you think?

[timmerk]

Yes, which is another reason I need to set different times for different emails.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Some departments will actually discipline you if they find out that you're pinging their mail servers more than once within 5 (even 10) minutes. Five minutes is reasonable.

Imagine if everyone had their clients set to check every minute. Not good for the mail servers, wouldn't you think?

Well as an email postmaster when I perused the mail logs and saw someone checking in every minute I politely asked them to go to a 5 minute interval, minimum.

Our corporate policy is to not rely on email communications for 'really important' stuff. I never considered it rude to not instantly reply to an email. There are often times when email sits in a queue on a mail server as well. I would hate to be disciplined because I didn't respond to an email quick enough [ i mean as in minutes ] because it was sitting on an email server for a minute or two or the DNS server hiccuped.

I was just curious as to why, not to say you shouldn't or can't or there aren't reasons for it.


And back on topic, I don't see it in Tiger.

[timmerk]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
Well as an email postmaster when I perused the mail logs and saw someone checking in every minute I politely asked them to go to a 5 minute interval, minimum.

Our corporate policy is to not rely on email communications for 'really important' stuff. I never considered it rude to not instantly reply to an email. There are often times when email sits in a queue on a mail server as well. I would hate to be disciplined because I didn't respond to an email quick enough [ i mean as in minutes ] because it was sitting on an email server for a minute or two or the DNS server hiccuped.

I was just curious as to why, not to say you shouldn't or can't or there aren't reasons for it.


And back on topic, I don't see it in Tiger.

Thanks, I hope they incorporate this feature sometime. As for reasons, see my posts above.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by cpac:
Some places, instant responses are expected.

That's what instant messaging is for.

[timmerk]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's what instant messaging is for.

Unless your employer prohibits this (all mine have, and they blocked it as well)

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by timmerk:
Unless your employer prohibits this (all mine have, and they blocked it as well)

I know it's not your fault and you can't change anything etc., but I have to say if your employer requires instant messaging (effectively by asking for 1 minute response times) and at the same time blocks it, he makes life for his employees unnecessarily harder than it could be.

Use the right tool for the right task.

[cpac]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
he makes life for his employees unnecessarily harder than it could be.

Like say, by using Windows?

Seems like this is a golden rule among employers.

[Moose]

Originally posted by cpac:
Like say, by using Windows?

I love your zealotry.

Windows has legitimate uses. So does Mac OS X. So does Solaris. And OS/400.

This "too cool for you" attitude is what keeps Macs out of the workplace.

[PurpleGiant]

I would like this also. And more options than 1, 5, 15 or 30 minutes. 10 would do me well.

Thing is, most of my accounts are fine on 10. But one account is pretty **** an gives errors if checked more than every 20 minutes. I don't want to set all my mail to check every 20, just for this account.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Moose:
I love your zealotry.

Windows has legitimate uses.

Yes, but I doubt the employer is playing frisbee with the discs.

Originally posted by Moose:
This "too cool for you" attitude is what keeps Macs out of the workplace.

I don't think so. It's the fact that Windows PC is a cheaper, entrenched platform that for most people is the only thing they're familiar with. In general, the "attitude" of parties not involved in the transaction isn't taken into account when making business purchases. At least at any moderately sane company.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Moose:
I love your zealotry.

Windows has legitimate uses. So does Mac OS X. So does Solaris. And OS/400.

This "too cool for you" attitude is what keeps Macs out of the workplace.

Yeah, and the Intel/AMD fanboys with the "Jooo P3nt1u/\/\ 4 rul3z & r0x0rz! Teh M4C sux0rz!" is what helps propagate Windows in the business world.

My employer placed a Windows box on my desk. I've since replaced it with an older & slower Mac, and surprisingly I'm more productive. Go figure.

[omar96]

10.4 mail? This wouldn't be a Tiger support thread would it?

[timmerk]

Originally posted by omar96:
10.4 mail? This wouldn't be a Tiger support thread would it?

This is not support. I was asking if it had a feature.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by omar96:
10.4 mail? This wouldn't be a Tiger support thread would it?

No. He's simply asking a feature-related question (for anyone who feels like violating their NDA to answer).

A support question would be more like, "how do I set Mail in 10.4 to check for new mail every minute?"

[omar96]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
No. He's simply asking a feature-related question (for anyone who feels like violating their NDA to answer).

A support question would be more like, "how do I set Mail in 10.4 to check for new mail every minute?"

Ah, OK...just sounded like to me that he wanted a how-to as well. I tend to read into questions, maybe more than necessary.

[timmerk]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
No. He's simply asking a feature-related question (for anyone who feels like violating their NDA to answer).

A support question would be more like, "how do I set Mail in 10.4 to check for new mail every minute?"

Amen! :-D

[cla]

If it's surprising that this thread got 20 posts in 2 hours,
what do I call the fact that it went into a Mac<->Win discussion after 12 posts?

Carpe diem guys...

[cpac]

Originally posted by Moose:
I love your zealotry.

Windows has legitimate uses. So does Mac OS X. So does Solaris. And OS/400.

This "too cool for you" attitude is what keeps Macs out of the workplace.

(1) wasn't expressing zealotry - just cynicism.
(2) Windows has it's legitimate uses, though I do think the single largest reason is that "everybody else does" which is lousy. If it weren't for that fact, I doubt there'd be much reason to use Windows.
(3) As Chuckit pointed out - "attitude" has absolutely nothing to do with it. The reason Macs are not used in the workplace has everything to do with IT investment and intertia. Given the option to start fresh, without the costs of "switching," (including, importantly, not relying on the advice of people who make their living supporting windows), I think a much larger percentage of businesses would choose Macs.

[Boondoggle]

Originally posted by Moose:


Windows has legitimate uses. So does Mac OS X. So does Solaris. And OS/400.

This "too cool for you" attitude is what keeps Macs out of the workplace.

I'll agree with the first part, and to some extent the first part is more of a factor in keeping Macs out of the workplace than the attitude of Mac users... Who aren't even on the radar of most IT departments.

Inertia, ignorance, perceived cost, some incompatibilities and custom apps are more factors than any Mac user's attitude.


bd

[Big Mac]

If you're expecting something and cannot wait for the auto-check, choose to Get Mail manually. Since Mail is AppleScript aware I imagine you could script a solution, too.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Since Mail is AppleScript aware I imagine you could script a solution, too.

Good idea! I'm sure you could write a script that checks specific accounts; and since OS X is Unix, you can have the script run every minute or two as a "cron" job.

If you go to a technical Mac forum, you can probably find someone to write these scripts for you; I suppose it's trivial to do if you know Applescript.

[Big Mac]

[double post]

[Millennium]

If you need instant response, then you should really be using instant messaging of some kind. If security is a concern then you can set up your own Jabber server and run it over SSL; that way only the people you want to be able to talk in the group will be able to do so, and everything will be nice and encrypted. Jabber clients are available for basically every platform, so you'd be good to go.

Checking e-mail once a minute is not only bad etiquette, but there are IT departments who will actually punish you for doing this sort of thing. E-mail isn't actually meant as an instant-response mechanism, and it's not suited to that task.

[cpac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you need instant response, then you should really be using instant messaging of some kind. If security is a concern then you can set up your own Jabber server and run it over SSL; that way only the people you want to be able to talk in the group will be able to do so, and everything will be nice and encrypted. Jabber clients are available for basically every platform, so you'd be good to go.

Yes - but try as you might, some IT departments refuse to allow IMs. We aren't talking about how things *should* work, just aobut how they do, and how best to get along in the (admittedly illogical) world of certain computing environments.

Checking e-mail once a minute is not only bad etiquette, but there are IT departments who will actually punish you for doing this sort of thing. E-mail isn't actually meant as an instant-response mechanism, and it's not suited to that task.

Agreed - yet, again, there are lots of places which refuse to resolve these conflicts.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Millennium:
E-mail isn't actually meant as an instant-response mechanism, and it's not suited to that task.

however, so many people think email is instantaneous.

Recently, when talking to a sales rep in the field, I asked a question, and he replied he hadn't received an email response regarding the situation at hand. The situation was very important and we came to find out our email server was blacklisted by being victim of being in an IP block range that includes one of a spammer.

The sales rep picked up the phone and had an answer immediately.

There are reasons why the corporation instructs its employees from relying on email for important communications.

On the other hand, I can't tell you how many times a copy of an email saved my butt, whereas if it were a conversation on the phone, I had no proof of the communication.

We allowed IMs but actively monitored who was using them as many of our business contacts we worked with, used it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cpac:
Yes - but try as you might, some IT departments refuse to allow IMs.

They don't let them outside the firewall they administer, but very few are as picky about what goes on inside the firewall. That's why I suggested Jabber; you can get servers and clients for almost every operating system out there, and so someone could set up one on their own workstation. End result: instant messaging with everyone in the group, completely inside the firewall.

The IT department will eventually catch on, of course, but since it's all inside the firewall and you can demonstrate genuine need, it is unlikely that you will have problems.

[LightWaver-67]

First of all... forgive me... I started reading this thread up until it turned a sharp tangent, so I just skipped to the end.

Second... I never really thought about the "other" side of things, i.e. the Mail Server. I have MY mail set to check every minute since I work from home and ALSO need to recv & respond to some communications in a very timely manner. I had not idea about the negative impact on the server. Good to know. This begs the question; If it's so inappropriate... why is it one f the options in the pull-down...?

Lastly... Does anyone know if some OTHER mail features may be in the next release...? Like Priorities... or receipts...?

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
This begs the question; If it's so inappropriate... why is it one f the options in the pull-down...?

It depends on the situation and the server involved.

Someone may have the need, the hardware to support the need and the server doesn't provide service to hundreds or thousands of people checking their email ALL at once, every minute.

POP email isn't so bad, but when it comes to the traffic involved in IMAP servers, several hundred users all checking their mail at once can easily overwhelm the server. Especially if the server is getting slammed with SPAM. Then add in virus checking and rules for delivery and at that point, email could easily get backed up in a queue, delaying its delivery, etc.

The bandwidth too could easily cause headaches for other users who only periodically check email, or not as often.

[cpac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
They don't let them outside the firewall they administer, but very few are as picky about what goes on inside the firewall. That's why I suggested Jabber; you can get servers and clients for almost every operating system out there, and so someone could set up one on their own workstation. End result: instant messaging with everyone in the group, completely inside the firewall.

In my case, ordinary users don't have the correct permissions to install any software at all, and so you'd have to get the IT department on board first.

Again, it's not that I don't think IM is the much better solution, it is; it's just that many places are reluctant to allow use of new technologies, much less embrace or support those technologies. (and yes, IM isn't exactly "new" but hey - by some corporate standards...)

[Webscreamer]

Since we are on the 10.4 Mail topic(well slightly off), but will Mail support HTML email messages? Where I can can copy and paste an HTML document in there and it won't be plain text.

Thanks

[ihealth]

Originally posted by timmerk:
Hi,

Does anyone know if in Mail in 10.4, you can set separate auto checking times for each email account? For example, I have a few emails that I need checked every minute, while I want my gmail account checked every hour.

Thanks!

Well under Mail version 2.0 (708) and 8A385, the simple answer is no, however I will add that this build is getting very close.

[timmerk]

Originally posted by ihealth:
Well under Mail version 2.0 (708) and 8A385, the simple answer is no, however I will add that this build is getting very close.

Getting very close to what? having the feature I want? or very close to the final, meaning the features won't be in there?

thanks

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Webscreamer:
Since we are on the 10.4 Mail topic(well slightly off), but will Mail support HTML email messages? Where I can can copy and paste an HTML document in there and it won't be plain text.

Thanks

Apple's own documents somewhere states that Mail 2.0 will be able to properly handle sending html messages. I couldn't find it, it may have been in a newsletter for ADC members.

[Mithras]

I'm loving all the helpful people in this thread saying, "You don't want to do that. Use the phone. Use IM. Don't do that."

Well geniuses, it's already an option in Mail.app to set 1-minute checking interval. The question, one I would also like answered, is whether there's hope for setting different accounts for different intervals.

In my workplace, everyone is logged in to Unix servers, so you usually get an instantaneous "You have new mail" at the bash prompt. This encourages people to have the "instantaneous delivery" expectation. So for that account only, I would indeed like to set 1-minute checking. But being a good citizen, I do not want to set my other accounts to 1-minute checking.

Hence, I support timmerk's inquiry, and the "what the **** would you do that for" crowd can buzz off.

[ihealth]

Originally posted by timmerk:
Getting very close to what? having the feature I want? or very close to the final, meaning the features won't be in there?

thanks

I'll clarify what I said NO it will not allow you to set different times for checking multiple accounts, all accounts get checked at whatever interval you set.
This build is probably the first beta, so its very close to being final

[Turnpike]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I'm loving all the helpful people in this thread saying, "You don't want to do that. Use the phone. Use IM. Don't do that."

Well geniuses, it's already an option in Mail.app to set 1-minute checking interval. The question, one I would also like answered, is whether there's hope for setting different accounts for different intervals.

In my workplace, everyone is logged in to Unix servers, so you usually get an instantaneous "You have new mail" at the bash prompt. This encourages people to have the "instantaneous delivery" expectation. So for that account only, I would indeed like to set 1-minute checking. But being a good citizen, I do not want to set my other accounts to 1-minute checking.

Hence, I support timmerk's inquiry, and the "what the **** would you do that for" crowd can buzz off.

well, you could try reading the thread. That's what I did.

Or, you could read it a little while and then skip the rest, followed by asking the initial question again.

If your aim wasn't to ask the question again but to just tell off the people who added extra information to the discussion... well, threads are meant to be discussions. It sucks when a thread gets derailed and the original question is never answered, but that was not the case here. There was an answer, there was extra information given to help enlighten people beyond what they would have gotten with a simple "no" answer, and discussion followed.

[siMac]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Like Priorities... or receipts...?

In my experience, priorities is one of those 'nice idea, shame it doesn't work' features. People who are aware of it tend to mark all their mail as high priority in a cunning ploy to get their requests dealt with sooner, thereby negating its usefulness.

Receipts, however, have their uses.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I'm loving all the helpful people in this thread saying, "You don't want to do that. Use the phone. Use IM. Don't do that."

Well geniuses, it's already an option in Mail.app to set 1-minute checking interval. The question, one I would also like answered, is whether there's hope for setting different accounts for different intervals.

In my workplace, everyone is logged in to Unix servers, so you usually get an instantaneous "You have new mail" at the bash prompt. This encourages people to have the "instantaneous delivery" expectation. So for that account only, I would indeed like to set 1-minute checking. But being a good citizen, I do not want to set my other accounts to 1-minute checking.

Hence, I support timmerk's inquiry, and the "what the **** would you do that for" crowd can buzz off.

I only asked why he needed to do that, and never said he shouldn't and pointed out why in some environments, ie... corporate ones, where checking email every minute could be a bane to other users.

As a postmaster of a relatively small email server, I saw first hand what can happen to email on its way to the recipient and how the instantaneous need was not provided as expected.

I too answered the question of the OP in my first post and posed a question in my reply because I was curious. As to using the phone or IM and its results compared to email, you be the judge.

It doesn't matter if its a UNIX, Windows, Mac or Linux email server. They DO get congested and they don't provide instantaneous delivery that many expect.

I guess providing information from experience in the real world coins us geniuses. Nice !!

[LightWaver-67]

I understand your point about "Priorities"... but in my experience and in the primary circles of people I will interact with... it hasn't been a problem in the past.

The last place I worked had Outlook (Express?) for Mac and that feature was quite useful... especially when email correspondence was used for so many things. You could spend 2-hours in a meeting and return to an inbox with 45 new messages. It was helpful to see the "timely" correspondence that needed immediate attention marked as such.

I also see the potential for non-work-related acquaintances who think their amusing anecdote or forwarded joke-spam is extremely "urgent" to read right away... but those are few in my experience and can be corrected with a polite request to "not" do it in the future.

Now... receipts... some would call that an invasion of privacy. But if it is an "option" in the user pref's to NOT allow the sender to be notified of the message being read, then I think all-bases have been covered.

QUESTION: Would the use of receipt technology allow "Spammers" to validate an email address if the technology were enabled...? If so... then I could see the reason for NOT wanting it enabled.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:

QUESTION: Would the use of receipt technology allow "Spammers" to validate an email address if the technology were enabled...? If so... then I could see the reason for NOT wanting it enabled.

Yes, it certainly does if you read the email. it's like saying I am here. Another way to get validated is to download images when reading an email.

[LightWaver-67]

Well... if that's the case... then I can see a huge reason for NOT wanting it.

As it is, I turn-off the ability to view linked Grfx and HTML in mail so it doesn't "hit" the server and validate my email(s). But maybe receipts can be more "Passive"... similar to how Mail.app will "Ask" if I want to view the embedded images or not. So if I deactivate automatic transmission of receipts, I will get a button above the preview of any email requesting a receipt that will allow me to choose whether or not I return a status to the sender.

Did that make sense...?

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Well... if that's the case... then I can see a huge reason for NOT wanting it.

As it is, I turn-off the ability to view linked Grfx and HTML in mail so it doesn't "hit" the server and validate my email(s). But maybe receipts can be more "Passive"... similar to how Mail.app will "Ask" if I want to view the embedded images or not. So if I deactivate automatic transmission of receipts, I will get a button above the preview of any email requesting a receipt that will allow me to choose whether or not I return a status to the sender.

Did that make sense...?

I would think some kind of whitelist would be created to allow receipts to be returned, should you want to enable the feature. A feature to provide an option, like an accept cookies in a browser, that notifies a request receipt is enclosed, and what do you want to do.

mail.app wouldn't provide a receipt for example to what it considers junk mail or mail who have filtered by rules.

Many new users do not know about turning off images in html email. Then they read the spam and wonder why they continually get more.

[LightWaver-67]

Well.. I can't resist the urge to derail this topic to rant just for a second about the travesty of the current state of the internet and email. The frickin' mentality that exists: "Hey, even if we get ONE sale from the 2,000,000 emails sent... it was worth it!"

It's pretty darn sad that as of now (9:16 am) I already have 27 "Junk" emails that Mail.app has filtered... and I've manually deleted 3 that sneak-in under the radar because of their "clever" (yeah, right) use of text. No, I don't need any V ia GRa or Cia ll is.

* sigh *

Okay... back on-topic.

I know we cannot change the current status of Inter-Marketing... but it does s*ck that we must abandon features we have grown to enjoy... because of net-citizens that overtly abuse the technologies.

I cannot wait to get my hands on the newly upgraded, updated Mail.app in Tiger.

[LightWaver-67]

BTW... I, too, would like the feature of selecting various intervals for checking email accounts. I would set my Verizon account to every minute, my .Mac account to every 5 minutes and my remaining accounts to every 15 minutes.

[Boondoggle]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Well.. I can't resist the urge to derail this topic to rant just for a second about the travesty of the current state of the internet and email. The frickin' mentality that exists: "Hey, even if we get ONE sale from the 2,000,000 emails sent... it was worth it!"

It's pretty darn sad that as of now (9:16 am) I already have 27 "Junk" emails that Mail.app has filtered... and I've manually deleted 3 that sneak-in under the radar because of their "clever" (yeah, right) use of text. No, I don't need any V ia GRa or Cia ll is.

* sigh *

I've got a .mac email address I've had for years that gets virtually no spam... I don't know if .mac filters well before it gets to me, but I'm really happy with the spam rate on that account. Of course I've never posted that email address on any web sites... or Newsgroups... My work address and a few other "spares" that I have are terrible spam-magnets.