Deleting mail causes old messages appearing as unread

POP Peeper: Tech support, suggestions, discussion, etc.
Post Reply
MC_Kejml
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:59 pm

Deleting mail causes old messages appearing as unread

Post by MC_Kejml »

Hey guys,

whenever I delete X messages straight from PP, after next mail check it shows the bottom X messages in the mentioned mailbox as unread.

This happened on versions 4.0 and then on the newest, 4.4.

Repro steps:
1) In PP, delete a message from Mailbox 1
2) Wait until the next mailcheck / mailcheck man ually
3) In PP, observe the oldest message in Mailbox 1 appearing as unread.

Could you advise me what I am doing wrong? Thank you!

P.S.: Is there something like a list of sent messages in PP? I see only Inbox, Draft and Outbox .
User avatar
mjs
Moderator
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: Deleting mail causes old messages appearing as unread

Post by mjs »

Are these accounts using either the POP3 or IMAP protocol (Server type) in combination with the "POP/IMAP message limit" set to a value other than "0" in main menu: "Tools" > "Options" > "Message Retrieval"?

I ask this because under POP Peeper "Help" > "Message Retrieval" in regards to the "POP3/IMAP message" option you will find the following explanation:
This option will limit the number of messages that are returned for POP3 and IMAP servers (0 = All).
Note that using this feature is only recommended in certain circumstances. A side-effect of this feature is that old messages may appear as new/unread, as in the following example: If you set a limit for 100 messages and you receive a new message, the 100 message falls to 101 and out of POP Peeper's scope; if you then delete a message, the 101st message comes back into POP Peeper's scope (now message #100) and POP Peeper may consider it a new message. To prevent this side-effect, it is recommended that you define a rule that ignores messges older than a certain age (available in the "Pro" version).
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
MC_Kejml
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: Deleting mail causes old messages appearing as unread

Post by MC_Kejml »

lakrsrool wrote:Are these accounts using either the POP3 or IMAP protocol (Server type) in combination with the "POP/IMAP message limit" set to a value other than "0" in main menu: "Tools" > "Options" > "Message Retrieval"?
Yep - I set 100, since I thought downloading all the messages hogs up a lot of memory. Is this correct?
User avatar
Jeff
Admin / Developer
Posts: 9425
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 9:46 pm

Re: Deleting mail causes old messages appearing as unread

Post by Jeff »

Not as of POP Peeper v4.4:
http://www.esumsoft.com/products/pop-pe ... onhistory/
- "Database and memory optimization"
MC_Kejml
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: Deleting mail causes old messages appearing as unread

Post by MC_Kejml »

lakrsrool wrote:Are these accounts using either the POP3 or IMAP protocol (Server type) in combination with the "POP/IMAP message limit" set to a value other than "0" in main menu: "Tools" > "Options" > "Message Retrieval"?

I ask this because under POP Peeper "Help" > "Message Retrieval" in regards to the "POP3/IMAP message" option you will find the following explanation:
This option will limit the number of messages that are returned for POP3 and IMAP servers (0 = All).
Note that using this feature is only recommended in certain circumstances. A side-effect of this feature is that old messages may appear as new/unread, as in the following example: If you set a limit for 100 messages and you receive a new message, the 100 message falls to 101 and out of POP Peeper's scope; if you then delete a message, the 101st message comes back into POP Peeper's scope (now message #100) and POP Peeper may consider it a new message. To prevent this side-effect, it is recommended that you define a rule that ignores messges older than a certain age (available in the "Pro" version).
I have completely forgot about this. Thanks!
Post Reply