<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Firefox 2.0.0.1 RC1 And Thunderbird 2.0 Beta RC1 Available</title> <atom:link href="http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/</link> <description>Technology News</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 23:23:45 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Ryan</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49061</link> <dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:55:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49061</guid> <description>I&#039;m surprised you notice that much of a difference. There were more than 100 bug fixes I think but nothing I have noticed so far.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised you notice that much of a difference. There were more than 100 bug fixes I think but nothing I have noticed so far.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Lebowski</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49057</link> <dc:creator>Lebowski</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:48:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49057</guid> <description>2.0.0.1 runs hell of alot better than 2.0.  Its a very very nice surprise</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2.0.0.1 runs hell of alot better than 2.0.  Its a very very nice surprise</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ryan</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49054</link> <dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:29:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49054</guid> <description>&lt;div id=&quot;commentquote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-49034&quot;&gt;CoryC wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#039;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt; Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express don&#039;t play very nice together. I recently decided to try out Outlook 2007 because I have never used it before. I have to admit that it is pretty nice but it took me a long long time to get my emails moved over from Thunderbird.&lt;div id=&quot;commentquote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-49046&quot;&gt;SLA wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! :) I had to drop my &quot;The Bat!&quot; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &quot;Baesian&quot; spam protection didn&#039;t filter spam well. And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt; Thunderbird&#039;s spam filter didn&#039;t seem to do a good enough job for me and that is one of the reasons I switched to Outlook (as mentioned above). The most common that passed the filter were written in either Japanese or Chinese (I&#039;m not sure which one) but they were quite annoying. Outlook catches them with no problem at all.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-49034">CoryC wrote:</a><br /><blockquote>Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#8217;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.</p></blockquote></div><p>Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express don&#8217;t play very nice together. I recently decided to try out Outlook 2007 because I have never used it before. I have to admit that it is pretty nice but it took me a long long time to get my emails moved over from Thunderbird.</p><div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-49046">SLA wrote:</a><br /><blockquote>Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! <img src='http://cybernetnews.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br /> I had to drop my &#8220;The Bat!&#8221; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &#8220;Baesian&#8221; spam protection didn&#8217;t filter spam well.<br /> And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.</p></blockquote></div><p>Thunderbird&#8217;s spam filter didn&#8217;t seem to do a good enough job for me and that is one of the reasons I switched to Outlook (as mentioned above). The most common that passed the filter were written in either Japanese or Chinese (I&#8217;m not sure which one) but they were quite annoying. Outlook catches them with no problem at all.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: SLA</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49046</link> <dc:creator>SLA</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:09:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49046</guid> <description>Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! :) I had to drop my &quot;The Bat!&quot; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &quot;Baesian&quot; spam protection didn&#039;t filter spam well. And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thunderbird built-in spam protection is perfect! <img src='http://cybernetnews.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br /> I had to drop my &#8220;The Bat!&#8221; mailer (which is very good mailer), because its &#8220;Baesian&#8221; spam protection didn&#8217;t filter spam well.<br /> And I like Thunderbird 2.0, it is much better than 1.5.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: CoryC</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49034</link> <dc:creator>CoryC</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:31:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/06/firefox-2001-rc1-and-thunderbird-20-beta-rc1-available/#comment-49034</guid> <description>Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#039;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never liked Thunderbird.  It never would imports my contact list from Outlook.  Also, I couldn&#8217;t get it to connect to my web sites email server.  Outlook, Outlook Express and MS newest mail client (I forget the name) connected without any problems.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 251/272 objects using disk: basic

Served from: cybernetnews.com @ 2012-05-26 18:40:48 -->
