InformAction Forums

For me its not that I am not having the problem, as I am sure its the case with many, but rather that I don't use Yahoo webmail enough (if ever at all) to have the issue come up. I have full faith that the problem is happening and appreciate someone sticking with it in the face of so many negative positions to it, because what if one day it becomes my problem, I would have wanted it resolved.

So Tom, don't assume that because others are not "SAYING" they are having the problem, that they don't or won't, just simply could suggest they don't use it as heavily to run into the problem, especially that it is not consistently reproducible, or they just don't want to step up and get involved when someone is doing the runaround for them already.

Don't be discouraged and I have been following this for a while and was looking forward to having it be resolved. But much like many of my own problems, it comes a point where accepting to let it go is easier than to try to make everyone see the problem is real. Let it happen to someone else and then have them bring it up, probably get fixed then.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:... But much like many of my own problems, it comes a point where accepting to let it go is easier than to try to make everyone see the problem is real.

Exactly.

Let it happen to someone else and then have them bring it up, probably get fixed then.

Agree. But the fact that it's so random still leads me to suspect that Yahoo might just be doing some random security checking according to some algorithm that of course they don't want to make public. But they could still just say, "We do that randomly for your security."

I can't correlate it to *anything* else; can't make it happen at will; happens on two completely different Fx (2.20 and 3.5.3), have tried various combinations of allowing and disallowing, etc. And it started happening several months before it was posted here. I didn't post because I assumed it was Yahoo random checks. Anyway, right, let it go unless/until someone else posts about it. Cheers.

IMO, it is not about Tom (or someone else) dropping the issue, it is just that the issue he is seeing appears to be different from what others were experiencing (& no longer experience) since that one particular point in time.

I'm sure when/if the problem can present itself in a repeatable manner it will present itself here again.

therube wrote:IMO, it is not about Tom (or someone else) dropping the issue, it is just that the issue he is seeing appears to be different from what others were experiencing (& no longer experience) since that one particular point in time.

Agree.

therube wrote:I'm sure when/if the problem can present itself in a repeatable manner it will present itself here again.

Agree with that also, but part of the problem was that the problem was random and unreproducible at will -- and those are the toughest to nail down, of course. Another reason to let it go, unless it becomes repeatable, as you said. And as mentioned, it does seem to be happening much less frequently than before, although still happening. If I can ever figure out a correlation or trigger, of course I'll post it. Cheers.

Agreed, and that's what I was trying to say. That he shouldn't get discouraged, when the problem surfaces again, and others bring it up, it will hopefully get fixed. Meant no offense or hidden jab by it, it was a sincere and innocent attempt to leave the matter with some degree of closure I guess.