Rechercher dans l’assistance

Évitez les escroqueries à l’assistance. Nous ne vous demanderons jamais d’appeler ou d’envoyer un SMS à un numéro de téléphone ou de partager des informations personnelles. Veuillez signaler toute activité suspecte en utilisant l’option « Signaler un abus ».

En savoir plus

Saved searches dead in TB 102.5.

  • 3 réponses
  • 0 a ce problème
  • 3 vues
  • Dernière réponse par Wayne Mery

more options

I just upgraded from TB 91.something to 102.5. (No, I didn't install 102.0, I just upgraded in the usual in-app fashion.)

(1) My saved-search folders are non-functional -- just blank lines. (2) Even the Saved Search item on the File>New menu is completely absent. So I also can't create new ones.

(Help! One of these functions as my "true" inbox for virtually all incoming email.)

FWIW: Windows 10 (latest rev) on MS Surface Pro.

I just upgraded from TB 91.something to 102.5. (No, I didn't install 102.0, I just upgraded in the usual in-app fashion.) (1) My saved-search folders are non-functional -- just blank lines. (2) Even the Saved Search item on the File>New menu is completely absent. So I also can't create new ones. (Help! One of these functions as my "true" inbox for virtually all incoming email.) FWIW: Windows 10 (latest rev) on MS Surface Pro.

Modifié le par jmacauslan

Toutes les réponses (3)

more options

You will need to recreate them. Rename VirtualFolders.dat in your thunderbird profile.

more options

Thanks, Wayne! 1. Why in the world wasn't this documented, even by a week after the release? 2. Is the problem understood? A quick check shows that the old and new VirtualFolders.dat files (which are both text, and rather short) are extremely similar -- enough that surely at least a meaningful error message would have been feasible about whatever the incompatibility is.

more options

> 1. Why in the world wasn't this documented, even by a week after the release?

Because it is an uncommon problem, and we don't flag uncommon problems.

> 2. Is the problem understood? A quick check shows that the old and new VirtualFolders.dat files (which are both text, and rather short) are extremely similar -- enough that surely at least a meaningful error message would have been feasible about whatever the incompatibility is.

No, it is not well understood. Which is one reason why no additional corrective work has been possible.