And seriously, why doesn't McAfee monitor this community website. Their lack of interest tells everyone that they really do not give a sh!t.
What is interesting is I use TB and Mcafee 12.6 (same as 12.1 except for debugging code) and I see no slow down at all. I did have major issues by not compacting all folders regularly but this would not be affected by Mcafee so is another issue.
I did bring up where the testing is and seems they have not prioritized the issue high so it is in limbo.
Have you uninstalled TB and reinstalled it also what OS are you running. What Mcafee version if you mentioned this before please repeat
Will try to gather more info here and rechase them up.Mcafee wnats logs so any you interested in helping?
Message was edited by: Peacekeeper on 8/05/13 7:18:01 PMMessage was edited by: Peacekeeper on 8/05/13 7:21:42 PM
Thanks Tony. It's rare for McAfee staff to actually be here but he will try for you. Miked215 - If you contact Tech Support yourself again ask for immediate escalation. She was obviously only doing what she has been trained to do. As it's a known issue escalation is the only way to go.
Meanwhile Tony has asked internally for some help here.Message was edited by: Ex_Brit on 08/05/13 5:39:45 EDT AM
I feel your pain. I have been dealing with this using the solution I posted originally, disabling scanning of email. Had another problem recently were McAfee decided all of my email was spam and was moving everything to a spam folder. So I disabled another McAfee feature. My subscription is up for renewal and so I like many others will be searching for a new solution to this problem. I am a bit heart broken that my reliable solution for so many years has failed me.
Given the McAfee staged roll out problem, it is very difficult to determine if this is a new problem or the same old problem. I never turned back on email scanning as I was confident that it would eventually break again given the approach they took to solve the problem. White flagging a file by signature only works until that signature changes. With the mozilla projects, that is very often and McAfee is clearly not interested in keeping up with it. I wish they gave the user an option to white flag a file by name, as I had previously mentioned. So it is possible, that if you completely uninstall and reinstall you may be able to resolve your issue. This is why the CSR you spoke to has a script that says to do that. Personally it is a shitty solution, and very frustrating for someone who has done so repeatedly before calling to have to deal with. Further it seems a simple check of the version number might be more adequate.
Peter can help you with version numbers, he is very aware of which versions have which bugs, or so it has seemed in the past.
As to getting McAfee to read this thread, it is pretty unlikely, and quite clear that they do not browse the forums. If you have read the whole thread though you can see that I did however succeed in that at one point, though it was not through ranting in the forum. That led nowhere but angering me and the moderators who were helpless to help me. What I did do was browse around the McAfee website until I found some contact us information. One of those was PR, I don't recall the other. I composed a well thought out email, trying to keep my expression of frustration to a minimum. In that email I referenced this thread. I had a response within the hour and a post on thread shortly after. I am not certain that in the big picture it did much to resolve anything, as it is clear people continue to suffer from this problem.
It is tragic that McAfee was swallowed whole by Intel, as they no longer seem capable of meeting our needs. You would think with that kind of backing that they would be more capable than ever, but it seems more clear that McAfee is now an Intel tool to make you need a bigger processor. I know everytime I think I need a new computer now, a little research shows me that McAfee is the cause. If I disable McAfee I no longer need a new processor.
As to TB works for me with McAfee, it really depends on your use case. If you like me have a very large Inbox with over 1000 items (closer to 5000) in it and a mail box folder over 1 GB, and your system does not have sufficient RAM to cache the entire mailbox, you will then see the problem.
I am certain that if you have a minimal Inbox that this problem would likely go away. However, that is not a solution, that is a work around. Our anti-virus software should not be controlling our work flows. I have been at this a long time and find it far more manageable to keep all my mail in my Inbox for the current year. I do not have time to micro manage it into individual folders. Thunderbird is fine with this and works well, when McAfee does not interfere.
The problem is that McAfee knows nothing about the internal structure of that mailbox file, or so it seems. If it did it would simply scan the new emails as they came in and mark them as such and move on. Instead it is scanning that very large file, over and over and over. Everytime you read a message, receive a message or in any way alter your inbox, McAfee sees it as a new file and scans again. I wonder if sometimes it isn't scanning the file multiple times at the same time in different threads based on how bad it bogs down the machine. All this pressure on your inbox file means that Thunderbird cannot use it and starts to stall. This is a bit of congecture based on extensive systems knowledge and observed behaviours. There is no other justifiable reason that scanning incoming messages would create such a system slowdown. Maybe the AV people need to talk to the McAfee spam people, though that might result in it thinking that every message has a virus so on second thought.
Tony, you really need to be careful with the it works for me reply. It is very frustrating to get such a reply from a moderator. It only shows you didnt spend enough time to understand the customer and the problems they are facing. People don't come to post in the forums on day 1 of a problem. They end up here after days of frustration has driven them to try to find a solution. Then they get here and you say works for me, maybe you should delete some messages or something. Very, very insensitive. Make sure you are comapring apples to apples before you say it works for me.
> Tony, you really need to be careful with the it works for me reply. ... Very, very insensitive.
This seems to me a huge overreaction to Tony's innocuous comment of "What is interesting is I use TB and Mcafee 12.6 (same as 12.1 except for debugging code) and I see no slow down at all." There is no implication of "*I* am working, so WTH are *you* all having trouble?"
> If you like me have a very large Inbox with over 1000 items (closer to 5000) in it and a mail box folder over 1 GB, and your system does not have sufficient RAM to cache the entire mailbox, you will then see the problem. I am certain that if you have a minimal Inbox that this problem would likely go away.
I disagree. I rather doubt it has anything to do with folder size, nor RAM, nor cache. Further, a folder does not get cached in RAM. McAfee would read a file in pieces. And Thunderbird only caches the index file, which typically is 10-15% of the folder size (so a 1GB folder might have a 150MB index)
McAfee is looking for volunteers to help identify the current problem. Volunteers??Message was edited by: wsmwk on 5/8/13 2:02:44 PM CDT
I think you misunderstood me. My entire message was not directed at Tony, that was just an after thought, something I have thought before when he responded similarly in other threads. My comments in that paragraph were directed at him only and stand.
You, however, show your complete lack of understanding with regards to operating systems and the implications of dealing with large files. Every modern operating system attempts to cache every single file read, be it partial or complete. Beyond that if there is sufficient ram, then it will cache the entire file even if you are only reading parts of it at a time, the assumption being that you will eventually read the entire file. If there is RAM. That was my point only. Not that McAfee had made some mistake in their IO code, but that if you had sufficient RAM to cache the file you would never experience the problem that happens because the scanning would happen fast enough that it would be unnoticeable. Hence the reason that it matters what size your inbox was. Further this was in response to specific intsructions from McAfee about how to deal with this problem. Their solution given to me was to delete my inbox.
Given the length of this thread, the time that it has been a problem, there is justification for the angst. Further, this problem began just after another problem was resolved that took even longer to solve and was much more serious, it shut down your computer. That is the other place where comments from moderators were rife with WFM messages. It wasn't until someone took significant amount of effort debugging it and showing it clearly to be a memory leak caused by McAfee that we stopped hearing WFM. Of course that was after living with the problem for weeks.
Don't get me wrong, I like and appreciate the moderators, I know their intentions are just to help where they can. Unfortunately the product they are serving and the company backing seem to have gone AWOL. Not much they can do about that.
In case you didnt get that:
*** moderators ***
Thank you for your time and efforts on our behalf and on behalf of the community.
I mean you no ill will, my comment was just a request to perhaps improve responses to you, as with the high level of frustration we have with McAfee right now, WFM is not helpful.
> If you like me have a very large Inbox with over 1000 items (closer to 5000) in it and a mail box folder over 1 GB, and your system does not have sufficient RAM to cache the entire mailbox, you will then see the problem. I am certain that if you have a minimal Inbox that this problem would likely go away.I disagree. I rather doubt it has anything to do with folder size, nor RAM, nor cache. Further, a folder does not get cached in RAM. McAfee would read a file in pieces. And Thunderbird only caches the index file, which typically is 10-15% of the folder size (so a 1GB folder might have a 150MB index)
A large inbox will constantly be scanned by the antivirus/antispam engines. It's not just us that advise against large inboxes. That's long been a good Windows housekeeping hint, to keep your inbox low and create sub-folders if you need to store stuff or to seperate it out into different categories.