> On 1/8/04 9:07 PM, "Charlie Fritzius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> on 1/8/04 8:55 PM, jud spencer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> On 1/8/04 8:50 PM, "Julian Vrieslander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I've tried many variations of the IMAP settings for my work account on the >>>> server at U of Washington (UW-IMAP, natch). Right now I've got a config >>>> that works OK most of the time. But even though the traffic in this >>>> account >>>> is very low (maybe 5 messages per day), I still get corruption in my client >>>> database every few weeks, requiring advanced rebuild to fix. >>> >>> Hmm., I use a UW-IMAP implementation as well and don't have any problems of >>> the sort. I will say that the UW implementation is perhaps the worst that I >>> have seen. >> >> While I do understand this statement and tend to agree, I find if very odd >> that UW-IMAP's implementation of IMAP is so bad. After all, THEY INVENTED >> IMAP! Why can't they get IMAP right!?!? It just boggles the mind... > > The UW-IMAP developers apparently feel that the problems are in Entourage.
I'm very interested in hearing where this goes... Could you keep us posted? - B -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
