>s upgrading to PM4 adressed most of my issues with the manner how the >messages are managed by PM on the server side, it seemed logical to me >that it could adress the issues you had. > >CTMdev made a huge change in PM4 in the way they manage the server-side >database and thanks to this change PM4 hardly gives me duplicate messages >as PM3 did frequently.
Aha Karel, but this you did *not* tell this before. How am I supposed to know what is not documented by CTM? So there *is* a bug in PM 3.x with this kind of "stuck" messages and you say nothing? Bravo. >As the main purpose of this list IMHO is to share our user-experience I >have indeed a strong believe that the experience of one user can adress >the problems of another. For the years i've been on this list I gained >much knowledge of PM and mail-issues just by reading problems and >solutions of other PM-users. Great. >I agree with Scott that -no matter if you have problems or not- upgrading >is always a good strategy, especially when the evolution of a piece of >software is as great as in the recent updates of PM. What about "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? >CTMdev adressed many issues and succeeded to improve PM with every upgrade. What's the point of you saying this? So? And what if I'd rather spend even more money on another application that actually behaves the way it's intended to? Upgrading if you don't want the features in the upgrade or don't like things that are similar in the version you have now and in the upgraded version is just plain stupidity. Why do you suggest anyone should take part in that? Feel free to tell why you think PM 4.1.3 is better than 3.1.3 or whatever, but stop this nonsense that "upgrading is always good". It's a good strategy if it solves the problems. Otherwise its just a technological/economical lock-in that may prevent other real solutions for the need of a working email client.
