MB, I agree that we do not broadcast what is being implemented in the product, and for a reason: no matter how much you announce that you are going to do, there will always be varying opinions and substantial debate on relevance, priorities and so on. Hence we announce things either when they are done, or exceptionally when one feature or fix for a reproduceable and serious condition is imminent.
The situation you describe is not something we've ever been able to reproduce and hence fix - in fact, do you think we could have gotten away with a database-to-POP3 server synchronization request since version 3 (2001 ?). Lack of reproduceability is the #1 reason for which things don't get changed in our software; disproportionate effort/result ratio would be #2. Disinterest would be very, very low on the list. Of course I take the blame for not spelling this out as clearly earlier. Regards, jean michel/ctm qa On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:59:25 +0100, MB <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:11:39 +0100, Beatrix Willius <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Support isn't working, submitting a bug doesn't get a result. >Depending on something I suppose this aspect of bug reports have >selectively been the case for some years. Some bugs have certainly been >fixed and features added - which is very nice of course - but its >strange as a user to not know at all how relevant bugs are handled >internally. At least that doesn't make it more likely that users will >report other bugs in the future. > > I have repeatedly submitted- since version 3 I think - this current >bug of mine or if it's better labeled a missing feature request, that >the local message DB can get out of sync with the mail on the server and >refuse to download it. To get messages reliably I find to be central in >an email application. To get zero interest in the issue is not encouraging. >I certainly do not believe that this kind of issue have only been >happening on the Macs I've been using for PowerMail during the years and >on all the mail accounts which have been inflicted with this kind of problem. > >>Sending a message to the list takes weeks to get even an error message. >Exactly, but that kind of problem is not unique for this list. Hopefully >it will work now. > >
