Philip Storry, [PS] wrote:
PS> The word "push" was used in a slang context, to denote how hard you
PS> were planning to push The Bat!'s support of the IMAP protocol to its
PS> limits. I can see why what I wrote must have been confusing. My
PS> apologies if this has caused anyone any inconvenience.
> Thanks for that explanation of IMAP. It seems to me that IMAP is really
> designed for folks that are on several computers during the day, and that
> don't want to worry about missing their email. To me, it seems like a
> pain..you not only delete your messages on your local client (The
Hello Allie,
Sunday, March 21, 2004, 4:09:59 PM, you wrote:
PS>> I've not had any problems with The Bat!'s IMAP support, although
PS>> there is a vocal contingent who apparently do.
AM> Things have been very smooth here of late. No problems except for
AM> performance
Philip Storry, [PS] wrote:
PS> I've not had any problems with The Bat!'s IMAP support, although
PS> there is a vocal contingent who apparently do.
Things have been very smooth here of late. No problems except for
performance issues on a slow connection.
PS> It seems t
RH> that IMAP is better than POP3.
RH> I tried Thunderbird, but it crashed on me and to me seemed quite buggy.
RH> So, I am looking for another client that could also be good with IMAP to
RH> try, and I once again looked at The Bat!
RH> Thoughts?
I've not had any problems
I have not downloaded The Bat! yet on this computer, though I tried it on
my last one, and did like it. I used it for POP3 mail. However, I do
have IMAP capabilities with my webmail (Fastmail) and I have been told
that IMAP is better than POP3.
I tried Thunderbird, but it crashed on me and to me
Hello pk,
Monday, September 8, 2003, 9:28:37 PM, you wrote:
> i am using hotmail account presently configured in Outlook express , is it
> possible to configure my hotmail account to bat v2.00.6 which is reportedly
> having enhanced IMAP support
Hotmail doesn't use IMAP. But, you c
hello everyone,
i am using hotmail account presently configured in Outlook express , is it
possible to configure my hotmail account to bat v2.00.6 which is reportedly
having enhanced IMAP support
thanks in advance.
pk
_
Got a
Hi
I am a beginner to The Bat and am having trouble
figuring out if it supports IMAP connections like
Outlook Express - i.e. the ability to synchronize folders and mails, etc?
I can't seem to get it to work.
Thanks in advance for any help...
regardsSteve
Until recently I used The Bat solely to access my mails via POP3. I
loved it! Since I am now working on several machines I would like to
use the extra features of the IMAP protocol (synchronization
benefits). All I can say so far is that TB's current IMAP support is
too deficient
ia SSL.
But the matter is not what I believe, its what the tech guy of a small
e.V. thinks. They're perhaps 10 to 15 guys, not a real ISP but guys
that are from local government funding Internet&eMail access for their
citizens (well until somewhat like a year, now only eMail access).
Anyw
Hi there Mr. Fox,
Going back 06:20 31.01.2001. when you uttered the following thoughts:
> Probably allow POP3 on an internal LAN, but don't want people checking
> personal mail at work, or bringing in viruses/worms in school or
> something like that. The firewall admin probably forgot to block
Hello Lija,
Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 11:35:57 AM, you wrote:
L> Hello Johannes,
L> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 19:46:59 (your local time), you wrote:
JP>> So basically TB uses it just like POP3. Well, to be honest, for me
JP>> this is great, because this way I can circumvent the postmasters
JP>>
Hello Johannes,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 21:02:20 (your local time), you wrote:
JP> POP3 logins are transmitted clear text, while IMAP are somewhat
JP> secured. Personally I prefer POP3-SSL or POP3 over SSH...
You have also APOP in TB... it's up to your ISP if supports it...
--
Best Regards, L
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Andrew,
On 30 January 2001 at 22:36:25 - (which was 22:36 where I live)
Andrew Hodgson wrote and made these points:
>> POP3 logins are transmitted clear text, while IMAP are somewhat
>> secured. Personally I prefer POP3-SSL or POP3 over SS
On 30 Jan 2001, at 21:02, Johannes Posel wrote:
> Hi there Lija,
>
> Going back 20:35 30.01.2001. when you uttered the following thoughts:
>
> > This is very off-topic now, but I'm curios: Why should someone
> > enforce users to use IMAP and ban POP3?
>
> POP3 logins are transmitted clear text
love to hear from someone knowledgeable what TB IMAP
>> support does and doesn't, because one of my mail providers
>> forces me to use IMAP, POP3 is blocked ourside their LAN...
AH> Ok, I used tb over weekend using imap support, and did not
AH> notice any difference between pop
Hi there Lija,
Going back 20:35 30.01.2001. when you uttered the following thoughts:
> This is very off-topic now, but I'm curios: Why should someone enforce users to
> use IMAP and ban POP3?
POP3 logins are transmitted clear text, while IMAP are somewhat
secured. Personally I prefer POP3-SSL o
Hello Johannes,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 19:46:59 (your local time), you wrote:
JP> So basically TB uses it just like POP3. Well, to be honest, for me
JP> this is great, because this way I can circumvent the postmasters
JP> stupid idea of banning POP3 and enforcing IMAP. He gives no mbox max
Thi
Hello Marck,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 17:33:20 (your local time), you wrote:
MDP> I all fairness, the very ethos of full IMAP, with on-line folder
MDP> structures, goes against the TB strengths in local mail-base. I can't
MDP> see how TB can offer full IMAP support an
in local mail-base. I can't
> see how TB can offer full IMAP support and still be the TB we all
> "know and love" with extreme filter, RegEx support and archive
> searching capabilities. This is probably the reason TB only offers it
> as a glorified POP3.
I thi
Dear Andrew,
Going back 18:29 30.01.2001. when you uttered the following thoughts:
> This wasn't the design of imap, however, and so it didn't forfil my
> requirements.
So basically TB uses it just like POP3. Well, to be honest, for me
this is great, because this way I can circumvent the postma
tocol, then TB v1
> > is not going to suit you.
>
> I would love to hear from someone knowledgeable what TB IMAP support
> does and doesn't, because one of my mail providers forces me to use
> IMAP, POP3 is blocked ourside their LAN...
Ok, I used tb over weekend using imap supp
as to be said that Mulberry is probably the paragon amongst IMAP
clients.
I all fairness, the very ethos of full IMAP, with on-line folder
structures, goes against the TB strengths in local mail-base. I can't
see how TB can offer full IMAP support and still be the TB we all
"
On 29 Jan 2001, at 20:35, Brian Clark wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> (AH == "Andrew Hodgson") [EMAIL PROTECTED] conveyed:
>
> AH> Other than the bats other rfc deficiencies, can we confirm/deny
> that AH> tb supports imap in the following way:
>
> I don't use IMAP, but AFAIK TB! supports it (t
m someone knowledgeable what TB IMAP support
does and doesn't, because one of my mail providers forces me to use
IMAP, POP3 is blocked ourside their LAN...
Cheers,
Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Whenever people agree with me I always feel I
Hello Andrew,
(AH == "Andrew Hodgson") [EMAIL PROTECTED] conveyed:
AH> Other than the bats other rfc deficiencies, can we confirm/deny that
AH> tb supports imap in the following way:
I don't use IMAP, but AFAIK TB! supports it (to what degree, I don't
know). In account properties, one of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Andrew,
On 29 January 2001 at 23:43:32 - (which was 23:43 where I live)
Andrew Hodgson wrote and made these points:
AH> Other than the bats other rfc deficiencies,
What RFC deficiencies are you alleging? None have been reported for a
lon
Hi all.
Other than the bats other rfc deficiencies, can we confirm/deny that
tb supports imap in the following way:
1. Allow the viewing of read/unread messages?
2. Lookup other folders other than inbox?
3. Manipulation?
I would love to know.
P.S. For a real imap client, try Mulberry, Peg
Hello Lex,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 at 16:28:49 [GMT +0100], you wrote:
LC> However I have one problem with the IMAP support. It can download
LC> new messages correctly, but I can not review previous messages.
LC> Usually an IMAP client is expected to use all the folders from the
LC> ser
Thursday, March 09, 2000, 7:28:49 AM, Lex wrote:
> I hope there is some way to fix this problem since I like The
> Bat!, but I really can't use it this way.
There isn't. It is slated for v2.0.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ:
Hello TBUDL,
I primarily use my mail account from a Unix shell, however I
sometimes need to consult my mails from a windows station. Until
recently I used Netscape for that but I thought I might try The Bat!
since it's much smaller... However I have one problem with the IMAP
su
32 matches
Mail list logo
