Good discussion. John wrote: > Many ways to do this. First, if I am going to go anywhere among > civilization and need to be 'connected' I'll have the notebook since > there is only so much I want to fool with when it entails 'jot' or > other PITA keyboard substitutes.
:) I have thought the same thing. But now depend on my PDA. > On the contrary, there is available 'pc anywhere' type functionality > from cellphones out of the box. Around a year or two ago one of my > friends bought a cellphone that would dial and connect to his home > computer and allow remote operation. I don't have intimate knowledge > of the product but it is an 'out of the box' easy to make work thing. > I only got a brief demonstration but it wasn't just a conduit for > email, outlook or any specific program other than windows. And he > wasn't running terminal server or anything fancy at home, just XP Home. I'm not sure what you are describing, but it does sound interesting. You are definitely talking about actually connecting to a home computer - not just accessing e-mail via cell phone, but actually connecting to a home PC and controlling the e-mail client on that home PC to fetch mail? With no special software? > Much of it depends on what you want to do and how much or little you > want to carry to do it.. I must be missing something, as I just can't see how a cell phone could dial into a home computer (presumably behind a firewall) and grab mail from that computer when the home box is XP home - that is, not any kind of server. So the phone is dialing in and fetching mail from a mail client on the home computer? Amazing.... > The method varies, I've simplified much of the 'connectivity' techno > fancy gizmo stuff for sake of reliability and consolidation. I just > take the notebook, which is my primary computer; dial home and use > the cablemodem. OK, sorry. When you are talking about "dialing in" you mean using your laptop through your cell phone. So you are tunneling in to your main computer and performing operations as if you were in front of that computer? Are you opening up a virtual desktop of any kind? (this part of our discussion should really move to TBOT. If you aren't subscribed there, please reply to the above questions to me privately. I'm very interested in how you are managing to do what you are describing.) And now, back to The Bat... kg>> I cannot comment on how TB works with Exchange (but thought Exchange kg>> is using IMAP now). I can comment on how TB works with POP and IMAP, kg>> and I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment about bugs kg>> common across protocols. > I was meaning bugs that are non-transport related, not bugs which > are specific to both/all three transports. EG: Virtual folders, > new filter system, backup/restore, etc. I see what you meant. To be honest, I haven't been playing around with a newer version of The Bat lately. I haven't even seen Virtual Folders yet. > Yes. Well POP3 is also much simpler to implement and expand with all > the cool features TB! offers obviously. That's all I was really saying. > I'm just guessing, but I don't think that RitLabs is simply being > stubborn about IMAP development or deaf to the outcry. I agree. RitLabs stands to gain (tremendously, I might add) if/when TB IMAP functionality really excels. I think RitLabs probably does recognize the importance of IMAP. And maybe they are doing all they can. But it's difficult to read about new features while IMAP continues to limp along. I'm aware of the "I want *my* feature implemented first" idea - and that everyone's needs can't be addressed with each build. But I'm stuck with the idea that even something as cool as Virtual Folders seems a bit empty when IMAP is still so immature. > I also feel the virtual folders, although usable by POP, may be paving > the way for the IMAP functionality people are seeking. It just may be > that the new stuff like VF and the delayed filtering system are part of > the groundwork to getting IMAP users closer to what they want.. That is a really, really good point and caused me to think on that quite a bit. I'd love to hear Stefan's response to that, as well as what Allie (and other beta-testers using IMAP And VFs) think. I hope you are right. It would make sense. > Well, depends on you're perspective. I use the IMAP with two > accounts. It works, I can read and send mail. Certainly if compared > to how feature rich POP/local mail is then IMAP looks spartan. Sure > there are bugs too. That's good to hear. Without rehashing all of the issues so eloquently described by Allie, I'd say that for IMAP to become truly *usable* (truly release-ready), most of the major issues Allie has brought up should be addressed. > The two IMAP accounts I have work and seems to be how it is. I can > work with it and deal with its limitations if I must. I mean if IMAP > flat out did not work then that is one thing. Working with bugs and > few features (which a local database affords) is another. By the way, why do you use IMAP with two accounts? Why not just do an IMAP-like "sync" with the dialing in method you described above? > Granted, I have made no comparisons of IMAP capable clients so it's > not that obvious to me what people are lusting for in an IMAP > client. I felt the same way until I downloaded and tried out Becky. Take the IMAP functionality of Becky and combine it with everything else from The Bat, and you'd have one solid e-mail client. *it's possible substituting "Becky" with "Thunderbird" might be a more accurate statement... > At any rate I am not picking sides, most of this and the prior message > was prompted by: > mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] kg>> I can't help but wonder how many TB users on this list that claim they kg>> don't want/need IMAP just haven't explored it enough. I didn't feel you were necessarily picking sides and I've learned from and enjoyed your posts. But you do have to admit.... it sounds like you may not have really explored IMAP. ;) > I'm just going to conclude that it could be a /whole lot worse/! > RitLabs is the most devoted and active small software group I can > think of. I mean TB! is literally /always/ being fixed and improved > it seems. It's exciting. True, it could be worse. And yes, RitLabs does seem to work hard at getting releases out. I'd sure love to read some definitive answers to IMAP - not necessarily fixes - just a commitment to what is being addressed, what the priority is, the direction of IMAP development, etc. -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
