Dierk Haasis wrote: > Just to inform us that not everybody has the same priorities. Which > doesn't mean that TB should eventually - not in some indefinite > future - work the same with IMAP as with POP3. My guess is, that it > isn't as easy to implement many of the features TB offers with IMAP.
I understand you and others have different needs. But I think comparing IMAP to Virtual Folders is apples to oranges. Allie continues to articulate the IMAP issue much better than I can, but here are a few questions to consider: When did the concept of Virtual Folders first get mentioned? Look at the progress from to concept of VFs to the implementation. The Bat promised an IMAP-capable client in v2 - WELL before Virtual Folders. I know that these aren't the same kind of issues (another apples to oranges argument), but it does put things in perspective a little bit. As a POP user, virtual folders are cool and may really help your productivity, but TB is still a great e-mail client *without* VFs. As an IMAP user (with even an average size message base), TB is pretty much useless. -- 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/
