Allie Martin wrote: > For an IMAP user having problems with simply reading mail in an IMAP > account then VF's seem insignificant doesn't it? I do see and have > always seen your point though. However, I think Ritlabs may be like > you in that you say here:
J>> Well, depends on you're perspective. I use the IMAP with two J>> accounts. It works, I can read and send mail. Certainly if compared J>> to how feature rich POP/local mail is then IMAP looks spartan. Sure J>> there are bugs too. Allie, did you mean that you think RitLabs is currently satisfied with the limited functionality TB provides? That as long as *technically* one can read, send and receive mail using the IMAP protocol, that's "good enough for now"? I understand that IMAP problems might not be simple fixes - TB isn't the only mail client with spotty IMAP support. But it does seem like RitLabs has been awfully quiet about IMAP improvements (recent releases simply stating "further IMAP improvements) It would be nice if there was an "official" response to the state of IMAP at The Bat. [snip of well-articulated points] > This *is* the problem many of us are having. We can't get it to work > in some environments in a reliable fashion. The problems are many and > it seems to imply the need for extensive testing and optimizing for > different connection speeds, different servers and different message > loads. This is what I'd like answered from Ritlabs. I think it's fair to say that the problems with IMAP do not justify "further improvements" comments in releases. The IMAP issues should be addressed in a more comprehensive fashion, IMO. > I need one that first works reliably. If it works on my LAN, it should > work reasonably well from work and other locations, *especially* if I > can get another client to work well from those locations. This is the > reliability factor. By working here, I mean that I have access to my > messages. I can read, reply to them etc. and delete them. > The filtering, VF's, etc. are secondary. I usually just wish to use > those at my main machine at home. While at work and on the go, you > wish to just quickly read what you have without any real need for > fancy features. I don't even have this and that's the BIG problem I'm > trying to make Ritlabs aware of. I can only guess that Ritlabs is *aware* of the problem. But your reasoning above is why I'm living with webmail access for now. Sadly, all the cool new features of TB have been relegated to fantasy for me while I wait for IMAP to work. J>> I'm just going to conclude that it could be a /whole lot worse/! > There's nothing worse than having to use a different client in the > end. Note that ThunderBird has NONE of TB!'s nice non-protocol > features. Check it out. It's plain vanilla. I had to jump hoops to get > it to use different identities (that's another story). I don't filter > with it either. I just wish to read my mail and be able to reply to > them without problems and ridiculous waiting. <sigh> I think this issue could very well cost Ritlabs a segment of its user base. As I have stated before, right now, even with the IMAP functionality where it is, TB is still a great e-mail client. But how long will that last? Things are tough for other clients with regard to IMAP. And as far as features, TB wins out every time. For me the choice is still clearlyl The Bat (and I'm using 1.62r). But if clients like Thunderbird gain more advanced features, or clients like Poco get more stable/IMAP issues worked out before Ritlabs gets IMAP ironed out, the choice becomes less clear. J>> RitLabs is the most devoted and active small software group I can J>> think of. I mean TB! is literally /always/ being fixed and improved J>> it seems. It's exciting. > I can imagine myself saying this so often over the years. :) However, > *this time*, with regards to IMAP, I'm seeing a serious problem, I'm > experiencing it, and I'm making it known. Ritlabs should officially announce what their plans are for IMAP. "Various fixes and improvements to IMAP" in release notes doesn't cut it. The Ritlabs website states: "The Bat! is built to handle rapidly growing e-mail flow with no hassle. You can receive thousands of messages daily and still you won't see any significant slowdown while accessing your mail" This is simply NOT true when using IMAP. -- 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/
