Ken Green, [KG] wrote: KG> Allie, did you mean that you think RitLabs is currently satisfied KG> with the limited functionality TB provides? That as long as KG> *technically* one can read, send and receive mail using the IMAP KG> protocol, that's "good enough for now"?
It's difficult to know what is happening, what their position is on this issue and what their impressions are with regards to basic IMAP functionality being workable and robust in varying environments, connection speeds and message base sizes. I remember when I had initially had problems with TB! at work, I discussed this on TBBETA. Stefan posted some suggestions then. He suggested that I cut down on the amount of sync'ing I was doing. Instead of sync'ing message bodies, sync only message headers and stuff like that. IOW's his feeling seemed to be that there wasn't really a problem with TB!, but the problem was that I was asking too much of my slow connection. This was a very reasonable view on the situation so I tried all he suggested. I even cut down sync'ing to only 4 folders, and sync'ing only the headers. Though the delays changed in quality, the delays still amounted to being intolerable and impractical for using TB! with such a connection. I was then cornered into trying another client, something I've never felt interested in doing for a LONG time, and ThunderBird has shown me that I *can* use IMAP with a connection of that speed. It has shown me that I can be productive and manage large message bases with a slow IMAP connection and that I can work with many IMAP folders too. My positive experience with ThunderBird has added proof to the pudding that I was not trying to achieve the impossible, and that the problem was not just with my unreasonable demands on a slow connection. I really don't know if Ritlabs has bought this and believe this to be really that significant an issue because they don't seem to have similar issues with IMAP and you'll hear others like John state that they don't have fundamental issues of a similar nature either. Even I didn't feel that perturbed about it since it was a single experience from a single user's perspective. However, I've since taken the matter seriously after having the opportunity to test TB!'s IMAP on another machine with a faster connection, and seeing it fail miserably, while ThunderBird performed beautifully. I've also begun to take more seriously, the opinions of those who've been complaining *all along*, that they can't get IMAP to work for them. KG> I understand that IMAP problems might not be simple fixes - TB isn't KG> the only mail client with spotty IMAP support. True. In my quest for a solution, I tried this unknown called Gemini. It was interesting, but slow. Both TB! and ThunderBird retrieve headers at about the same speed. However, TB! has no optimization whatsoever in prioritizing tasks. It does it's thing with no regard for what the user wants to do at a given moment. Gemini does prioritize but it retrieves one header in the time it takes ThunderBird to retrieve 40 headers. It's interesting to see how varied the problems are when trying one client after another. KG> But it does seem like RitLabs has been awfully quiet about IMAP KG> improvements (recent releases simply stating "further IMAP KG> improvements) They weren't quiet before the last beta cycle. It would just seem that this beta cycle was dedicated to VF's and a few other bug fixes. Now that I've discovered that the IMAP problems go further than simply the lack of implementation of support of other IMAP features or other TB! features working with IMAP, I see a need for stepping up the attention to IMAP. It's one thing if what is already implemented really works solidly. It's a completely different issue when what is *already* implemented isn't working well, to the point where many simply cannot use TB!'s IMAP even within very basic limits. KG> It would be nice if there was an "official" response to the state of KG> IMAP at The Bat. I'm sure IMAP will be addressed. But I sure hope they'll not start adding filtering and other IMAP features and keep ignoring the fact that so many of us are having problems simply reading and sending messages from IMAP accounts. KG> Things are tough for other clients with regard to IMAP. And as far as KG> features, TB wins out every time. For me the choice is still clearlyl KG> The Bat (and I'm using 1.62r). But if clients like Thunderbird gain KG> more advanced features, or clients like Poco get more stable/IMAP KG> issues worked out before Ritlabs gets IMAP ironed out, the choice KG> becomes less clear. Actually the choice becomes clearer. :) I'll just change. If Poco or Becky implemented IMAP like ThunderBird, I'd be using one of them. No doubt about that, and I'd be using my choice in both places since I very much like consistency and would prefer not to be using ThunderBird and TB! together. I've been using TB! since for me, it's the best that I can find to use at home right now and for the last several years. ThunderBird is the best I can find to use at work now, so that's what I use at work, though I'm not happy with it by a wide margin. KG> "The Bat! is built to handle rapidly growing e-mail flow with no KG> hassle. You can receive thousands of messages daily and still you KG> won't see any significant slowdown while accessing your mail" KG> This is simply NOT true when using IMAP. ABSOLUTELY, unless you're on an LAN. In that setting IMAP is not bad and quite useful. :) -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.10 on WinXP Pro (SP1)
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________________ 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/
