Allie, On 14-04-2005 22:07, you [AM] wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: AM> For me, my fundamental wish is that the protocol works reliably and AM> robustly, in that it works well across different environments. It's AM> more than a little frustrating using TB! at home while using another AM> client elsewhere.
As it is now I use 3.0.1.33 at work. I probably get 10-20 mails a day. For this, that version's IMAP is adequate. It's not good (I have to use a local outbox, re-select messages with attachments, problems with bolding of folders and so on), but OK. I am on a very fast connection. Also to my those of my personal mailboxes I test with IMAP. I believe you are on a slow connection so your experiences are different. AM> You wish your clients to be equally capable in terms of protocol AM> handling so that you can really spread your wings with it and not be AM> in limbo doing the basics and hoping on and on and on and on that AM> things will get better. I agree. This is my hope, too. AM> To work with a beta and tolerate the shortcomings, I have to see a AM> bright future. I used to have faith that there was one, but now I AM> don't. Though changes have been made, the overall progress has been AM> very slow for the last several months since attempts to fix one AM> problem brings on other problems/issues. There's this constant AM> grappling with basic efficiency with mail retrieval/reading etc. I agree. IMO, the focus for me seems wrong. I could care less for skins and all the other bells and whistles. What Ritlabs need to do is to pour a large number of development hours into getting IMAP to work - since the current state will just create more and more disgruntled users. Look how many - myself included - complained about the version 3 scheme: IMAP was promised in the series 2 - but now, 20+ builds after series 3, it still does not work. That is just going to tick even more people off. And all the people trying TB! because it claims "IMAP" will quickly feel TB! is flaky - and due to this they might not even want to use TB! for POP. AM> A properly functioning outbox that will work as a draft folder. You AM> can keep unfinished mail there without problems. A couple claiming AM> they have no problems with the current situation doesn't help. Actually, for my Mailmax server, this seems to work fairly OK. Does not work with my Exchange (IMAP) account at work. AM> Labelling needs to be implemented. I can easily label messages as AM> important etc. and expect to retain these labels across locations. Good idea. Not vital to me, but if it's part of IMAP, I'm all for it. AM> Performance despite having multiple connections support is still AM> disappointingly poor. After 3.0.1.33, IMAP has become completely unusable for me: hanging connections and so on. I hope the new beta series will improve this significantly. 9Val has contacted me in order to get my input. AM> It's faster, but still not good enough. I found myself pruning AM> folders down just to accommodate this. I shouldn't have to be doing AM> this. As written above, my connection is so fast that this is no problem for me. Connection lock-ups is a much larger issue. AM> Filtering needs to be better so that I can easily filter from low AM> bandwidth locations. I agree that filtering needs to improve. AM> The sound support is flaky. After a long break from TB!, I'll open AM> it to a cocophony of new message sounds and there are no new AM> messages. I've already read the new messages from another client! OK, I have never had this. AM> All I ask for is a debugged protocol with attention to efficiently, AM> *reliably* and properly operating basic functions. I'm not prepared AM> to work with quirky implementations that work to some extent or in AM> some sort of a way thanks to the great efforts behind shoe-horning AM> around the POP3 code base. I agree. Ritlabs should never have embarked on IMAP if they do not want to Do It Right and Do It Completely. AM> I've been totally detoxed from the addiction of templates and AM> MicroEd. That took a long time, but in the end, those are tools to AM> augment the basic requirement which is the working protocol behind AM> them. For me, they fade into insignificance without the working AM> protocol. Though they make some things easier for me, I manage AM> better with better IMAP than flaky IMAP and the TB! additions. Yes. I think the fundamental difference between you and me is that IMAP is vital to you and it is important to me (OK it's vital at work but here I don't get that may messages and the connection is 100 MBit). Here at home (mainly POP - but I'd like to move to IMAP) I have so many things that depend on macros and RegExp, that switching to another client hardly is an option at the moment. AM> Otherwise, I will continue to feel like I'm testing for just AM> testing, rather than testing towards a final product that I'll end AM> up really continuing to use in the end. I understand you completely. I hope what I have written above will show why I will continue to help with testing IMAP. -- <greeting> Best regards </greeting> <author> Peter Fjelsten </author> <thebat version> 3.0.1.33 Pro </thebat version> <env.> ~18 POP3, 1 IMAP (MailMax 5.5) & 1 IMAP (Exchange 6.5), 175K msgs. </env.> <os> Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 </os> ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.0.9.15 Return | '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/
