On Sunday, May 15, 2005 at 11:28:46 AM [GMT -0500], Gleason Pace wrote: > I'm currently using 10 concurrent connections.
Do you really get a better performance with 10 as opposed to 4 or even 2 connections? Just curious. > I leave mine open all the time. Seems that is the best way to stay > aware of what is going on. I do check mail every 5 minutes. I've been experiencing reliable operations here for 48 hours going. No forced restarts or AV's. This is truly remarkable and unprecedented since I started using IMAP and TB! > Mulberry is not even close, I think. With non-protocol specific features, TB! is definitely better by a long margin. However, Mulberry does do some things better, IMO. This is why I find it so easy to use Mulberry at the office. I really like both applications since they are special in their own ways. > Primitive html, Agreed. > no notes attached to messages. Primitive message editor. I like Mulberry's editor. I'm not sure why you call it primitive. :) The spell checker is great. I didn't think I'd find a spellchecker as good as TB!'s in another editor. > It is true that Mulberry has the most trouble free > and complete imap implementation available. For an IMAP user, this comes first and *always*. Until TB!'s IMAP started working for me, all its other nice features became useless. I couldn't get to them. In fact, though TB!'s IMAP works well at home here, I know it's because I have a lot of bandwidth to overwhelm any problems I'd still have using a slower connection. Mulberry overtakes TB! here since I get to read/filter and do simple mail management efficiently at work. What's the use of message labelling if I can't get at the messages to label them in the first place? :) > They started out as imap only and added pop later rather than the > other way around. But the address book is not integrated well enough. > And many other little nice to have features are not there. True. But as long as their IMAP protocol implementation remains as stellar as it currently is, there'll always be the faithful users, since you have a weak client without the *foundations* of a solidly implemented protocol behind it. RIT know this and seem to be working at it as evidenced by their progress. However, there's still work to be done yet. I'm still using Mulberry while preferring TB! for so many other reasons. :) -- -= Allie Martin =- The Bat!� v3.5 System Specs: http://www.landscreek.net/sysspecs.htm -=-=- On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about 7. ________________________________________________________ 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/
