Hi Stefan, On 18/05/2005 05:52 PM +0300, you wrote: > I could not understand this part then: > > ===8<==cut=here====================================================== > ===== > > Tony's issue is just another example of how Mulberry depends on the > IMAP server for parsing headers. This is part of the protocol. OTOH, > TB! doesn't take advantage of this IMAP capability and doesn't fall > victim to the servers buggy header parsing. > > ===8<==cut=here====================================================== > =====
My bad English. We sometimes say things with loose generalisations in the mix. Mulberry doesn't parse headers locally for IMAP mailboxes. It just uses the parsing the server does. TB! doesn't do that. I was referring to this specific issue. The same goes for that particular issue with detecting PGP signatures. Again, Mulberry depends on the server providing specific information about the message to detect the presence of the signature. If the server doesn't, then Mulberry is in trouble. TB! isn't in both situations. OTOH, there are many examples that can be sited where TB! does take advantage of IMAP capability where selective retrieval is concerned or where it depends on the server to provide specific data about messages in mailboxes. Additionally, it's difficult for me to give specifics since I don't know the specifics. I do see what the Mulberry developers are trying to say when the issues are cured by transferring the messages to a local folder where Mulberry no longer has to depend on the server. -- Allie Martin System specs: http://www.ac-martin.com/sysspecs.htm -=-=- Trust me, I'm a lawyer.. ________________________________________________________ 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/
