On 5/23/05, Allie Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Allie, I never before saw Shakespeare get such a bad reaction. :-) > > Anyway, perhaps you misunderstood. > > I don't think so. My reaction wasn't one of being upset or anything > related to that. It was quite an emotion free response. Just a candid > one really. After this clarifying message, I still have the same > position.
Okay. So be it. But, for what it's worth, I was not baiting anyone as you speculated. Certainly, I had no conscious intention of that sort. > > All I meant to say was that on this list alone I see many people > > praising IMAP to the sky and the same people getting caught up in > > lengthy discussions about IMAP problems. > > Well, your response explains it. If we have high praises about it, this > means that we find using the protocol to be extremely useful. It's only > natural then that we'll discuss at length, the problems we're having > with it. I think my point was how non-IMAP threads get hijacked even at the merest whiff of an IMAP connection. But, again, let's just agree to disagree here. Stable email is a vital component of my work. POP3 is stable, while IMAP seems to still have many attendant problems in areas that I take for granted with POP3. Maybe I am wrong about this, but I prefer to err on the side of caution - similar to my approach with OTFE. -- Avi Yashar Windows XP Pro SP2 and The Bat! Pro 3.5 ________________________________________________________ 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/
