Randy, > On 1/3/2008, Gleason wrote: >> For me, complete includes things that Mulberry does not do, such as >> better than primitive html/graphics handling, notes attached to >> messages. And Mulberry does have performance issues too. No, MB >> doesn't make the cut.
> The issues you point out have nothing to do with its ability to handle > IMAP (and, as far as I know, the performance issues stem mainly from > not being multithreaded but I could be wrong on that). Yes, multithreading is another important lack in MB, whether it is resposible for the performance issues or not. > In strictly discussing which e-mail client has the best IMAP > handling, Mulberry is it. If all you care about is negotiating the Imap protocol, Pine for Windows is the choice. >If you expand it to include a host of other things, such as what >you've mentioned, then, you're right, MB doesn't make the cut. It's >those reasons why I, too, no longer use Mulberry. TB's IMAP may be >lacking but it makes up for it in a ton of other ways and, like most >people, I keep my fingers crossed that one day IMAP will be truly >addressed in The Bat!. -- :R. I see a tremendous improvement in TB Imap over the past few years. That while other clients have not improved and some even given up. I don't think that the improvement could have happened any other way. There aren't enough years in the day to develop such facility on a shorter time frame. I don't see any reason to expect that TB's Imap won't continue to improve. -- Gleason Using 4.0.0.6 (ALPHA) on Windows XP, 5.1, Build 2600. IMAP email provider is Fastmail, which uses Cyrus server software. ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.99.29 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
