Dwight, > On Saturday, May 30, 2009, 7:39:05 AM, Gleason Pace wrote:
>> But I maintain that The Bat Imap is much much better than it was just a few >> years ago. All that remains of the old quirkiness for me is the >> occasional Ctrl-c to refresh folder contents. > While I agree that it is better than it once was, I certainly would > not classify its major failings as 'quirkiness.' The biggest problem > remains message counts. In Vista, the only way to get a current count > is to exit and restart. I find myself doing that often. I'm not sure > whether it is TBs fault that the server sometimes closes the > connection and I have to exit and restart to reconnect, but that > happens on xp often. I don't trust TB! to create new folders, but I > haven't tried it lately. When we start working on IMAP, I'll get some > accounts I can safely experiment on but I screwed up my real account > often enough that way in the past I won't risk it there. And it seems we both use Fastmail, and I have had no problem creating new folders. It is true that TB's folder counts aren't accurate, and TB doesn't report new mail well, but I never need to restart it. I never loose my FM connection unless DSL or FM itself is down. I have found that seeming poor Imap reliability in all email clients has a lot to do with connection configuration. This works for me in TB: both in and out are set to use Secure To Dedicated Port, 465 for in and 993 for out. As for folder counts, I can get good counts with other clients but they are lacking some other things that TB does. There is no such thing as a client that does everything well. I have decided to use Fastcheck to tell me when new mail arrives http://www.fastcheck.org/ regardless of what client I am using. That way, that particular feature can be disregarded in favor of other more important ones when deciding on an email client. > While TB! continues to suit me better than other apps, partly at least > out of habit, if I ever found an app which really handled IMAP well, > I'd be gone. There are others that do a better job. Thunderbird and Becky. But they lack other things, like html handling in replies that are more important for me. > If we don't test IMAP, then I might as well just be gone. POP has no > attraction to me, and I can't imagine that it is going to do anything > in the long run but lose out to IMAP. The more people use their mail > on more than one machine, the more they are going to need IMAP or > webmail, or something besides POP. Don't think so. People mostly use POP because that is what most ISP's provide. That isn't likely to change. -- Gleason Using The Bat 4.1.14.2 (RC2) on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 4.1.14.2 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
