[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/10/2000 12:14 :
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:47:48 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phillip Winn)
> In my view, this is one place where OE has it right and TB! has it
> wrong. What MS understood and TB! creators might be missing is that
> IMAP isn't just a POP replacement as far as a protocol for
> transferring mail, it is truly a remote-messaging system, so that all
> information should be stored on the server, and it should all always
> be available to all clients. This is the basic philosophy of IMAP
> which isn't catered to very well by TB!'s interface or operation.
I must say I agree with this entirely.
My webhost just recently implemented IMAP4 and those users with OE5
are able to access those features, as you described.
Quite apart from the fact that properly functioning IMAP mail would
be of tremendous help to me, I find the thought *unbearable* that OE
can boast a feature that's better than in TB! Enough to make me weep
<g> ...
Regards,
Friday, 20 October 2000 09:10
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Britta [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bat! 1.46d
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
