On Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 1:40:03 PM [GMT -0500], Dave Gorman wrote: My comments are largely influenced by your general position reflected in your post which is one of letting us know how you feel and what you've decided, rather than one of seeking assistance. I can certainly understand this since I've been there and am not really saying this in a negative light.
> So I downloaded 3.51.10, fired it up, added two IMAP accounts, and > right out of the box, 3 showstoppers: > 1) On one account, after unsubscribing from the only mailbox that had new > messages, the account's unread message count didn't change (I guess this > isn't quite a showstopper, but it certainly is annoying). These hiccups abound. However, their annoyance level will depend on your general attitude towards TB!. If you're fed up, then these annoyances will only make you more annoyed. However, if you're trying to make TB! work for you, realizing that the other clients have their problems as well, then you'll learn to ignore the glitches as you learn to do without the TB! niceties when using the other clients. :) I love TB!'s editor and templates among other things. It also has a great interface to work with. I'm far more comfortable working with it than I am with Mulberry. How many glitches am I willing to put up with in exchange for the nice stuff? Well I have my personal threshold and am sure it will vary from user to user. Some months back, there were too many glitches and I used Mulberry. Nowadays, they are at a level where I'm willing to put up with them, and I am now more satisfied than I was with Mulberry. In fact, I was doing so well with Mulberry, that I really thought TB! was history as one of my main apps. However, I now realize where my heart is since I'm back with TB! and am really glad to be back. I definitely prefer TB! in general. > 2) Using server-side filtering, TB! still doesn't know I have new messages > in folders until I've selected those folders. (Maybe there is a way around > this, but I shouldn't have to go out of my way to have my mail client check > for new messages...) That's a basic setting in TB! and this requires a similar setting in all other clients I've used. You're really upset to be making a fuss out of that one. :) > 3) After deleting a few messages from a folder, selecting any message > in the message list would display the incorrect message. (Again, > perhaps there is a fix for this, but I shouldn't have to trick my mail > client into showing me the currently selected message instead of > randomly selecting a message to show me...) Hmmm. I'm not really seeing this. I do have sporadic problems with the Inbox where deleting and moving messages can lead to sticking of the queue of commands. As a result, messages will not load etc. Moving to another folder and back, or doing a server connect/disconnect, fixes this. I'm not saying this is normal or that anyone should put up with this and that they're not serious if they don't put up with it. So no need to say one shouldn't have to be doing it. I'm just telling you that I do have similar problems at times, that I have a way of getting out of them, and that they aren't frequent enough for me to not use TB! Gary, another beta tester, has these problems so often that TB! is unusable for him. Others like myself don't have these problems or have them rarely. I believe I did say in my message that I recommended trying it and seeing how well it worked and that it may not work well for you or others who looked at it. Let me check just to be sure :) Turns out that I didn't really say much at all. Unless I missed one of my messages, the most I said about TB! in one string was: ,----- / \ | The Bat! is my personal choice at the moment. It has it's own set of | problems, but I much prefer it. `----- Otherwise, I've simply said that I prefer it. However, my disclaimer is there in that it has its own set of problems. > I haven't spent any time playing around with IMAP Fine Tune options or > anything else because I shouldn't have to. The more versatile the options, the more you need to fiddle with them. I wouldn't have used Mulberry at all if I didn't sit down and decide to deliberate over and learn how it works with the server. If it worked out of the box for you then, lucky you. It didn't work for me. I was having a lot of problems. Turns out that I just didn't understand how it worked. Of course, you may now be thinking that I'm saying that TB! is just fine and it's just you that's the problem, in that you're unwilling to learn the options and are just complaining. Well, I'm not saying this at all. I'm however, saying that there could be an element of that involved. To repeat, TB! definitely has it's problems which varies in severity from user to user. However, of late, I've been seeing a lot of situations where TB!'s bugginess is being blamed for all the problems a user may be having. It works with <insert alternative client/s here>, so it's TB! messing up. Since using Mulberry, I've been through a few problems in Mulberry that didn't exist in TB! or ThunderBird. Some were Mulberry's problem and others were the server's problem. Of course, if Cyrus says it's the server then we're more inclined to think this could be true, even though TB! and ThunderBird don't have the same problem. Actually, there were many who refused to believe this. Tony's reply messages to TBBETA not threading when sent using Mulberry is one such example. > A mail client's default settings should be sufficient to provide basic > functionality. If I have to take extra time to try to figure out what > default settings need to be changed in order to achieve basic > functionality, something is just not right. For a simple server box count and tally, I agree with you on this. > I realize that IMAP issues are apparently supposed to be a high > priority in the present beta series. However, I believe it has been > two years since IMAP was initially implemented in TB! and it still > doesn't have basic functionality out of the box! It is a priority and is improving. Maybe not for you specifically. However, I came from almost completely abandoning TB! to being able to use it only at home and then leaving it again for consistency of interface between home and work, to now using it both at home and at work without significant problems. So I guess, it's from where you're sitting. Unfortunately, many have discontinued using it and I fully understand this. Ritlabs are responsible for this loss of userbase. This has in turn affected the quality of IMAP beta testing. There's only so much testing I can do as a single user. I use only one IMAP server and RIT need feedback from users using many servers. My being reasonably happy with FastMail's Cyrus IMAP doesn't help you who are not doing well with another server. > So, I've waited an extra day in order to give TB! another chance, but I > think it's time now to simply give up on TB! and move on. I would still > consider TB! to be a top notch POP client, but for IMAP needs, almost any > other IMAP-capable MUA could exceed TB's performance. That's for you. If you were sitting in front of my machine and using my TB! with FastMail, you'd be thinking differently. :) IMAP is so server dependent that you can only make such declarations on an individual basis. This variable behaviour is based on TB!'s current youthfulness with regard to IMAP support. A youthfulness that will eventually mature given adequate attention and testing/debugging. > Before I unsub, I just want to thank the TBUDL & TBBETA communities > for all the help and assistance you have been over the years in > answering questions, overcoming problems, and making my TB experience > much better and more useful than it otherwise would have been. Pity that you're leaving. Another user and tester gone and likely to share his impressions with others, which is perfectly expected, and reasonable. That's RIT's loss. Anyway, all the best to you. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.51.10 System Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name -=-=- Wait! Clinton's How to Serve Taxpayers -- it's a COOKBOOK! ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
