IMAP clients?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Mac gaming
Next: Playing Wide Screen Movie
From: Chris Ridd on 8 Mar 2010 02:55 On 2010-03-08 07:50:04 +0000, Martin S Taylor said: > Chris Ridd wrote >> Also they don't understand IMAP and SMTP fully. > > This strikes me as a handicap for someone writing an IMAP client. Yes, though I'm sure they're learning fast! Whether they're "getting" the way IMAP wants your program to work or not... You can watch the code commits at <http://github.com/ccgus/letters/commits/> -- Chris
From: Jon B on 10 Mar 2010 11:54 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-06 16:27:23 +0000, Tim Hodgson said: > > > Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2010-03-06 14:39:36 +0000, Tim Hodgson said: > >> > >>> Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm holding out for Letters.app, the possible open source IMAP mail > >>>> client from Brent Simmons, Gus Mueller and John Gruber. > >>> > >>> Me too, but it's got to be a long way off atm. > >> > >> Think so too. > >> > >> I did wonder about trying Entourage, but... Mmmm. > > > > I've managed this long without MS Office, I'm not cracking now! > > > > (Actually, my partner uses Entourage and it seems pretty good. Didn't > > some of the Claris Emailer developers end up working on Entourage?) > > That's right. However it suffers from using a huge slow monolithic > database to store everything in, which makes it very unfriendly to Time > Machine. Microsoft are replacing it in the next Mac Office with Outlook. It being an IMAP client though it doesn't really need backing up as it's all a copy of everything on the server. Regretfully I'm mainly using Entourage as the best of a bad bunch for work. We ditched PM a few years ago due to lacklustre IMAP support. -- Jon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.
From: D.M. Procida on 10 Mar 2010 13:17 Jon B <black.hole(a)jonbradbury.com> wrote: > Regretfully I'm mainly using Entourage as the best of a bad bunch for > work. We ditched PM a few years ago due to lacklustre IMAP support. I've used PowerMail happily for 12 years or more, but the inadequate IMAP implementation is becoming an increasing problem. So for the first time I looked at something else, which was Postbox. Bloody hell, what a dog's breakfast that was. Daniele
From: Martin-S on 10 Mar 2010 13:50 In article <1jf5a60.pbvo725ns1tdN%black.hole(a)jonbradbury.com>, black.hole(a)jonbradbury.com (Jon B) wrote: > Regretfully I'm mainly using Entourage as the best of a bad bunch for > work. We ditched PM a few years ago due to lacklustre IMAP support. I still use the last version of Eudora for all my IMAP accounts and it works swimmingly well. I'm on 10.4, but apparently it continues to work in 10.6 just fine. I can't get excited about any of the current alternatives, so I'm watching the progress of Mailforge <http://www.infinitydatasystems.com/mailforge/> with great interest. It's certainly not there yet, but the fact that the devs are die-hard Eudora users gives me hope. -- Martin
From: Chris Ridd on 10 Mar 2010 13:50
On 2010-03-10 18:40:52 +0000, Tim Hodgson said: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jon B <black.hole(a)jonbradbury.com> wrote: >> >>> Regretfully I'm mainly using Entourage as the best of a bad bunch for >>> work. We ditched PM a few years ago due to lacklustre IMAP support. >> >> I've used PowerMail happily for 12 years or more, but the inadequate >> IMAP implementation is becoming an increasing problem. So for the first >> time I looked at something else, which was Postbox. >> >> Bloody hell, what a dog's breakfast that was. > > If "a warmed over Thunderbird" (� Chris Ridd) is accurate, that sounds > about right. :-) They've also screwed around with the GUI, and made it non-free. > The thing that's surprising me in my IMAP investigations is how uncommon > it seems to be for people to do server-side filtering - I mean filtering > of wanted mail into subfolders, rather than just spam filtering. I'd > assumed that would be a major and widely-used advantage of IMAP, more or > less eliminating lengthy fiddling about with every email client you try. > > It's only now I'm discovering that procmail and co. seem to have fallen > out of favour in a big way. Maybe I'm missing something? Do procmail and co require shell accounts? That is probably a big deterrent for most providers, simply on security grounds. SIEVE doesn't need this, but it isn't widely supported or advertised. -- Chris |