Well, I really don't know why you should feel insulted if that applies
to you.
If you don't take care of polished, skinnable widget style with bells
and whistles and spinning activity indicators and shaded buttons and so
on, because your preference is more to features and speed and such
things tha
Hi Sebastian!
That's a good point! I just looked at the linux version and didn't
thought that there could be major differences!
Thanks a lot for this info!
Best,
Daniel
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> --On 11. September 2006 14:14:21 +0200 Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And it misses
Hi Scott!
Thanks for your thoughts! I really appreciate reading your perspective!
I might not have stated clearly enough, whos opinion I speak about. It
was the opinion of about 20 very different users I evaluated Mulberry
with and my opinion, too.
This of course is not representative in any ima
--On 11. September 2006 14:14:21 +0200 Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And it misses a lot of features I use every day. Virtual folders, inline
attachments (jpegs for example), forwarding emails attached, view
attached emails, Drag and Drop support and so on and so forth.
Scott already
--On Monday, September 11, 2006 2:14 PM +0200 Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and yours is certainly welcome.
However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I have heard comments
the cover pretty much the whole spectrum with regards to its usability
--On Monday, September 11, 2006 14:14 +0200 Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But it's nice, that everyone who doesn't care about looking and
usability now has a suitable free IMAP client availiable.
It is possible to state your preference without insulting everyone else.
Joseph Br
x27;t had bad
> experiences with Thunderbird in that regard. I still don't use it, but
> that's not the issue here.
>
> -- Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on 26. Juli
> 2006 21:31:40 +0200 regarding Re: performance issue (imap spool on
On 2006-07-28 at 11:05 +0100, Andrew Findlay wrote:
> Headers are not usually very large, so I would be more inclined to
> the idea that the index should store every header (perhaps with a
> blocklist to avoid things like Received:)
Those fine folk at Cambridge who introduced replication have a nu
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:37:43AM +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
> Might it not be better to have Cyrus 'learn' what header lines are needed,
> rather than just bloating the list with more headers. The set of headers
> would needed to be dynamically changable. The points are:
>
> 1) different IMA
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:41:19AM +0200, Daniel Eckl wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Findlay schrieb:
> >On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:18:12AM -0700, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> >
> >>So, perhaps we could state that the desired behavior of any IMAP
> >>client would be to fetch only those message headers it ned
Andrew Findlay schrieb:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:18:12AM -0700, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
So, perhaps we could state that the desired behavior of any IMAP
client would be to fetch only those message headers it nedds to and
perhaps a bit more. In case of TB, that would transalte to fetching
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:18:12AM -0700, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> So, perhaps we could state that the desired behavior of any IMAP client would
> be to fetch only those message headers it nedds to and perhaps a bit more. In
> case of TB, that would transalte to fetching only headers that wou
Thank you all for your responses. This was insightful.
So, perhaps we could state that the desired behavior of any IMAP client would
be to fetch only those message headers it nedds to and perhaps a bit more. In
case of TB, that would transalte to fetching only headers that would be visible
to t
> My telnet client could do 'ls -lR /' when I log in, and cache it, but it
> doesn't :-)
If your telnet client would need several minutes to show you all files in case
you are searching for a file you don't exactly know its name, then you would
definitely prefer that it would do so.
Best,
Danie
--On Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:58 -0700 Nikola Milutinovic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Say you have a GUI IMAP client XxX. Say you start it up and click on the
INBOX. What would you desire/expect XxX to do?
First I'd like it not to open inbox unless I do click on inbox (or unless
I config
--On 27. Juli 2006 02:58:15 -0700 Nikola Milutinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Say you have a GUI IMAP client XxX. Say you start it up and click on the
INBOX. What would you desire/expect XxX to do?
That depends on the situation.
I would expect to see all mail headers in my inbox.
Really
Hi Nikola!
Say you have a GUI IMAP client XxX. Say you start it up and click on
the INBOX. What would you desire/expect XxX to do?
I would expect to see all mail headers in my inbox.
Well, you cannot see _all_ of your headers when you have a big mailbox
full of mails. You can only see a few o
> > The first time you open a large IMAP folder is not very fast, I have to
> > admit, but I didn't find any other comparable IMAP client without this
> > problem. Perhaps there are some, but I didn't try them because of the
> > lack of other basic email features.
> This is why they aren't IMAP cl
--On July 26, 2006 9:31:40 PM +0200 Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Michael!
Thunderbird is NOT an IMAP client.
<...>
The first time you open a large IMAP folder is not very fast, I have to
admit, but I didn't find any other comparable IMAP client without this
problem. Perhaps
erbird in that regard. I still don't use it, but
> that's not the issue here.
>
> -- Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on 26. Juli
> 2006 21:31:40 +0200 regarding Re: performance issue (imap spool on san):
>
>> In a graphical client you w
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on 26. Juli 2006
21:31:40 +0200 regarding Re: performance issue (imap spool on san):
In a graphical client you want to be able to scroll through your whole
message list without any delay. So I think there is no other chance but
caching all header infor
Hi David!
All your points are fully correct. But changes nothing to my basic
saying: It's plain wrong to say thunderbird is NOT an IMAP client.
It might be a very bad IMAP client regarding this one feature, but it IS
an IMAP client. It's fully RFC compliant, it does not matter if it uses
all IMAP
Hi Michael!
> Thunderbird is NOT an IMAP client.
I don't want to start a flamewar, so I tell you that I write this email
with a very polite temper in mind. Just to not set you up. But you have
to admit, your saying is extremely provocative.
Please can you explain your saying? Pine and Mutt both
Michael Loftis wrote:
--On July 26, 2006 12:02:41 PM +0200 Rudy Gevaert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've installed the latest cyrus release and I'm having trouble with large
mailboxes.
I was going to try if the 4Gig limit is gone and I'm filling up a mailbox
with mails.
If I open the
--On July 26, 2006 12:02:41 PM +0200 Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
I've installed the latest cyrus release and I'm having trouble with large
mailboxes.
I was going to try if the 4Gig limit is gone and I'm filling up a mailbox
with mails.
If I open the mailbox trough mutt it
Hi,
I've installed the latest cyrus release and I'm having trouble with
large mailboxes.
I was going to try if the 4Gig limit is gone and I'm filling up a
mailbox with mails.
If I open the mailbox trough mutt it gets loaded at a acceptable
(lighting fast) speed. However when using thunder
26 matches
Mail list logo
