| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
IMAP and virtual foldersIMAP and virtual foldersPosted Jan 29, 2008 14:55 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: The beginning of Thunderbird 3 planning by ringerc Parent article: The beginning of Thunderbird 3 planning In fact, the only reason I had to switch to Evolution was lack of support for mailing list based virtual folders on IMAP in Thunderbird. Yes, there is a bug in bugzilla for that. A more generic complaint is that the logic for virtual folders is very limited. For example, I cannot make a virtual folder for messages that didn't come from any mailing lists. That's true for Evolution as well. Fix that, and I'll switch back.
(Log in to post comments)
IMAP and virtual folders Posted Jan 30, 2008 0:46 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Evolution sucks for IMAP. Sadly the competition sucks even more. I deal with several thousand mails per day using Evolution and vfolders and I far too often find myself waiting as Evolution goes off in a trance for no good reason - there is a reason, it has decided to do something silly with IMAP server, it's just not a _good_ reason. Today I did my semi-annual checkout-if-any-of-the-competitors-have-stopped-sucking-yet. The answer was a resounding "no". I watched sadly as Thunderbird, Balsa and Sylpheed all started downloading message headers 1 at a time from the server, destined to finish some time next year. Kmail was reasonably snappy and seems to actually take advantage of some of IMAP's goodness however searching by "any recipient contains" just got me a while bunch of error messages. It seems it has no idea which kinds of searches are available on an IMAP server. It really makes me wonder does anyone actually use IMAP or do they just develop the code with test accounts on test servers :(
IMAP and virtual folders Posted Jan 30, 2008 2:14 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] I use Thunderbird with IMAP and it's OK for my needs. While I agree that most IMAP clients suck, you have to realize that IMAP as a protocol sucks. It's really a horrible protocol; the best IMAP client I know of is "Pine" (or "Alpine") and one of the authors of Pine was the main IMAP RFC author, so I'd hope he'd get it right! For Thunderbird 3, I'm not that interested in an integrated calendar. I would prefer some kind of tagging mechanism to tag messages (with arbitrary numbers of tags per message) and then filtering on tags to make virtual folders.
IMAP and virtual folders Posted Jan 30, 2008 10:39 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Yes, I've written a few scripts to do bulk operations in IMAP and it definitely seems like a protocol that just grew and the was documented but that is no excuse for clients doing: when they should be doing:Fetch message 1 header. Thank you. Fetch message 2 header. Thank you. The same goes for moving/copying messages. IMAP support always seems to be bolted on afterwardsGive me all the message headers. Thank you.
IMAP and virtual folders Posted Jan 30, 2008 19:01 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] IMAP support always seems to be bolted on afterwards Sadly, that's true. I can imagine the development going something like this: "Aaaah! There are all these weird mail stores out there. Let's abstract out a generic mailstore and specialize it for each actual store." "OK, what can a mail store do? Well, let's look at POP3 and see.." The generic mail store API is then designed around POP3 and has no idea how to use the more advanced facilities offered by IMAP. :-(
|
|
||||||||||||