🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>>>At one office, they'd set up Outlook Express years ago. What a horrid client.
> 
>>>They've got an AT&T Web hosting account, through which they also get email.
>>>After the help desk previously denied that they had an IMAP server, one of
>>>the help desk droids admitted that they did indeed have an IMAP server.
> 
>>>So I switched Outlook Express from POP3 to IMAP. I don't know if it's IMAP4,
>>>because it doesn't say. It's helpful to be able to check messages remotely,
>>>which I cannot do with POP3.
> 
>>>How do I adjust the folder order as it appears on the left side
>>>of the screen?  Even though I deleted or moved the messages in the
>>>local Inbox set up for POP3, I cannot delete these mailboxes. It's a
>>>feature. Meanwhile, the IMAP inboxes, the ones I need to check regularly,
>>>appear at the end of the list.
> 
>>I've not used OE in some years, but recall you can hide junk accounts with 
>>a new "identity", and the switch between them.
> 
> I saw a way to toggle the visibility of folders in the two IMAP accounts,
> but there didn't seem to be a way to hide the default local folders created
> for retrieving Mail via POP3.

Here's the first problem- pop3. throw that shit away, the 90s are over. The second you configure pop3, you're already 
doing it wrong.

>>>The synchronization feature is likely to cause problems, so I turned it off.
> 
>>never heard of this.
> 
> When it connects to the INBOX via IMAP, or one of the folders on the
> remote host, it creates a cache of those mailboxes locally. It saves the
> cache by default, but it can be purged. The trouble is that the user
> increases the chance that the wrong email message will be deleted by
> default since it's not immediately obvious if the action takes effect
> on the cached message or the message on the remote server.

I used outlook express for years and never had these problems. Maybe AT&T 
runs some buggy shit like UW imap that's been ported to windows or 
something like that.

It's not uncommon for hundreds of people to be logged into my IMAP servers 
and I've stepped people through virtually any IMAP client ever written 
over at least 10 years now and we're talking some with extreme mailboxes 
exceeding 20GB and hundreds of thousands of messages, including bizarre 
stuff like 45,000 messages in their inbox. yeah, the blackberry client 
used to asplode past 8192 or so messages per folder. I've never seen mutt 
go past 20,000 per folder, and OE has no problem going past 32k messages 
per folder or even the inbox.

Outlook is slow no matter what you do. Thunderbird crashes more than it 
ran until the later versions of 2, and 3 works if you fix all the broken 
defaults. Early version of 3 have the most shit defaults ever created. 
Just replace Bruce's rant here and that's how I feel about thunderbird 3.

If you still have a 10 years old version of windows, OE is an OK way to 
go.