No, forcing implementation of a filter routing rule IS
the kludgy workaround, and only necessary because
Outlook must be the mail client. Admins must understand
that OL cannot be configured to implement the features
of IMAP4 in a seamless, integrated, user-friendly way.
(See MSKB Q287574).

In other words, the proper admin solution is to
implement the standards-based IMAP4 protocol--designed
and developed SPECIFICALLY to address his users precise
needs. Implementing a filter rule kludge in this case
is like trying to use a hammer instead of someone
simply handing you the correct screwdriver.

Dev

Saturday, July 26, 2003, 4:01:31 PM, you wrote:

WL> That only partly solves the problem.  An email client being able to
WL> configure this feature is not an appropriate admin tool to perform this
WL> simple task for groups of users.   

WL> Sure Outlook is not the best POP or IMAP client.  Both Outlook and IMail
WL> suck for what RMilner wants to accomplish with POP.  Whenever possible,
WL> I would deploy IMAP over POP as well. 

WL> It's not an unreasonable feature request for an email server to handle.

WL> William


WL> On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 13:06, Sanford Whiteman wrote: 
>> > But  if  it  is handled at the email client side, then the damage is
>> > already  done  -  as the email had to be retrieved off the server at
>> > that point.
>> 
>> Wrong.  As  others  have pointed out, you're seeing the limitations of
>> Outlook  more  than  those of IMail. Your objection to IMail--"written
>> from  a  programmer's  point  of view and not an end user's"--would be
>> better  assigned to Outlook (except you should substitute "marketer's"
>> for "programmer's").
>> 
>> A smart mail client, such as The Bat!, can perform server-side pruning
>> of  messages  without  taking  up  any  extra bandwidth. It features a
>> "dispatch  mail on server" feature which solves your problem, pure and
>> simple.  Other  mail clients can do the same, as well as automatically
>> leaving  large  messages  on  the server, (and I actually believe that
>> very  old  versions of OL did as well, IIRC). The POP3 verbs are there
>> to  do  all  of  this;  if  Outlook  doesn't  use them, it's not using
>> standards-based  functions.  While  it would be nice if IMail had this
>> ability, my finger stays pointed at MS.
>> 
>> -Sandy
>>


To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/

Reply via email to