Thanks everyone - the simple matter is IMAP4 is not an option. I was looking for a simple solution for a rule in a worst case scenario could be inserted in the users rules that would move large messages from one mailbox to another.
It seems obvious that IMail cannot accomplish this task and has turned into a bashing of Microsoft Outlook. Thank you for confirming what I had suspected after searching for an answer. If anyone has a way to filter rules by size and type, please let me know as the change to IMAP4 is not possible at this time. Again, thanks for those who responded. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dev Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] IMail Rule for Attachment Size 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/ 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/
