Clive Taylor wrote: > I've crossed this bridge, Keith. Although I miss some of TB's > features, rock-solid, fast IMAP performance is more important to me > for my domain mail and I don't regret a penny I spent on a licence for > Mulberry. Time will tell whether I can say the same about the > (admittedly small) sum I spent on the v3 upgrade to TB.
I didn't know I'd see the day when I could defend TB! where IMAP is concerned. I do have a Mulberry license and I've been around the bend with it. I've had the assistance with Gary, another Mulberry user, and now have a good grasp of how it works and why I have problems with it. TB! definitely is the better IMAP client for me. The IMAP experience seems to depend on your IMAP server and your connection speeds. I currently have been having stability problems with Mulberry. It often crashes while sending mail. I'm not sure why. I thought I had it down to a pattern and thought I could work around it. However, I was wrong. Mulberry is heavily modal when busy working with the server. You have to wait for it to do it's thing before you get a chance to do other things like editing a message or fiddling with settings. It's very slow when I wish to thread my mail. In fact, it's slower than TB! even when doing straight header retrieval for threading. I wish it would stop asking me if I wish to thread using what information on messages I already have vs retrieving all information for full threading of the message list. Threading just what is there is quicker, but there's no apparent way to prevent that popup query from appearing. If your IMAP server supports threading, then this will all not be a problem for you. If you suddenly lose your connection, the message you're reading disappears from view. So you need a reliable connection with Mulberry. I'm having problems with Mulberry recognizing PGP/MIME signed messages sent to TBUDL and TBBETA. It seems to ignore them completely. However, PGP/MIME signed messages sent privately are fine. I don't know what the difference is. The last straw occurred when I noted that Mulberry kept sending messages with parts of my signature text missing. The last few characters would be missing. Now, I'm not saying all these things about Mulberry to start a TB! vs Mulberry exchange. My point is that for each person, the experience with one client as opposed to another can be very different. So for those reading, and who wish to start using IMAP, do not assume that your TB! experience will be terrible or unreliable or problematic. Furthermore, don't assume that Mulberry will be rock-solid. :) TB! is the more stable client from where I'm sitting and using the server I use. I admit that TB! doesn't support all the protocol specific features that clients like Mulberry do. However, Mulberry does depend on the server supporting all IMAP protocol features. If the server doesn't, then Mulberry can become a problem since it's speed and functionality does depend on good and extensive protocol support by servers. I'm having a highly reliable experience with TB! at the moment. This is so not-withstanding the lack of some functionality. However, weighing the pros and cons of each experience, Mulberry, ThunderBird and TB!; at the moment TB! is my winner. For Clive, it's Mulberry. Just see how it is for you. Don't give up immediately since TB! can likely be made to work better for you, especially where operating speed and responsiveness is concerned. Here ends my advocacy. :) -- Allie Martin ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.0.1 RC/7 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
