Dravion wrote:David (the mastermind behind the whole client/server development) looks like a verry nice person but it seems the whole enterprise doesnt fit the bill.He begs his customers for donations to keep the development allive, its verry sad to see something like this, he deserved it way better.
katip wrote:D. Harris is an acclaimed & actually great programmer. Sad but he's a loser in terms of trade.
jimimaseye wrote:For me, talking about 'speed' being a factor from one client to the next I question because in modern day technology the differences in speed must be at split-second levels which is usually beyond the recognition of the user. Given the other factors in place that can affect speed and response (network speed, processing power, feeding/peer mail server/client, additional AV/spam solution etc) I question how 'speed' specifically can be perceived as a major factor in choice.
So, what makes an email client "the best" ?
jimimaseye wrote:I completely disregard his rant for one simple reason: he makes it clear that his intention is to review IMAP mail handling by titling the review as "The Best IMAP Client...." instead of simply "The Best (email) Client...". His emphasis is the "IMAP". And yet, he then goes off to list his reasons for clients failing his 'review' such as
all of which are arguably NOT necessary for an IMAP client to be functional
It can handle my 60,000-message personal/business archive, but not that plus the 500,000 or so messages of archived mailing list mail (had to move those to gmail, which also sucks). With a bunch of accounts, it sometimes takes over ten minutes to quit cleanly (on an 8-core '09 Mac Pro)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests