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
rule-based triggering of custom processes
tree-display threaded view
custom IMAP flag support
so-called "smart mailboxes" (i.e., canned searches)
decent scriptability/automation support
attachment removal (leaving the message on the server)
all of which are arguably NOT necessary for an IMAP client to be functional - they are all 'niceties' and/or certainly open to an individuals opinion and have nothing to do with IMAP handling. For example, "Good UI": what he thinks is good, I do not. I might prefer the look of Thunderbird, he might prefer the look of Outlook. I have removed things such as UTF-8 support, speed, and searches as these could be seen as being essential to rate any email application as meeting the minimum requirements for handling IMAP mail as it does POP. But you cant say an email client "sucks" because it doesnt have 'decent scriptibility' - how many users REALLY would use this?! And rule-based triggering is only nice to have if you would use it, but it, like all the others, doesnt make its ability to handle IMAP
mail any less. I for one hate tree-display 'threaded' view and ALWAYS turn it off. Force it on me and I will rate the client as 'sucks'
IMAP mail handling essentials are (for example):
handle IMAP protocol as per RFC rules
Speed (it actually operates at a decent pace so as not to hinder the user or production)
Im guessing this is written by an American with their colourful turn of phrase to describe the graduations on a sliding scale from "1 = Sucks
" to "10 = F### Yeah!
(I quote)" with no other rating or graduation in between. I acknowledge he has a point of view/opinion on what HE would judge to be the ULTIMATE client, and I accept this. But he isnt speaking for everyone (One man's feature is another man's annoyance). I also note this was written on 2010. Things change and evolve.