[Dovecot] \" character in folder name results in strange LIST

[Charles Marcus]

On 9/5/2010 7:27 AM, Jerry wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:55:27 -0400
> Charles Marcus <CMarcus at Media-Brokers.com> articulated:
>> The biggest problem now with Outlook, imo, is its reliance on WORD's
>> totally broken HTML rendering engine (in both 2007 and 2010) instead
>> of IE. The only possible reason I can think of why MS made this
>> decision is to try to force people to use Office, but imo it was just
>> stupid.

> You have it backwards. People use MS Word and want it to integrate
> seamlessly into an e-mail client, database, etc. People are not
> 'forced' to use MS Office. They use it because it is the best word
> processor in existence and it can be easily integrated into other
> applications easily.

None of which has anything to do with my comment, which stands:

The HTML rendering engine in Word (2007 and 2010) blows goats. MS's
decision to switch from IE to Word for the Outlook (2007 and 2010) HTML
rendering engine was brain-dead.

Here's just one page discussing why it is so bad:

http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/2393/microsoft-takes-email-design-b/

>> Thunderbird has its problems as well (broken HTML composer, still bugs
>> with the local store/cache code, etc), but it seems to be the best
>> (IMAP client) so far.

> For the record, I hear more complaints regarding Thunderbird than I do
> concerning MS Outlook (the latest version). The 2007 version of
> Outlook is no longer relevant. Comparing deprecated versions of any
> software is a Sisyphean task.

Don't be silly. Market share is what counts, and 2010 still has vastly
less market share than any of the others. 2000 and 2003 probably each
have the largest market share.

As for being 'deprecated' (this is a misuse of the term) - Office XP
(release in 2002) is still not officially end of (extended) life, much
less 2003 or 2007.

This is getting way OT though...

-- 

Best regards,

Charles