Hello, Axel. You wrote 18 февраля 2010 г., 18:45:21:
This is not a my-email-client-is-better-than-your-email-client thread, I just want to know which client(s) make proper use of imap features for fast searches/copies/deletions etc. IMHO, all existing clients suck, but not only due to IMAP4 [mis]using, but because UI is terrible. For example, I don't lnow any client with proper, accurate text-only quoting (with '> ' marks). Some clients forget to spilt long lines, some don't add '> ' when I split quote line by hands, some don't remove '> ' automagically when lines in quote are merged (by deleting CR/NL on previous line), and things become even mnore horrible whrn here are many quotes of different level. I'm not mention clients, which have top-quoting-only setting or doesn't have templates for editor (no, a signature file IS NOT A TEMPLATE!)
Threading, working with mailing lists (with all these List-XXXheaders which are standard now), using diffferent "From" names and e-mails for different folders (and, yes, different templates), differnet templates for different replies, good filters (Thunderbird's filters creation UI is bad, IMHO), flexible but esy-to-setup-default purging rules, etc, etc, etc -- all these features are missing or implemented horribly wrong in most clients (I don't claim, that every client has every feature from this list implemented wrong, but most of clients has 1/2 or more of this list absent or unusable).
There is one client which have not-so-bad-UI (I can not use EMACS GNU, but I think everything COULD BE DONE in EMACS, so, may be THERE ARE TWO clients): Ritlab's "The Bat!". But it works with IMAP terribly wrong, works only on Windows, costs money, and is somwhere buggy :(
-- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov lev@serebryakov.spb.ru