[Dovecot] [OT] preferred clients
I'm getting tired of Thunderbird telling me I have unread messages in folders that haven't gotten new messages for months so I'm looking for a new mail client. I know the problem lies with Thunderbird because everything is fine via RoundCube and if it tell Thunderbird to rebuild it's index it shows the folder correctly again. Except of course for a subset of the messages in my inbox that it insists where delivered at the exact time I re-indexed it, every time.
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings because (probably like many of you) I get 100s of emails a day via lists and anything that speeds my way through them is good.
I run my own server (probably obvious being on this list) and can install webmail clients as well. I ran squirrelmail for a while but although functional it's quite dated. I'm using RoundCube for access away from my systems now but it lacks keyboard shortcut support and trying to click one email after another with a laptop touchpad gets painful fast.
Thanks, Jonathan
screen+mutt
-- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Jonathan wrote:
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings because (probably like many of you) I get 100s of emails a day via lists and anything that speeds my way through them is good.
I would recommend mutt and alpine.
They both works well with dovecot. Mutt is more powerfull and configurable (after learning how to set it up); alpine is more straightforward at first.
-- Nicolas
Jonathan wrote:
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings...
Have you tried the new Thunderbird 3 beta? There was a thread on this list recently about it. It has a lot of IMAP improvements.
Sylpheed has a new beta out as well with improved IMAP support. (Sylpheed runs on Windows and Linux, I wish it ran on Macs).
j
On 11/20/2009 1:27 PM, John Gateley wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings...
Have you tried the new Thunderbird 3 beta? There was a thread on this list recently about it. It has a lot of IMAP improvements.
I'm running Beta 4 now. I could try dropping back to Thunderbird 2.x but I don't want to have to choose between features and stability like that. I'm greedy and want both.
Sylpheed has a new beta out as well with improved IMAP support. (Sylpheed runs on Windows and Linux, I wish it ran on Macs).
I'm giving Claws Mail, a fork of Sylpheed apparently, a try. Haven't found a way to change key bindings yet and SHIFT-! is really awkward for marking a message unread.
Jonathan
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:38:43 -0500 Jonathan Jonathan jonathan@kc8onw.net replied:
[snip]
I'm giving Claws Mail, a fork of Sylpheed apparently, a try. Haven't found a way to change key bindings yet and SHIFT-! is really awkward for marking a message unread.
<MESSAGE> <MARK> Place cursor over 'Mark as Read"
Press the key combination you want to use. Warning, you will not receive a warning if over writing an existing binding. As always, RTFM is a worth while exercise. CM has a forum that can answer any questions that you might have as well.
-- Jerry gesbbb@yahoo.com
|::::======= |::::======= |=========== |=========== |
I always say beauty is only sin deep.
Saki, "Reginald's Choir Treat"On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, John Gateley wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings...
Have you tried the new Thunderbird 3 beta? There was a thread on this list recently about it. It has a lot of IMAP improvements.
It is very good compared to TB2. However, the exact problem the OP described still exists in 3.0b4. I've had the folks I setup with TB3 bugging the hell out of me about the "all of a sudden a bunch of messages are marked new" issue.
Charles
Sylpheed has a new beta out as well with improved IMAP support. (Sylpheed runs on Windows and Linux, I wish it ran on Macs).
j
On 11/20/2009, Charles Sprickman (spork@bway.net) wrote:
It is very good compared to TB2. However, the exact problem the OP described still exists in 3.0b4. I've had the folks I setup with TB3 bugging the hell out of me about the "all of a sudden a bunch of messages are marked new" issue.
This has to be some weird dovecot config problem... we just haven't ever seen anything even close to that here.
Do you use mbox or maildir (we've always used maildir)?
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 11/20/2009, Charles Sprickman (spork@bway.net) wrote:
It is very good compared to TB2. However, the exact problem the OP described still exists in 3.0b4. I've had the folks I setup with TB3 bugging the hell out of me about the "all of a sudden a bunch of messages are marked new" issue.
This has to be some weird dovecot config problem... we just haven't ever seen anything even close to that here.
I doubt it... As the OP said, this seems unique to TB. Webmail (roundcube) does not have any issues.
Do you use mbox or maildir (we've always used maildir)?
Maildir.
We're talking about a mailbox with two or more users always in it and around 40K messages across a few hundred folders. The scale of it all seems to be part of the issue I think.
C
On 11/20/2009, Charles Sprickman (spork@bway.net) wrote:
We're talking about a mailbox with two or more users always in it and around 40K messages across a few hundred folders. The scale of it all seems to be part of the issue I think.
Ok, last question then I'll shut up... ;)
Have you tried debugging using rawlog and/or the TBird debugging techniques described on the wiki?
On 11/20/2009 2:16 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
We're talking about a mailbox with two or more users always in it and around 40K messages across a few hundred folders. The scale of it all seems to be part of the issue I think.
I run TB v2 on my laptop and TB v3 betas on my desktop. I've not seen messages suddenly getting marked as unread.
My mailing list mailbox subscribes to a few dozen mailing lists, so most folders have between 1k and 25k messages in them (about 2GB of mail). The postmaster mailbox routinely has folders with 40-50k messages in a single folder (error reports, mailbox size is up around 2GB at the moment).
We're using a MailDir storage format, Dovecot 1.1.6 with Postfix on the front end. All running on top of CentOS 5.
(Biggest problem I've had with TB v2 is that it sometimes loses track of the server after a while, so you'll go to send a new message and it will get stuck trying to talk to the server.)
On 11/20/09 , Nov 20, 11:13 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 11/20/2009, Charles Sprickman (spork@bway.net) wrote:
It is very good compared to TB2. However, the exact problem the OP described still exists in 3.0b4. I've had the folks I setup with TB3 bugging the hell out of me about the "all of a sudden a bunch of messages are marked new" issue.
This has to be some weird dovecot config problem... we just haven't ever seen anything even close to that here.
Do you use mbox or maildir (we've always used maildir)?
I have this problem quite frequently. Only seems to happen on folders that have a ton of messages (i.e. dovecot mailing list). I've checked in a webmail IMAP client and they don't appear as unseen, so I'm guessing it is a TB problem. Not very thorough I know, but it certainly points to TB.
Using maildir DAS, dovecot 1.2.5, TB 3b4
And I thought it was just me :)
Jonathan jonathan@kc8onw.net writes:
Hi Jonathan!
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days?
I use Gnus [1], the version that is included in Emacs 23.
Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings because (probably like many of you) I get 100s of emails a day via lists and anything that speeds my way through them is good.
Gnus has those, but far more important to good key bindings is good scoring mechanisms. I also get more than 200 messages from several lists, but three quarters of them are not interesting to me and already scored down by Gnus. Because I sort threads by score and use different fonts for different scores, the important ones are easily visible.
Bye, Tassilo
On 11/20/2009 12:59 PM, Jonathan wrote:
I'm getting tired of Thunderbird telling me I have unread messages in folders that haven't gotten new messages for months so I'm looking for a new mail client. I know the problem lies with Thunderbird because everything is fine via RoundCube and if it tell Thunderbird to rebuild it's index it shows the folder correctly again. Except of course for a subset of the messages in my inbox that it insists where delivered at the exact time I re-indexed it, every time.
What IMAP server?
We have been using Thunderbird for about 8 years on 60+ computers since about version 0.8, and have *never* had a *recurring* problem like that. Of course there have been the occasional time I had to delete the folders and let TBird redownload everything and rebuild the indexes, but never, ever has there been a recurring problem...
Methinks there is something else going on, it is not thunderbird per se (yes, I understand you are only seeing this when using TBird).
I can't wait for TBird 3 for all of the IMAP improvements...
Personally, I am using Horde (http://www.horde.org/) at work (this
address) and Outlook 2007 at home (largely due to getting freaky
attachments I need to open on a regular basis that only Microsoft mail
clients seem to be able to open properly).
Horde is a webmail client, and works well in Firefox (where you can
open the left hand menu in a sidebar separate from your tabs). I
install it with the calendar, notes, tasks, etc included and we tell
our users to log into it in order to change their passwords.
Thomas Berezansky Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
Quoting Jonathan jonathan@kc8onw.net:
I'm getting tired of Thunderbird telling me I have unread messages
in folders that haven't gotten new messages for months so I'm
looking for a new mail client. I know the problem lies with
Thunderbird because everything is fine via RoundCube and if it tell
Thunderbird to rebuild it's index it shows the folder correctly
again. Except of course for a subset of the messages in my inbox
that it insists where delivered at the exact time I re-indexed it,
every time.So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably
windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings
because (probably like many of you) I get 100s of emails a day via
lists and anything that speeds my way through them is good.I run my own server (probably obvious being on this list) and can
install webmail clients as well. I ran squirrelmail for a while but
although functional it's quite dated. I'm using RoundCube for
access away from my systems now but it lacks keyboard shortcut
support and trying to click one email after another with a laptop
touchpad gets painful fast.Thanks, Jonathan
On 11/20/2009, Thomas Berezansky (tsbere@mvlc.org) wrote:
and Outlook 2007 at home (largely due to getting freaky attachments I need to open on a regular basis that only Microsoft mail clients seem to be able to open properly).
If you're talking about winmail.dat files, I found a very simple/elegant solution for TBird for our office that totally eliminated this problem - happy to share if anyone wants...
On 11/20/2009 1:51 PM, Thomas Berezansky wrote:
Personally, I am using Horde (http://www.horde.org/) at work (this address) and Outlook 2007 at home (largely due to getting freaky attachments I need to open on a regular basis that only Microsoft mail clients seem to be able to open properly).
Out of morbid curiosity... how good is Outlook 2007 at IMAP? I've had experience with Outlook 2003 and the 2GB PST limit was a deal breaker for me. I'm curious whether Outlook is getting better or worse at IMAP.
(In OL2003, they introduced a better PST format that was no longer limited to 2GB. But you can't use it with IMAP accounts. It also had weird behavior like deleting messages would not make them vanish from the folder until you did some sort of compact operation.)
Thomas Harold wrote:
On 11/20/2009 1:51 PM, Thomas Berezansky wrote:
Personally, I am using Horde (http://www.horde.org/) at work (this address) and Outlook 2007 at home (largely due to getting freaky attachments I need to open on a regular basis that only Microsoft mail clients seem to be able to open properly).
Out of morbid curiosity... how good is Outlook 2007 at IMAP? I've had experience with Outlook 2003 and the 2GB PST limit was a deal breaker for me. I'm curious whether Outlook is getting better or worse at IMAP.
They finally added the ability to set a "sent items" folder on the IMAP server rather than using stupid tricks to copy it over, so that's a plus. The fact that it can't "delete" by moving a copy to a "deleted items" folder still bugs me enough that I won't use it. No idea about the PST size thing though, never got that far.
~Seth
On 11/22/2009, Seth Mattinen (sethm@rollernet.us) wrote:
They finally added the ability to set a "sent items" folder on the IMAP server rather than using stupid tricks to copy it over, so that's a plus. The fact that it can't "delete" by moving a copy to a "deleted items" folder still bugs me enough that I won't use it. No idea about the PST size thing though, never got that far.
One thing that is ridiculous about 2007 is it won't display HTML messages on IMAP servers... probably related to their totally BRAIN-DEAD decision to use the WORD HTML rendering engine instead of the IE rendering engine.
I understand that in spite of a huge number of complaints about this, they did not fix this issue in Outlook 2010...
Wait, what? I have, right now, a HTML message open, from an IMAP
server, in Outlook 2007. Where did you hear that it wouldn't?
Thomas Berezansky Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
Quoting Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com:
On 11/22/2009, Seth Mattinen (sethm@rollernet.us) wrote:
They finally added the ability to set a "sent items" folder on the IMAP server rather than using stupid tricks to copy it over, so that's a plus. The fact that it can't "delete" by moving a copy to a "deleted items" folder still bugs me enough that I won't use it. No idea about the PST size thing though, never got that far.
One thing that is ridiculous about 2007 is it won't display HTML messages on IMAP servers... probably related to their totally BRAIN-DEAD decision to use the WORD HTML rendering engine instead of the IE rendering engine.
I understand that in spite of a huge number of complaints about this, they did not fix this issue in Outlook 2010...
On 11/22/2009, Thomas Berezansky (tsbere@mvlc.org) wrote:
Wait, what? I have, right now, a HTML message open, from an IMAP server, in Outlook 2007. Where did you hear that it wouldn't?
I saw it with my own two eyes...
Its been a while, maybe they addressed this with an update.
Regardless, their choice to use the Word HTML rendering engine makes Outlook HTML support sucky at best.
When we were trying to get HTML messages to render on an IMAP account, we compared HTML messages in Outlook to Thunderbird - same messages - and Outlooks rendering was very different, and really bad. Thunderbirds was perfect.
Outlook is CRAP as an IMAP client.
On November 21, 2009 9:39:10 PM -0800 Seth Mattinen sethm@rollernet.us wrote:
The fact that it can't "delete" by moving a copy to a "deleted items" folder still bugs me enough that I won't use it.
Not a useful feature anyway, IMHO. Of course this is a user preference but I like my deleted emails to stay right where they are thank you very much. Then as I'm continuing on down the thread and realize I want to undelete a message, it's right there.
With expunge-on-close in combination with dovecot's lazy_expunge, it's a perfect combination.
If the client moves deleted messages to a trash folder, then it has to rethread messages which potentially changes the order (not for Outlook generated mail, which doesn't generate useful threading info) and then the "next" message after deletion might be different. That would be annoying.
-frank
Didn't notice that my reply to this didn't include the list (the
default reply option due to having my address directly was "to
sender", not "to list" due to a local setting). Only noticed after the
fact.
My response:
One of my IMAP folders has over 13000 messages and is handled fine,
but I am not currently sure how much actual space that is taking up
right now. I suspect it isn't even half a GB. However, Microsoft
states (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/830336) that Outlook 2007
doesn't use the 2GB limited format for anything by default, and that
the default limit is 20GB as a result, likely with registry options to
allow it to grow larger.
The only issue I see with "deleting messages doesn't make them go
away" is that "delete" on an IMAP account is "flag as deleted" by
default, which means you need to issue an IMAP purge command. As I
don't use "trash" folders I prefer this behavior, even in Thunderbird
and Horde. I just add the purge commands to my toolbar. I think the
flagged as deleted thing is what you are thinking about with the "some
sort of compact operation", and is technically how IMAP is supposed to
handle deletes.
For that issue, there is a "Purge items when switching folders while
online" option, per account, that can be enabled. Also, the showing of
deleted items is optional (when shown they, in all clients I have
used, have a strike-through applied to them).
Thomas Berezansky Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
Quoting Thomas Harold thomas-lists@nybeta.com:
On 11/20/2009 1:51 PM, Thomas Berezansky wrote:
Personally, I am using Horde (http://www.horde.org/) at work (this address) and Outlook 2007 at home (largely due to getting freaky attachments I need to open on a regular basis that only Microsoft mail clients seem to be able to open properly).
Out of morbid curiosity... how good is Outlook 2007 at IMAP? I've
had experience with Outlook 2003 and the 2GB PST limit was a deal
breaker for me. I'm curious whether Outlook is getting better or
worse at IMAP.(In OL2003, they introduced a better PST format that was no longer
limited to 2GB. But you can't use it with IMAP accounts. It also
had weird behavior like deleting messages would not make them vanish
from the folder until you did some sort of compact operation.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Harold said the following on 22/11/09 03:51:
Out of morbid curiosity... how good is Outlook 2007 at IMAP?
Better than 2003. In 2007 you can even store your sent mail in an IMAP box instead on a local folder.
The new PST file formt has still a size limit (20 gigs).
But you have to take in account that Outlook is mainly a client of Exchange that incidentally does POP3 and IMAP.
Ciao, luigi
/ +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
Morpheus: How did I beat you? Neo: You... you're too fast. Morpheus: Do you believe that my being stronger or faster has anything to do with my muscles in this place? Do you think that's air you're breathing now? --"Matrix" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksJH58ACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZS4fACeM+TBKGgo2y8xArRDovksFtHG MAIAnign3/MWoaUM64qd/BOi+X/niVjk =ZkzQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:25:22 +0100 Luigi Rosa lists@luigirosa.com replied:
Thomas Harold said the following on 22/11/09 03:51:
Out of morbid curiosity... how good is Outlook 2007 at IMAP?
Better than 2003. In 2007 you can even store your sent mail in an IMAP box instead on a local folder.
The new PST file formt has still a size limit (20 gigs).
But you have to take in account that Outlook is mainly a client of Exchange that incidentally does POP3 and IMAP.
They have made major changes to the *.pst format, including size limit. You could start here for some basic information.
http://blogs.msdn.com/outlook/archive/2009/10/29/outlook-pst-file-format-and...
Of course this only applies to Microsoft Office 2010, a BETA of which is available at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/outlook/archive/2009/11/18/announcing-microsoft-office...
If you are using a version <2007 then upgrading should be seriously considered. The "ODF" format in the 2010 version is supposedly more compliant than that used in OpenOffice.
-- Jerry gesbbb@yahoo.com
|::::======= |::::======= |=========== |=========== |
I came to MIT to get an education for myself and a diploma for my mother.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jerry said the following on 22/11/09 13:46:
Of course this only applies to Microsoft Office 2010, a BETA of which is available at:
I am very happy to know that Microsft acknowledged at dawn of 2010 that the limitation of personal storage is pointless.
Ciao, luigi
/ +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
The prejudices people feel about each other disappear when they get to know each other. --James Kirk, "Elaan of Troyius" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksJPbkACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZREGACfVCmh3T3drTw7v/8ylPVRigOv NkkAn23TRLGSp9M+vcF7EqaX9F/g+0B1 =cTZt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:33:46 +0100 Luigi Rosa lists@luigirosa.com replied:
Jerry said the following on 22/11/09 13:46:
Of course this only applies to Microsoft Office 2010, a BETA of which is available at:
I am very happy to know that Microsft acknowledged at dawn of 2010 that the limitation of personal storage is pointless.
The original PST specifications were developed when nobody had ever heard of a 'gig' of storage. It probably made sense then. In today's environment, it is indeed obsolete. From what I have read, Microsoft has totally revamped the PST format. In fact, they are suppose to be releasing the specs for it when Office 2010 is officially released.
-- Jerry gesbbb@yahoo.com
|::::======= |::::======= |=========== |=========== |
Information Center, n.: A room staffed by professional computer people whose job it is to tell you why you cannot have the information you require.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Jerry wrote:
Of course this only applies to Microsoft Office 2010, a BETA of which is available at:
I am very happy to know that Microsft acknowledged at dawn of 2010 that the limitation of personal storage is pointless.
The original PST specifications were developed when nobody had ever heard of a 'gig' of storage. It probably made sense then. In today's environment, it is indeed obsolete. From what I have read, Microsoft has totally revamped the PST format. In fact, they are suppose to be releasing the specs for it when Office 2010 is officially released.
It might be just me, but I can't read the 'revamp' thing in the article you link to. It just talks about how wonderful it is that they are going to put the format under their (IMNSHO pretty bad) Open Specification promise. The reason for doing that is clearly selfish: by allowing others to do something with the currently proprietary PST files, they wouldn't have to fear loosing the market to competitor's desktop products. What they SHOULD have done, was open up their MAPI protocol, to allow other back-end programs to talk to Outlook in a way that Outlook understands. Now THAT would be helping interoperability.
[Of course, one could argue that they should make Outlook conform to standards instead, but since they never showed any interest in conforming to standards with any product, that would be naive. Even with Vista's Windows Mail they adopted something "almost but not quite entirely unlike" Maildir format. Still better than PST, true..]
Having said that.. IMAP support in Outlook sure has improved from 2003 to 2007. It just has a looooong way to go. Using Outlook 2007 in a network environment with IMAP breaks every time a user logs in to another workstation. It took me a while to find a workaround, and it's still not entirely stable. But at least now that I moved the Outlook.pst and Outlookuser@servername-000002.pst to a samba share, it is useable. Still puzzled as to why they decided to store those in de LocalSettings instead of in the normal user profile or a standard network share...
-- Maarten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Maarten Bezemer said the following on 22/11/09 17:19:
[Of course, one could argue that they should make Outlook conform to standards instead, but since they never showed any interest in conforming to standards with any product, that would be naive. Even with Vista's Windows Mail they adopted something "almost but not quite entirely unlike" Maildir format. Still better than PST, true..]
Thy did this for the same reason OSX moved to a (sort of) maildir for local storage: ability to do a fulltext search within mail and easily identify the message in the result list of the search.
Ciao, luigi
/ +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. --Mentat mantra, Frank Herbert, "Dune" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksJaugACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZSAGwCfXQcS+HLhOJtwSiYaYhH0caGC S74Ani2D/QM0d2Oxj8oHXNkO7EUyovlB =BIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Maildir just for FTS? Standard Windows Search component (available for free) handles PST files excellently. Outlook is best email client. Even 2003. The only missing thing is inability to do imap-search request directly to imap server. So, if the message is not yet downloaded to local PST, Outlook (and Windows Search) will not find it. That's why webmail+dovecot fts is good thing to have. This FTS issue _may_be_ the problem in environment where users have not primary workstation. And thanks to Jerry for pointing another issue - problem if user logs in another workstation without logging out from first.
I tried to migrate to another clients several times. In the long run Outlook is the best. Even for IMAP. It does not handle IMAP perfectly, but quite well. It works OK with dovecot-imapd. If you are on Windows and you have MSOffice, Outlook is the answer.
Maarten Bezemer said the following on 22/11/09 17:19:
[Of course, one could argue that they should make Outlook conform to standards instead, but since they never showed any interest in conforming to standards with any product, that would be naive. Even with Vista's Windows Mail they adopted something "almost but not quite entirely unlike" Maildir format. Still better than PST, true..]
Thy did this for the same reason OSX moved to a (sort of) maildir for local storage: ability to do a fulltext search within mail and easily identify the message in the result list of the search.
Ciao, luigi
/ +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. --Mentat mantra, Frank Herbert, "Dune" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksJaugACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZSAGwCfXQcS+HLhOJtwSiYaYhH0caGC S74Ani2D/QM0d2Oxj8oHXNkO7EUyovlB =BIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----- End message from lists@luigirosa.com -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
vuser1@test123.ru said the following on 22/11/09 18:19:
Maildir just for FTS?
OSX changed its local mail storage to simil-maildir when has been added Exposé.
Ciao, luigi
/ +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
And on the eighth day, we bulldozed it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksJdAUACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZQT9ACfZgl8F+k9ZzfIofa33jeF/EHP sYkAnA5xKorO4oxqaLwvsupDJB21AAVQ =/EOx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, vuser1@test123.ru wrote:
Outlook is best email client. Even 2003. The only missing thing is inability to do imap-search request directly to imap server.
I won't say Outlook is the worst email client I've ever seen, but we all know that 'best' and 'Outlook' can only be in one sentence if it is accompanied by 'alternative to'... Outlook 2007 is better than 2003, for example with non-ascii text. With 2003, it's not possible to use a unicode pst for IMAP, so emails in (iirc) koi8-r are stored in the pst as all questionmarks. Forwarding them or saving them to another folder also forwards those changes to the IMAP server, effectively ruining the message. With Outlook 2007 things have improved, but it's still a mess.
This FTS issue _may_be_ the problem in environment where users have not primary workstation. And thanks to Jerry for pointing another issue - problem if user logs in another workstation without logging out from first.
Well, that part has been tackled by having the pst on a samba share: outlook simply won't open if you're still running it on another computer because then the PST is locked... To me, that sounds like a better solution than having multiple PSTs all with their own subset of the owner's emails.
I tried to migrate to another clients several times. In the long run Outlook is the best. Even for IMAP. It does not handle IMAP perfectly, but quite well. It works OK with dovecot-imapd. If you are on Windows and you have MSOffice, Outlook is the answer.
If you are on Windows, have MSOffice, don't need to administer lots of computers, and email in only one US-ASCII or ISO-LATIN1 supported language, then you might want to consider using Outlook. I've seen too many of my clients ordering me to install Outlook and then running in all kinds of trouble. Even as far as some changing to Squirrelmail because that at least enabled them to communicate with their colleagues in Russia etc. So Outlook is an answer only if you're prepared to face the consequences.
-- Maarten
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, vuser1@test123.ru wrote:
Outlook is best email client. Even 2003. The only missing thing is inability to do imap-search request directly to imap server.
I won't say Outlook is the worst email client I've ever seen, but we all know that 'best' and 'Outlook' can only be in one sentence if it is accompanied by 'alternative to'...
Alternatives were: Thunderbird, Evolution, TheBat. Should I try something else? I want to write HTML messages easy (use fonts, colors, numbered lists), embed screenshot images in emails by simple Print screen - copy buttons, integrate email meeting requests with calendar.
If you are on Windows, have MSOffice, don't need to administer lots of computers, and email in only one US-ASCII or ISO-LATIN1 supported language, then you might want to consider using Outlook. I've seen too many of my clients ordering me to install Outlook and then running in all kinds of trouble. Even as far as some changing to Squirrelmail because that at least enabled them to communicate with their colleagues in Russia etc. So Outlook is an answer only if you're prepared to face the consequences.
Squirrel mail, are you serious? Did you try horde/IMP? Outlook2003 indeed had problems with KOI-8/Win1251, but it was long-long time ago. I communicate in Russian a lot - no problems in last 3 years, not even one.
On 11/22/2009, Maarten Bezemer (mcbdovecot@robuust.nl) wrote:
But at least now that I moved the Outlook.pst and Outlookuser@servername-000002.pst to a samba share, it is useable. Still puzzled as to why they decided to store those in de LocalSettings instead of in the normal user profile or a standard network share...
They store them there because Microsft recommends against storing .PST files on network shareas... always have. Things can break really badly.
That said, I have heard some people claim they have been doing this for a long time and never gotten bit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Charles Marcus said the following on 22/11/09 20:25:
They store them there because Microsft recommends against storing .PST files on network shareas... always have. Things can break really badly.
If you store your PST on a file server and you make a backup of that server during the night, you can avoid buying an enterprise license of exchange.
PST files are very bad: you cannot open them if they are stored on a read-only file system (cdrom o r/o network share).
That said, I have heard some people claim they have been doing this for a long time and never gotten bit.
A pair of customers do this for at least 10 years with no problem.
Ciao, luigi
/ +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
God isn't dead, he just couldn't find a parking place. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksJkXQACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZSJFgCffnNjHHa/hex7XE/pNIg0Xkou ydIAn1CnPvuTa2bb67s62YYHZrRoiKY4 =4YuL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 11/22/2009, Maarten Bezemer (mcbdovecot@robuust.nl) wrote:
But at least now that I moved the Outlook.pst and Outlookuser@servername-000002.pst to a samba share, it is useable. Still puzzled as to why they decided to store those in de LocalSettings instead of in the normal user profile or a standard network share...
They store them there because Microsft recommends against storing .PST files on network shareas... always have. Things can break really badly.
That said, I have heard some people claim they have been doing this for a long time and never gotten bit.
I've seen PST's breaking for other reasons as well, even when still in LocalSettings. And I've never seen a PST get broken up to the point where the scanpst.exe tool couldn't fix it. Plus, we can do regular backups of all PSTs during the night, which only leaves 1 day's worth of appointments getting lost. Email can be synced from the IMAP server. Still, I'd rather not have the PST contain emails: that's what we use IMAP for.
And, with Windows2003 terminal server running as a virtual machine on top of the Linux server that hosts the samba shares, chances of network shares being unavailable to the windows server are quite slim ;-)
-- Maarten
On 11/22/2009 7:46 AM, Jerry wrote:
But you have to take in account that Outlook is mainly a client of Exchange that incidentally does POP3 and IMAP.
Correct - Outlook shines as an Exchange client - anything else and it is anywhere from mediocre (POP) to sucks wind (IMAP).
If you are using a version <2007 then upgrading should be seriously considered. The "ODF" format in the 2010 version is supposedly more compliant than that used in OpenOffice.
Rotflmao! You're not serious?? I think you are confusing the Microsoft OpenXML format with the PDF format. Microsoft's ODF support is pure CRAP.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:25:09 -0500 Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com replied:
If you are using a version <2007 then upgrading should be seriously considered. The "ODF" format in the 2010 version is supposedly more compliant than that used in OpenOffice.
Rotflmao! You're not serious?? I think you are confusing the Microsoft OpenXML format with the PDF format. Microsoft's ODF support is pure CRAP
I have read at least two white papers that described Microsoft's support for ODF in Office 2010. Both stated that Microsoft's support was more compliant that that in Open Office. Apparently, OO has been playing fast and loose with its implementation for awhile now.
As stated, that is in the still unreleased Office 2010. You can Google around for further information. I don't have the URLs in front of me at the moment.
-- Jerry gesbbb@yahoo.com
|::::======= |::::======= |=========== |=========== |
It takes both a weapon, and two people, to commit a murder.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Jerry wrote:
If you are using a version <2007 then upgrading should be seriously considered. The "ODF" format in the 2010 version is supposedly more compliant than that used in OpenOffice.
Rotflmao! You're not serious?? I think you are confusing the Microsoft OpenXML format with the PDF format. Microsoft's ODF support is pure CRAP
I have read at least two white papers that described Microsoft's support for ODF in Office 2010. Both stated that Microsoft's support was more compliant that that in Open Office. Apparently, OO has been playing fast and loose with its implementation for awhile now.
Yes and no. Microsoft implemented one of the versions of ODF, and (of course) not the versions used in current OOo applications or KDE. For example, I remember there was a complete lack of spreadsheet support, and Microsoft replied with "because it wasn't in the specs". So yes, you can probably open a spreadsheet created by OOo, it just doesn't contain any data. An ideal situation for Microsoft, since it enables them to tell their customers: "see, we implemented ODF, so we fit your requirements, but it doesn't do spreadsheets, and since you need spreadsheets... you must use our own .xls or .xlsx format instead." Et voila, the vendor lock-in is back in town.
Of course current releases of OOo are using later editions of the specification. That's how standards work. Especially since the process of getting something promoted to an ISO standard takes quite some time. During which time the specs get a lot exposure and the project moves on with lots of developers adding new features and refining the specs. With software, there is no such thing as sitting back and saying "well, this is it, we're done now". Just look at all the different versions of MS Word... All .docs are equal, but some are more equal than others.
But.. this is heading even more off-topic.. time to move on.
-- Maarten
On 11/22/2009, Jerry (gesbbb@yahoo.com) wrote:
I have read at least two white papers that described Microsoft's support for ODF in Office 2010.
Wonder who authored them...
Both stated that Microsoft's support was more compliant that that in Open Office.
I googled:
microsoft odf support 2010 better than openoffice?
and had lots of hits - all saying the exact opposite of what you claim.
Apparently, OO has been playing fast and loose with its implementation for awhile now.
Ridiculous. The biggest issue has been with spreadsheets and the fact that there was no formal documentation for handling formulas, but that is remedied with v1.2 of the spec.
As stated, that is in the still unreleased Office 2010. You can Google around for further information. I don't have the URLs in front of me at the moment.
I did - nothing whatsoever to support your [false] claim.
There is absolutely ZERO reason for Microsoft to have decent support for ODF, and 100% reason for them to sabotage it.
But this is totally OT for doveoct now, so I won't reply further on list.
On 21-Nov-2009, at 19:51, Thomas Harold wrote:
Out of morbid curiosity... how good is Outlook 2007 at IMAP? I've had experience with Outlook 2003 and the 2GB PST limit was a deal breaker for me. I'm curious whether Outlook is getting better or worse at IMAP.
It's better, but is still stupid in too many ways. The biggest issue I saw with'07 was that deleted mails were deleted instead of moved to a trash folder. If I recall right, there were still some issues with moving emails between folders.
-- The trouble with witches is that they'll never run away from things they really hate. And the trouble with small furry animals in a corner is that, just occasionally, one of them's a mongoose. --Witches Abroad
On November 20, 2009 12:59:48 PM -0500 Jonathan jonathan@kc8onw.net wrote:
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings because (probably like many of you) I get 100s of emails a day via lists and anything that speeds my way through them is good.
You simply cannot beat gnus for configurability, functionality and raw power. But you have to be pretty dedicated to get it configured at all, much less customized to your preferences.
I like Mulberry as a GUI client. It works on Mac Windows and Linux/Unix.
-frank
I lost the thread on the Sylpheed suggestion so I am replying here to let everyone know that installing (dead easy) and using (even easier) Sylpheed on my Windows XP netbook solved all of what I thought were Dovecot/IMAP problems. Apologies to Timo for the unnecessary complaints about non-existent problems. Both Dovecot and Sylpheed out-of-the-box will work without a lot of config if any at all. --David.
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:05:08 -0500 Frank Cusack fcusack@fcusack.com wrote:
On November 20, 2009 12:59:48 PM -0500 Jonathan jonathan@kc8onw.net wrote:
So what IMAP clients do people prefer these days? Preferably windows or cross platform and it needs to have decent key bindings because (probably like many of you) I get 100s of emails a day via lists and anything that speeds my way through them is good.
You simply cannot beat gnus for configurability, functionality and raw power. But you have to be pretty dedicated to get it configured at all, much less customized to your preferences.
I like Mulberry as a GUI client. It works on Mac Windows and Linux/Unix.
-frank
-- David Brown david@davidwbrown.name
Hi Jonathan,
I'm getting tired of Thunderbird telling me I have unread messages in folders that haven't gotten new messages for months so I'm looking for a new mail client. [..]
Yes, it's a Thunderbird issue only. Usually that appears when you don't compact your folders (you can ask TB to compact by itself as well). 90% of the time when you have weird stuff in your folders that's because you didn't compact your folders.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Duplicate_messages_received http://kb.mozillazine.org/Thunderbird_:_Tips_:_Compacting_Folders
Cheers, Thomas
On 11/21/2009 7:22 PM, Thomas wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
I'm getting tired of Thunderbird telling me I have unread messages in folders that haven't gotten new messages for months so I'm looking for a new mail client. [..]
Yes, it's a Thunderbird issue only. Usually that appears when you don't compact your folders (you can ask TB to compact by itself as well). 90% of the time when you have weird stuff in your folders that's because you didn't compact your folders.
I would agree with that if it happened to folder I used actively but I've had thunderbird mark emails as unread in my 2003-2006 archive folder, which obviously hasn't been touched since early 2007 so something weird is going on.
As someone else noted it may be related to the amount of email I have. I probably have nearly 100,000 messages spread across 30-40 folders right now.
Jonathan
Re,
As someone else noted it may be related to the amount of email I have. I probably have nearly 100,000 messages spread across 30-40 folders right now. Close TB. Delete your .msf to recreate indexes. Start TB again and let it re-index (it will take a while). Then everything should be fine. If not do a bug report.
Cheers, Thomas
On 11/21/2009 9:15 PM, Thomas wrote:
Re,
As someone else noted it may be related to the amount of email I have. I probably have nearly 100,000 messages spread across 30-40 folders right now. Close TB. Delete your .msf to recreate indexes. Start TB again and let it re-index (it will take a while). Then everything should be fine. If not do a bug report.
MSF files deleted. The problem occurs pretty randomly so it will be a few days to a week before I know whether that fixed it.
Do you know anything about the date issue I mentioned where TB shows emails with a date of the last time the folder was indexed instead of when the email was actually delivered?
Thanks, Jonathan
On 11/21/2009 9:42 PM, Jonathan wrote:
Do you know anything about the date issue I mentioned where TB shows emails with a date of the last time the folder was indexed instead of when the email was actually delivered?
I've seen that bug, I generally either reindex / compact or completely unsubscribe and then resubscribe to the folder after restarting TB v2.
I don't think I've seen it on the TB 3 side in the past 6 months since I started with beta 2. There's been a lot of work as well on indexing in Beta 3/4 when they introduced "gloda" (the global indexer).
(I severely abuse TB, having folders with 50k messages in them, subscribing to dozens of mailing lists... good thing that I'm the mail admin and don't have to worry about quotas.)
On 11/21/2009, Jonathan (jonathan@kc8onw.net) wrote:
Do you know anything about the date issue I mentioned where TB shows emails with a date of the last time the folder was indexed instead of when the email was actually delivered?
I missed that... but if that is occurring, then it seems like something else is going on. Thunderbird does NOT modify the messages - headers or body - on the server, it simply displays what is there. Sometimes the local cache can get out of whack, which is fixed by deleting the .msf (local indexes) and letting TBird rebuild them from scratch.
On 11/21/2009 9:15 PM, Thomas wrote:
Re,
As someone else noted it may be related to the amount of email I have. I probably have nearly 100,000 messages spread across 30-40 folders right now. Close TB. Delete your .msf to recreate indexes. Start TB again and let it re-index (it will take a while). Then everything should be fine. If not do a bug report.
Okay, that didn't take long. I have another spurious unread message already. Should I do what it says here [1] and grab a nightly build and create an entire new profile, or should I just report with what I have? Any suggestions on what component to file the report against?
Jonathan
On 11/21/2009 9:54 PM, Jonathan wrote:
Okay, that didn't take long. I have another spurious unread message already. Should I do what it says here [1] and grab a nightly build and create an entire new profile, or should I just report with what I have? Any suggestions on what component to file the report against?
If you decide to use the nightly, start with a new profile and try either (wait a day and I think we'll see a build #3 for RC1):
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/nightly/3.0rc1-candidates...
or
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/nightly/2009-11-21-03-com...
Thunderbird 3.0 is based off of Comm-1.9.1, the previews for Thunderbird 3.1 are Comm-1.9.3. The nightly builds for 1.9.1 seem to happen in the early morning hours.
As for which component... I'd say either Mail Window Front End or Mail Reader UI.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=Thunderbird
You'll probably have to catch it in the act while logging is turned on.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/MailNews:Logging
You may also want to rule out hardware issues such as flaky memory, which could be causing corruption in the indexes.
On 11/21/2009 06:15 PM, Thomas wrote:
Close TB. Delete your .msf to recreate indexes. Start TB again and let it re-index (it will take a while). Then everything should be fine. If not do a bug report.
I submitted a bug report before I saw your post (Tested in TB3.0rc1, BuildID=20091121181041):
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=530551
This seems like a bug to me as multiple people are experiencing it and it doesn't go away unless you convince TB to reindex the folder.
On 11/20/2009 12:59 PM, Jonathan wrote:
I'm getting tired of Thunderbird telling me I have unread messages in folders that haven't gotten new messages for months so I'm looking for a new mail client. I know the problem lies with Thunderbird because everything is fine via RoundCube and if it tell Thunderbird to rebuild it's index it shows the folder correctly again. Except of course for a subset of the messages in my inbox that it insists where delivered at the exact time I re-indexed it, every time.
I'm currently testing out the Thunderbird 3.0 release candidates... overall, it's better then TB 2 was at IMAP. Overall, I'm pretty happy with version 3 and how it deals with my multi-gigabyte IMAP mailboxes with dozens of folders. Stability seems to be better then it was in TB v2 in terms of indexing and downloading messages.
(That comes with a huge caveat, however. Beta 4 introduced some rather severe bugs in IMAP performance which have yet to be fixed as of RC1 build #2. I'm hoping that this coming week there will be another more stable build.)
participants (19)
-
Charles Marcus
-
Charles Sprickman
-
David Brown
-
David Jonas
-
Frank Cusack
-
Jerry
-
John Gateley
-
Jonathan
-
Luigi Rosa
-
LuKreme
-
Maarten Bezemer
-
Marcus Rueckert
-
Nicolas KOWALSKI
-
Seth Mattinen
-
Tassilo Horn
-
Thomas
-
Thomas Berezansky
-
Thomas Harold
-
vuser1＠test123.ru