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

[Jerry]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:15:10 -0400
Charles Marcus <CMarcus at Media-Brokers.com> articulated:

> 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.

You stated: "force people to use Office". I simply pointed out that,
that is not true. They were all ready using Office. Switching between
IE & Office by Microsoft is a subjective evaluation.

> 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.

It was only recently released. Give it time.

> 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.

Whether or not it is officially "end of life" is immaterial. The older
versions have been deprecated by the release of "Office 2010".

> This is getting way OT though...

I agree! I will discuss if OL if you want.

-- 
Jerry ✌
Dovecot.user at seibercom.net

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________

The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department.