[OFFTOPIC] Re: Outlook vs. Dovecot experience

[Panayiotis Fafakos]

The same here in Greece.

The only Outlook version which respects open standards concerning the 
IMAP protocol is Outlook 2010.
We thought at first that Outlook 2013 would also be compatible with 
dovecot. Yet, as said, it seems to be a Microsoft company (internal) 
policy, not to comply with standards, since this would bring their 
"tower of cards" down.
We hoped that Outlook 2016 would make a difference, or at least Outlook 
2019, but none of the sort happened.

What is the exact problem? Well, here it is:
Many times, users create folders with non-compatible characters in their 
folder names, either slashes or dots, etc.
Outlook accepts these characters as valid, while dovecot will not. Yet 
Outlook creates the folder for the user and the user thinks he can use 
the folder, although the folder does not exist on the server.
The user stores emails in the folder and uses it, until one day he 
either logs in via his webmail and does not see the specified folder. He 
then does not worry very much, since he can still work from his PC where 
Outlook is installed.
Once the PC needs to have his hard disk replaced due to a failure, then 
he/she discovers that his emails are lost forever.

Anyway, we do have a company central email storage for all emails using 
copies of send and received emails, but even that would have him 
re-organise his emails into folders for a whole year or more, so this is 
another complain we have.
Normally Outlook should not create the folder if the server does not 
accept the peculiar characters, but I believe that Microsoft has 
overlooked this.

Even if we are notified that a user has a problem of lost folders in his 
webmail, with what he may see in his Outlook client, we do not know what 
to do to fix the problem.

We have search to find options as to restrict folder allowed characters 
but could not find any option.

Another problem is that Outlook, including Outlook 2010, would 
automatically subscribe a newly created folder.
This is a problem, because it means that the Outlook application will 
download emails for subscribed folders, usually exceeding limits, which 
should be re-set using the registry.
If your users create many folders per day, then they have a lot of 
subscribed folders. Subscribed folders are looked up for new emails, and 
the application starts to slow down, and users again complain.

Thunderbird is far better with IMAP protocol.

Yet Microsoft has hypnotised most of the users into seen Outlook 
application as better.

Kind regards to all,

Panos.
On 13/1/2022 18:38, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> All I can add to this is anecdotal, from what we hear from ISP's and 
> Telco's, and over the last year changes to the way Outlook behaves, 
> everything from how it does auto discovery and setup, to smaller 
> issues with SSL/TLS, make it seem that 'interoperability' is not a 
> priority for some of the monsters in the industry.
>
> This is NOT a dovecot issue, but a worrisome trend in the industry.
>
> "If you want product XX to work flawlessly, you need to use product XX"
>
> However, we are going to still have to play in their sandbox, as 
> Outlook is still prevalent in the business community.
>
> My 'tin foil hat' suggests that it is even a business tactic by some 
> companies, to reduce competition.  Those that are NOT working for 
> "monsters" need to support each other, by adopting more open standard 
> tools, which means we should all try to use open products, both email 
> providers, and email clients.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't help your situation though. Other than encouraging 
> the use of alternative email clients ;) But for the most part, expect 
> users not to understand.  They just want things to work.
>
> On 2022-01-13 2:07 a.m., Vladislav Kurz wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> what is your experience regarding using outlook (2016/365) as IMAP 
>> client and dovecot on server side?
>>
>> We have sync issues with outlook vs. cyrus IMAP server, and we 
>> consider moving to dovecot. But before that I'd like to hear from 
>> others if this combination works well. Especially if users have large 
>> and bushy mailboxes (>10 GB, >100 mailboxes), two mailboxes 
>> (accounts) on the same server.
>>
>> I don't want to do the migration just to find out that it is general 
>> issue of outlook vs. any IMAP server.
>>
>
>
>