> > > > Is this considered to be good UI design by anyone? Or, is > IMAP support > > just crippled in Outlook? BTW, the Mac version of Outlook > (Entourage > > or whatever its called) also seems to have this behavior also. > > > > wt > > > IMAP support (in my experience) is pretty bad in Outlook - it > still has to have PST files on the local machine to house > it's special directories and is VERY slow in comparison to > more... open alternatives (Mozilla Thunderbird for me). > > I think this is partly because it insists on downloading > attachments before displaying a message, but mostly because > (inexplicably) it operates really slowly over the network > (~100kb/s over 100Mb switched). Wait, it gets better: the PST file(s) in Outlook 2003 can be of two types: "Old, 95/98/200" format (*up to 2GB*) and "newer format" no file size limits. Supposedly you can chose what type of PST you want to use when you create your "profile". Except... If you read the fine print you'll find out that if you chose IMAP, Outlook chooses for you the old type of PST file, guess what the choice will be. Which means, for a 6GB IMAP store with a lot of folders and stuff your local PST file will get to 2GB. IMO the best IMAP client from Microsoft was Outlook 2000, ever since they've done everything they could to limit IMAP usage in Outlook. Now, if only Thunderbird will have Sieve support and ACLs... And have the Sieve implementation compatible with Squirrel mail now THAT will be the day! ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
