Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Re: New old behavior in mail.app
Date: 26 Mar 2015 12:44:56 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <cnida8Fhtk5U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <cng92gF1s7rU1@mid.individual.net> <meva2r$tm4$1@dont-email.me> <250320151753007970%nospam@nospam.invalid> <slrnmh6e3g.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> <250320151841383044%nospam@nospam.invalid> <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> <250320152359277190%nospam@nospam.invalid>
X-Trace: individual.net qf7iwlW0STpkV0JDGr7jIQEsMFXiysPcZdBzBWIAdY4r9OBHEm
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FrRW5tmvvKJzqNDXEErDQCeT3a0=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:72109 comp.sys.mac.apps:28398 comp.sys.mac.comm:2528

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
><g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> >> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>> >> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
>> 
>> > imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
>> > before there was imap.
>> 
>> IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.
>
> it may technically have existed, but pop was the de facto standard,
> especially with dial-up accounts which were still widely used into the
> early 2000s. 
>
> not only that, but some major isps didn't even offer imap until very
> recently, as in the past 5 years or so, so even if someone had dsl or
> cable, they might not have been able to get imap even if they wanted
> to.

Yeah, I just have to wonder why you feel comfortable excusing Eudora for
not properly supporting IMAP during the twenty or so years IMAP and
Eudora co-existed, while at the same time refusing to make similar
concessions for Apple Mail's shortcomings. I wouldn't call Apple Mail a
horrible client. It's average. It gets the job done admirably, but could
be much better. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR