Matej Cepl wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:43:16 +0100, Andy Green scripst: >> Some people who didn't claim to be better also advised dumping kMail and >> its particular constellation of bugs... eg, for Thunderbird... > > In my experience kmail's dIMAP is much more stable than TB's IMAP. > Although the latter's is done right from the point of view of IMAP RFC > (having different styles of accounts for disconnected v. online IMAP is > not correct, of course), it has never lost a message to me, comparing to > horror I had with Mozilla Mail/Thunderbirds of many versions. Well, not having tried dIMAP I can't enter into much of a flamewar about it. However I can say Thunderbird IMAP has been almost completely bug-free for my IMAP server for more than a year, and I tend to leave the app up and connected to the server for days and weeks. The only behaviour I've seen it do is after a while somehow fail to draw the mail body, once it does that it seems persistent and Thunderbird must be restarted. But because I have the IMAP port going through an SSH tunnel, and the 3945 wireless for this box is a bit shaky, even that might be down to the tunnel. In addition I saw many crashes and problems with kMail's non-d IMAP for sure. The two experiences combined make me drop kMail, which I actually prefer, for Thunderbird. But remembering last time I had this conversation ;-) let me hasten to assure you I fully accept that your experience was different, perhaps due to the disconnected IMAP usage and some other variable on the Thunderbird side. -Andy
