though I am not really trying to start painful flame-war
Sorry, I don?t know how to say it nicely, so I will be just blunt
? there is no way how can I believe this sentence. I don?t mean
it badly ? a good flamewar from time to time makes things more
clear, but it is the flame if I ever saw one.
For a long time (actually as long as I can remember;) I wondered why
Evolution was our default Mail application (MUA). I was a long time
user of Emacs MUAs, so I feel my background is fairly neutral - but I
have never been able to use Evolution for long. These days I use
Thunderbird since alas I gradually found Emacs too slow for imap. I am
not married to Thunderbird but it mostly does what I want it and it is
pretty stable at least.
Aside from the obvious one (?It is the standard Gnome MUA?), you
mean? OK, I think to make a little sense of this argument, let?s
get to the common ground ? ?All mail clients suck. This one just
sucks less.? (http://www.mutt.org) What?s true about all mail
clients (and yes, mutt sucks too, but that?s for different
flamewar) is especially true for GUI MUAs.
I have in the past seven years used (aside from mutt and little
bit of pain) kmail, Thunderbird, Evolution, and in the last week
I needed to dip a little bit into claws-mail and sylpheed (I
prefer the latter, BTW). That IMHO means I have covered most of
what?s interesting in the world of Linux GUI MUAs (yes, I am
missing chandler and balsa; oh well). My conclusion? All of them
suck. A lot. And I mean it (Matthew, you are great!). I have no
idea, why we still don?t have at least one MUA which would suck
only as much as mutt does in non-GUI world, but we don?t.
Now, a little bit of reasons why I think Thunderbird is no better
than others. First of all, I certainly cannot confirm that
Thunderbird wouldn?t crash on me. It did and many times. Second,
in my past many attempts to use Netscape Messenger/Mozilla
Mail/Thunderbird I have actually incurred couple of times
a dataloss (which never happened with other MUA), which makes me
a little bit worried ? true, it hasn?t happened lately, so may be
Thunderbird is better IMAP client now, than it used to be, but it
certainly makes me worried.
Second, you mean you have tens of thousands of messages in IMAP
folders and you don?t care that your MUA hasn?t heard about
regexps? (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19442 the
bug was filed 1999 and there is still not attempt from TB folks
to solve it)
Third, another reason why Thunderbird seems to me a pitiful IMAP
client is that somehow it never heard about separate Trash folder
not being part of IMAP world
Fourth, Reply-to-list feature ?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715 Thunderbird is
one of the reasons Red Hat internal mail lists are such mess as
they are, because everybody Reply-to-all.
Fifth, automatic messages archiving
? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93094 You
shouldn?t have ten thousands of messages in your working folder
ever in the first place, because old messages should be
Sixth, its vfolders are just pityfull ? I suspect TB doesn?t
index the messages, so whenever you open vfolder it has to search
through all messages again and again.
I am not writing down these issue to say, that Evolution or any
other GUI MUA is better (actually, kmail doesn't fail on most of
these, but then vfolders in Evolution rock, and kmail is also
POP3 client learning IMAP ? special dIMAP account anyone?), just
that there are good reasons why Thunderbird is not that much
better than others, and there is no reason to incurr
non-negligible switching costs on our users (remember, most of
them probably use default MUA, just because it is default).
The second reason, why I put down this list is to show how old
some of these bugs are. OK, maybe regexps are questionable
feature in MUA (I would strongly disagree, but who am I), but not
being able to fix Reply-to-list for seven years, and ?Hide
deleted IMAP messages? for four years, shows questionable level
of support for the application which is in the core of