Outlook's IMAP implementation is terrible

[Guest]

When connected to an IMAP mail account there are 2 things that made me switch
from Outlook to Mozilla Thunderbird

1. when I delete a message why doesn't the message just get moved to a trash
folder, The fact that I erase the message and it doesn't erase, or even
remove it from my inbox is lame.

2. When I send a message from an account associated with an imap server why
don't you put the message in the 'sent items' folder on the imap server. The
reason I use IMAP is so I can get mail from more than one machine. IMAP is
almost useless to me if my sent items are not also on the server.

 

[Brian Tillman]

1. when I delete a message why doesn't the message just get moved to
a trash folder, The fact that I erase the message and it doesn't
erase, or even remove it from my inbox is lame.

The IMAP protocol requires this.

2. When I send a message from an account associated with an imap
server why don't you put the message in the 'sent items' folder on
the imap server. The reason I use IMAP is so I can get mail from more
than one machine. IMAP is almost useless to me if my sent items are
not also on the server.

This is because an IMAP message store cannot be selected as the delivery
message store. You can always create a rule that will copy the sent message
to the IMAP folder.

 

[Guest]

Maybe my choice of words in the title was bad. It's not so much the
implementation of IMAP that i dislike. The gui/controls for working with an
IMAP account are not very intuitive and stray away from the very basic
methods for manipulating files and objects that I'm used to as a long time
windows user.

I wish the imap controls outlook used more closely resembled the POP
controls in the 2 areas mentioned previously. I know developers need to deal
with the constraints of IMAP. But a more flexible gui would make outlook
better.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Maybe my choice of words in the title was bad. It's not so much the
implementation of IMAP that i dislike. The gui/controls for working
with an IMAP account are not very intuitive and stray away from the
very basic methods for manipulating files and objects that I'm used
to as a long time windows user.

What do you find different from how Outlook manipulates other message
stores?

 

[Guest]

What do you find different from how Outlook manipulates other message
stores?
--

The item that strays from the normal windows procedures is the deleting of
messages from an IMAP server.

I can't just erase a message and have it move to a holding area that I can
later purge from a 'recycle bin' type location. This is how messages
retrieved from a POP email account are deleted. However when I erase files
from an IMAP server in outlook it just puts a line through it, and if i
really want to get rid of the message I need to search through the interface.
After a few minutes of searching through Outlook's large collection of
interface controls you eventually find an item in the file menu called 'purge
deleted items'. if you're lucky you will realize that this command is going
to affect your imap message store.

IMO this process isn't immediatly obvious. I would compare it to if I wanted
to delete files from my desktop, a delete action would put a line through the
file; and if i really wanted to delete the file I would have to hunt through
the windows interface for a command with some nebulous title like 'purge
deleted items'


as far as adding messages to a sent items folder on the server. The only
reason I use IMAP (and I imagine this is the same for most people) is because
I check my email from numerous locations and it's convenient to have all my
coorespondence in one place on a server i can access from anywhere. Given
this scenerio it seems to me it would be benefitial for outlook to adopt
saving sent messages to the server as a default behavior, or at least an
option that is given when setting up your IMAP account in outlook. I have had
some success getting outlook to perform this behaviour using rules, but I
think such a common configuration would warrant a more convenient setup
method if not just a default behavior.

 

[Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]]

The current implementation was, back in the days when IMAP was first
implemented in Outlook, simply "the way IMAP works" - it was how pretty
much all the standard IMAP clients worked. Since then, though, much has
changed, and we're looking at improvements to IMAP for future versions of
Outlook.

 

[Brian Tillman]

The item that strays from the normal windows procedures is the
deleting of messages from an IMAP server.

I can't just erase a message and have it move to a holding area that
I can later purge from a 'recycle bin' type location. This is how
messages retrieved from a POP email account are deleted. However when
I erase files from an IMAP server in outlook it just puts a line
through it, and if i really want to get rid of the message I need to
search through the interface. After a few minutes of searching
through Outlook's large collection of interface controls you
eventually find an item in the file menu called 'purge deleted
items'.

Actually, it's on the Edit menu (at least for Outlook 2003).

That's simply the way the IMAP protocols work. An IMAP client sends a
command to mark a message for deletion. Once all the messages have been
marked, the Purge Deleted Items item sends an EXPUNGE command to the server
telling it to remove all marked messages. This saves communication traffic
and server work, for one thing.

IMO this process isn't immediatly obvious.

It is to someone who has learned how the IMAP protocols do their job.
Granted, that's usually more than the average bear wants to know.

I would compare it to if I
wanted to delete files from my desktop, a delete action would put a
line through the file; and if i really wanted to delete the file I
would have to hunt through the windows interface for a command with
some nebulous title like 'purge deleted items'

The big difference is that POP protocols were designed to work on a local
message store (where all messages are downloaded from the server and stored
locally), whereas IMAP protocols were designed to work on a remote message
store, with, perhaps, a local copy of the store for cache purposes only to
enhance performance. Moving a message to a "Deleted Items" folder on a
local store involves no communication with the server. Deleting a message
from an IMAP store involves the server, which may be available only over a
slow link. Granted, today's communications links tend to be faster than
what used to be available, but the IMAP4 protocol was defined back in 1994
(RFC 1730, and redefind in 1996 in RFC 2060).

 

[Guest]

thanks for the feedback

 

[Guest]

I have tried to use Outlook 2003 with GroupWise 6.5 and have found the
experience to be incredibly bad. I either use Thunderbird because of speed
and the fact it records sent messages on the server or I use the GroupWise
client. I would much rather use Outlook. However, until it is much faster and
stops hanging while retrieving messages, I can't use it.

 

[BillR [MVP]]

IMAP has been severely neglected in Outlook. It certainly needs attention.

 

[Guest]

Great news Jeff.

Im fighting a massive battle at work to move everyone to Outlook from
Thunderbird which is an appaling Email client for use in a 10,000+ user
environment. The issues that are raised that I simply cant get around that
Thunderbird does do are:

1. Sent Items being saved to the local folder store rather than the IMAP
store. At option to select the location to save messages on a per-account
basis would be really handy
2. Our staff in my trials never quite grasped the concept of the 'Purge
Deleted Messages' function. As mentioned by others in previous posts, they
are used to the 'Deleted Items' folder concept used in other IMAP clients and
Outlook account modes.
3. Its nice thing that TB can do (but not a huge problem) is notify users
when they have new mail. Understanding the differences between IMAP and POP
server communication, its not at straightforward as it seems, but if TB can
do it...

Everyone agrees that it makes a lot of sense to move to outlook, given the
managed updates, and the fact that mozilla release a new version of TB every
other week, and that makes it difficult for us to manage. But our less than
gifted staff members havent adjusted too well with these items in our trials.

Hopefully MS can bring the IMAP experience more in line with what users are
used to. It would be able to one day get everyone onto Outlook, which in my
view is a far superior email client.

Ryan

 

[BillR [MVP]]

With Outlook 2007 you can now specify whether to save Sent Items in the Sent
Items folder on the IMAP store or locally. It's global as far as I can see.

 

[Guest]

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... haha
And on a per-account basis... great! Am still working with the beta's and
finding my way around.

Now if we can just do something about that pesky purge deleted items...


r

 

[Diane Poremsky [MVP]]

what is pesky? you can now set it to autopurge.

BTW - have you considered upgrading the mail server to exchange to get the
full value of Outlook? it will make it easier for 10,000+ to collaborate
with each other.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/

 

[Guest]

Hi Diane,

Yes just recently discovered the auto purge feature. Makes life easier.
Still a bit of adjustment required for users used to the 'trash' folder
experience, but a lot better.

Diane, if I had things my way, we would be on Exchange. Unfortunately, I
only have control of the staff desktop environment. The infrastructure team
is over run buy sendmail-obsessed folk who fail to see reason when it comes
to make decisions that would make everyones life a whole lot easier. A review
into our collaberation systems has been kicked of by senior management, and i
believe MS were invited to tender a submission. I would 100% support the
migration to exchange, but I think its more of a political issue than
anything else. So ill do the best i can im my environment without holding my
breath for a miracle. (but ill keep my fingers crossed)

what is pesky? you can now set it to autopurge.

BTW - have you considered upgrading the mail server to exchange to get the
full value of Outlook? it will make it easier for 10,000+ to collaborate
with each other.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... haha
And on a per-account basis... great! Am still working with the beta's and
finding my way around.

Now if we can just do something about that pesky purge deleted items...


r

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Your item number 3 works in Outlook. What kind of notification are you
looking for?

Hi Diane,

Yes just recently discovered the auto purge feature. Makes life easier.
Still a bit of adjustment required for users used to the 'trash' folder
experience, but a lot better.

Diane, if I had things my way, we would be on Exchange. Unfortunately, I
only have control of the staff desktop environment. The infrastructure team
is over run buy sendmail-obsessed folk who fail to see reason when it comes
to make decisions that would make everyones life a whole lot easier. A review
into our collaberation systems has been kicked of by senior management, and i
believe MS were invited to tender a submission. I would 100% support the
migration to exchange, but I think its more of a political issue than
anything else. So ill do the best i can im my environment without holding my
breath for a miracle. (but ill keep my fingers crossed)

what is pesky? you can now set it to autopurge.

BTW - have you considered upgrading the mail server to exchange to get the
full value of Outlook? it will make it easier for 10,000+ to collaborate
with each other.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... haha
And on a per-account basis... great! Am still working with the beta's and
finding my way around.

Now if we can just do something about that pesky purge deleted items...


r

:

With Outlook 2007 you can now specify whether to save Sent Items in the
Sent
Items folder on the IMAP store or locally. It's global as far as I can
see.

--
Bill R MVP
message
Great news Jeff.

Im fighting a massive battle at work to move everyone to Outlook from
Thunderbird which is an appaling Email client for use in a 10,000+ user
environment. The issues that are raised that I simply cant get around
that
Thunderbird does do are:

1. Sent Items being saved to the local folder store rather than the
IMAP
store. At option to select the location to save messages on a
per-account
basis would be really handy
2. Our staff in my trials never quite grasped the concept of the 'Purge
Deleted Messages' function. As mentioned by others in previous posts,
they
are used to the 'Deleted Items' folder concept used in other IMAP
clients
and
Outlook account modes.
3. Its nice thing that TB can do (but not a huge problem) is notify
users
when they have new mail. Understanding the differences between IMAP and
POP
server communication, its not at straightforward as it seems, but if TB
can
do it...

Everyone agrees that it makes a lot of sense to move to outlook, given
the
managed updates, and the fact that mozilla release a new version of TB
every
other week, and that makes it difficult for us to manage. But our less
than
gifted staff members havent adjusted too well with these items in our
trials.

Hopefully MS can bring the IMAP experience more in line with what users
are
used to. It would be able to one day get everyone onto Outlook, which
in
my
view is a far superior email client.

Ryan

:

The current implementation was, back in the days when IMAP was first
implemented in Outlook, simply "the way IMAP works" - it was how
pretty
much all the standard IMAP clients worked. Since then, though, much
has
changed, and we're looking at improvements to IMAP for future versions
of
Outlook.

--
Jeff Stephenson
Outlook Development
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:37:01 -0800, jason wrote:

:

What do you find different from how Outlook manipulates other
message
stores?
--

The item that strays from the normal windows procedures is the
deleting
of messages from an IMAP server.

I can't just erase a message and have it move to a holding area that
I
can later purge from a 'recycle bin' type location. This is how
messages
retrieved from a POP email account are deleted. However when I erase
files from an IMAP server in outlook it just puts a line through it,
and
if i really want to get rid of the message I need to search through
the
interface. After a few minutes of searching through Outlook's large
collection of interface controls you eventually find an item in the
file
menu called 'purge deleted items'. if you're lucky you will realize
that
this command is going to affect your imap message store.

IMO this process isn't immediatly obvious. I would compare it to if
I
wanted to delete files from my desktop, a delete action would put a
line
through the file; and if i really wanted to delete the file I would
have
to hunt through the windows interface for a command with some
nebulous
title like 'purge deleted items'



as far as adding messages to a sent items folder on the server. The
only
reason I use IMAP (and I imagine this is the same for most people)
is
because I check my email from numerous locations and it's convenient
to
have all my coorespondence in one place on a server i can access
from
anywhere. Given this scenerio it seems to me it would be benefitial
for
outlook to adopt saving sent messages to the server as a default
behavior, or at least an option that is given when setting up your
IMAP
account in outlook. I have had some success getting outlook to
perform
this behaviour using rules, but I think such a common configuration
would warrant a more convenient setup method if not just a default
behavior.