"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which
are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and
not exchange server.


No, I was talking about no pop server on exchange.

So you meant to say exchange isn't a POP server?
True but it didn't need to be.


So 'No pop clients to a local mail folder' (could be implemented using
it as a mail server. )

Where does "to a local mail folder" mean with regard to a POP server?



where the client is is local to the client dennis.

Possibly in your case the planet Zonk.


You don't half wriggle.
Just because I pointed out that your statement "No pop clients to a local
mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!" is cr@p and M$ do have a POP client
called outlook and one called OE too. You might as well say unix doesn't
have a POP client just because its called something other than unix.