Used Mulberry for Mac?
Developer’s Description
By Cyrus Daboo
Full Specifications
- GENERAL
- Release
- Latest update
- Version
- 4.0.8
- OPERATING SYSTEMS
- Platform
- Mac
- Operating System
- Mac OS X 10.3
- Mac OS X 10.3.9
- Mac OS X 10.4
- Mac OS X
- Additional Requirements
- Mac OS X 10.3 or later (Universal Binary)
- POPULARITY
- Total Downloads
- 350
- Downloads Last Week
- 0
Report Software
Program available in other languages
Last Updated
User Reviews
3.3/5
23 User Votes
Best email client I have used !
joypatnaik- Pros
- This is the best full featured email client that supports multiple imap and pop accounts, has all the security features and is available on multiple platforms. When compared to other email clients this stands out as a far advanced software that supports encryption and digital signature. This is a free software and in features is more advanced than even very expensive commercial email clients. This is largely used in universities and also has a server version.
- Cons
- The only con is it does not support Bayesian client-side email filtering which is not a problem and the other minor problem is multiple signed messages received failed in tests on ver 3.1 although many improvements have been made in later versions and minor problems hopefully resolved.
- Summary
Crowded, ugly and unhelpful
JTeagle- Pros
- It was quick and easy to uninstall.
- Cons
- 'Graphically groovy'? Maybe the Mac version looks better, but the Windows version looked ugly and Windows 98ish - very unnatural. Opening window for account setup OK, but no place for a password. I can only guess it would have asked later.
- Summary
- First impressions count - and this one died in the throat. Users need to be able to enter at least their account password on the setup screen, and although it had a security drop-down, I saw nowhere to specify the ports to use. App managed to freeze within 30 seconds, and after a restart didn't even show the box indicating what was happening right now - only the status bar showed that. Since it seemed unable to connect to the mail account I tried I didn't try investigating performance any further, but I seriously doubt the claim that it's 'highly scalable'. This is *not* my e-mail client of choice.
I hear it's powerful.
faisal- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />I hear this is powerful, but it has the worst user interface on any mail client I've ever seen. This seems like it was ported badly from Linux, complete with Linux users telling you you're using it wrong (e.g. in response to questions like "how do I get the inbox folders to be in the inbox). Doubt my criticisms? Give it a shot: it's free.
probably the best power user mail program
Hangnail--2008- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />Coming from the Mailsmith side, I don't find this tool the least bit ugly. But that's not saying much. With 4.x it is actually pretty good. They offer support for BOTH pgp and gpg, direct support of the address book, calendering, great filters, and a very fast search. Best of all they have excellent message threading. All of this for one third the cost of Mailsmith. The interface takes some getting used to. It is a serious IMAP client but supports POP well enough for consideration as a replacement for that kind of client as well.
Still the only serious IMAP client for power users
VersionTrackerUserOpinion- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />I've been using Mulberry for almost 8 years. I am clearly attached to it emotionally. I am not entirely objective. Still, running the mail server for a large German University is my day job, and I think I've used about every IMAP client for the Mac that there is. Mulberry still is the only one that gives me all the features I need. I have hundreds of mailboxes with more than 1 GB of mail, on two separate IMAP servers. With version 4 Mulberry's look has improved a whole lot. It never was "pretty" and it still isn't. I admit freely that I'd love to see an imaginary OmniMail app with all of Mulberry's features, but that just doesn't exist. For the time being I think that Mulberry's look and ease of use have already become better and I expect this trend to continue in subsequent versions. Regarding the new features in Mulberry 4, I find calendaring to be the most promising, but it's too early to tell. Currently I just use iCal and it's certainly OK. However, iCal is a *personal* calendaring tool, whereas Mulberry 4 aims to be used as group-ware. Here it's important to stress Mulberry's availability across platforms. With one license you are allowed to use all versions! The license is personal, not bound to a single computer. I used to run Mulberry on my Mac at home and under Linux and Solaris at work. I've got a Mac at work now, but several colleagues of mine use the Linux release. That means that a group-ware calendar using Mulberry is actually something that's realistic. Tools that are available for only one platform are OK if you're on your own, but they don't cut it in a heterogeneous workplace - and that's rather the norm than the exception, especially in academia. So what's missing for calendaring? The server side! ISAMET (as the company is now called) plan to offer a server that supports the open standards used in Mulberry. As a matter of fact, Mulberry's creators are among the people designing some of these standards, e.g. CalDAV. I have high hopes for that. For the time being you can use Mulberry for local calendars and on WebDAV servers. The new quick-search feature is a godsend. Proper IMAP clients don't load all mail locally, so something like Spotlight is out of the question. However, the IMAP protocol has many features, most of which are never used by the majority of clients. One such feature is server-side searching. Given a fast server (which we have) such a search is really quick. Mulberry has supported that for a long time, but the GUI was bit cumbersome. What's new in version 4 is that each window has a quick-search text-box where you just write the address, phrase or whatever you are searching for. For searches across multiple mailboxes you still have to use the old approach, however. Not to be neglected is Mulberry's full support of Unicode. OK, they are a little late to the party in that respect, but there is at least one other major mail app for the Mac that still doesn't fully support it. To sum it up, if you use email professionally and you get lots of mail and if you also use IMAP, then be sure to check out Mulberry. Give it some time, read the manual and start using the features that none of the other clients have: cabinets, ACL manipulation, multiple server-side labels and so on ...
It's been ugly for around a decade now!
dbj1000- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />Mulberry really is quite a phenomenon. I started using it around 10 years ago (and stopped just as soon as I stopped needing an IMAP client). Back then everyone agreed that it had the ugliest interface to be found in any Mac application (that HUGE GREEN BUTTON). Now, here we are a decade later, and Cyrusoft have listened to absolutely none of the (often constructive) criticism of their beloved ugly duckling. If anything, it may actually be uglier than ever. What's worse is that it's a pretty good mail client, technically. But it is so ugly after all this time that I can only assume its authors are simply visually illiterate. How sad.
I wholeheartedly recommend...
VersionTrackerUserOpinion- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />Mulberry for anyone looking for a robust mail client. I do not use it for IMAP but only to access several POP3 mail servers, and have found it to be fast and reliable. Two years ago I set out to free myself of AOL. I tried MailSmith, Mail.app, Outlook, Eudora, and even Pine. I found the Mulberry GUI to be incredibly intuitive, with control elements positioned logically and everything behaving exactly as I would have expected. I was quickly sold on the product, sent in my money, and have been using it exclusively ever since. The developers are active and responsive, the discussion list is well attended, and new versions with bug fixes and improvements are released at a comfortable pace. I have had a few crashes with Mulberry, but since I haven't yet upgraded to the latest version I can't count that as negative. I have never, not once, regretted this purchase, or even considered for a moment trying another mail client, something I cannot say about any other class of application.
Great, but....
tersonodesign- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />Lord, I want to like this mail client so much, but it is just SO unintuitive in places. It handles IMAP better than ANY other client out there - is faster than heck and stable with it. Unfortunately it's not only unintuitive, but nasty to look at too..... The UI is not only ugly, but looks unfinished. With a decent UI, this could easily be THE mail client for OS X, but as things stand I just can't bring myself to stick with it, despite having used it on and off for a couple of years... :(
I like the interface
Nepumuk- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />I appreciate that Mulberry has a slim interface. No fancy, stylish, big round buttons, etc. No wasted space for unnecessary decorations. Mulberry is a compact, powerful, efficient mail client. I agree, that in the beginning Mulberry is not intuitive. But nobody would expect to fly a Boeing from the scratch. Reading manuals IS painful, but helps. The most useful applications tend to be those where you need to learn how to use them. Unfortunately. I downloaded a demo half a year ago and trashed it after a week. Now I came back and paid for it. I love it. So don't complain before you RTFM-ed.
- cnladd
- Pros
- Cons
- Summary
- This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />Terrible interface, doesn't handle large numbers of accounts (both POP3 and IMAP) with large number of messages. Doesn't appear to handle APOP. Nearly unusable --