As I read the threads, and as a top level abstraction user (i.e. not a coder), I note the following:
1) It seems like how it's coded will be up to the "president", and whoever decides they want to follow that person's lead. That said, this ground has been covered before, right? So why not use whatever the most successful model for this kind of coding has been? 2) As a user, I like IMAP in that it seems to allow me to transparently view my e-mail (at least that e-mail which is hosted on google's system) in a relatively sane way. Deleted in one place (for example, home computer) leads to deleted (eventually) in another place (mobile). And this seems to be the better protocol for that vs. POP, so I like it. Therefore, it would also seem that limiting the software to what IMAP does would be the best way to insure usability. Of course (and to a coder, this may sound ridiculous), if there were bits of info that POP or SMTP provided that were desirable that IMAP did not provide, since most servers support multiple protocols, perhaps there's a smart way to combine them, i.e., log in as more than one protocol but only take action for each in a way that won't gum up the works. Sort of interleave protocol log-ins in some way. e
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
