Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:34:18PM +0100, Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > * Chris G wrote: > >> On >> the other hand if you *don't* need to access mail from anywhere then >> IMAP is slower than other ways of doing it and doesn't add any other >> particular advantages. > > Depends. Most people using IMAP use it through IMAP providers which > "guarantee" you 24/7 availability. You mostly have professional admins > who do the work for you and ensure you have access to mail. With local > management, that would be your job. For example, your harddisk with the > mail spool dies and all mail is gone. That is rather unlikely to happen > with say gmail. > There's absolutely nothing that prevents you using, for example, fetchmail to get your mail from an IMAP server to a local repository of some sort. You then have the security of the remote IMAP management and the speed of local mail. I suppose you could argue that this is what off-line IMAP does but, as far as I know, there are *very* few good MUA implementations of off-line IMAP. -- Chris Green
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
> RfC1939 explicitely states that the maildrop ("mailbox") needs to be
> locked once a client is authenticated, see section 4. It doesn't say
> what exactly the lock means, though. At least I read it like that.
This is drifting pretty far away from mutt, and I doubt any of us are
writing new POP client code, so I'll keep this shortish. :) I imagine
that I understand why the draft suggests a mailbox lock, but I think
it's wrong to interpret that as a real requirement of POP. RFC 1939
predates BCP-14 (RFC 2119) and no MUST/SHOULD is present. Absent such
terminology (and reasons for using it) I think that a protocol RFC
doesn't get to prescribe the exact behavior of the server as long as the
interface goals are met, and this can be done without an exclusive lock
on the whole mailbox. What 1939 describes may be necessary for some
server implementations, but not for all.
--
-D.d...@uchicago.eduNSITUniversity of Chicago
Just to clear the deck, I own no monkeys.
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
Hi,
* David Champion wrote:
[ POP3 needs locking ]
That's implementation-dependent though. A server might require locking,
but it's not inherent to the protocol and it's possible to implement
one that has few of the contstraints that people have mentioned in this
thread.
RfC1939 explicitely states that the maildrop ("mailbox") needs to be
locked once a client is authenticated, see section 4. It doesn't say
what exactly the lock means, though. At least I read it like that.
Rocco
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, March 19 at 10:42 AM, quoth David Champion: > I think the best summary is that IMAP is a remote mailbox access > protocol, supporting all common mailbox operations at the protocol > level. POP is not: it supports full message retrieval, new-message scan > (kind of, via UIDL), and deletion. This makes it, at best, a queued > message pull protocol. Well, if you're comparing IMAP to POP, one of the common comparisons between them is that POP's simplicity lends itself to much more simple and lightweight server implementations. Thus, these implementations are easy to audit, easy to secure, and require less hardware to support hundreds of thousands of users. IMAP makes operations like server-side sorting and arbitrary tagging available and that puts more work on the server. IMAP clients are likely to stay connected for hours at a time (rather than poll periodically), and have a habit of keeping multiple connections open, making it easy for a single IMAP server to run out of ports if its supporting a large number of clients. POP3 clients rarely use multiple connections, and poll periodically instead of keeping a connection open, and thus POP3 servers are unlikely to run out of ports, but IMAP servers supporting large numbers of clients just might. > Most of the things that people cite as flaws of POP are really flaws > in particular implementations, not in the protocol. The POP > protocol is limited in scope, but I don't think this is a flaw; POP > just has a different design goal. Well, that's fair. The "flaw" of POP are, as far as I'm concerned, that it doesn't do what I want it to do... which is provide for management of multiple mailboxes. Not it's fault, I suppose, but still a reason not to use it. ~Kyle - -- If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you. -- Don Marquis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFJwm2iBkIOoMqOI14RAvGEAKDON0+SUjXi/c4NOAXasuS55Z1lJQCg9DVj 7oZnmUx1l16zJk+1Pk3Xq6o= =eAkV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
I think the best summary is that IMAP is a remote mailbox access protocol, supporting all common mailbox operations at the protocol level. POP is not: it supports full message retrieval, new-message scan (kind of, via UIDL), and deletion. This makes it, at best, a queued message pull protocol. But as someone else said, IMAP is just more flexible. You may not need all the features of IMAP, but since it fully encompasses everything that POP supports, why not use it? >> so the "leave mail on server" option that most pop-clients have is >> certainly not a convenient way to access your mail remotely from different >> locations. If you have minimal needs, it works alright. It's implementation- dependent since it's not done at the protocol level, but POP servers can track basic message and mailbox status. > Plus: POP needs locking, i.e. only one client at a time can access the > mailbox which implies that tools should not perform time-consuming tasks > while they have a POP session open. That's implementation-dependent though. A server might require locking, but it's not inherent to the protocol and it's possible to implement one that has few of the contstraints that people have mentioned in this thread. But historically, there are few really good POP servers, so in practical terms you're not wrong. Most of the things that people cite as flaws of POP are really flaws in particular implementations, not in the protocol. The POP protocol is limited in scope, but I don't think this is a flaw; POP just has a different design goal. (That said, it's really too bad that the POP and NNTP groups didn't join forces from the start. With an NNTP server that supported authentication and operationally understood the goals of user-oriented mailbox access, it would have been a completely reasonable alternative to both POP and IMAP, and much closer to IMAP in spirit.) -- -D.d...@uchicago.eduNSITUniversity of Chicago Just to clear the deck, I own no monkeys.
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:16AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Thursday, March 19 at 09:21 AM, quoth Marc Vaillant: > >> Sorry, but I think, here you are wrong. Good IMAP-Clients don’t > >> download the attachments without your interaction (at least you can > >> configure them in such a way). So the reading of the mails should > >> be fast in both ways. But if you wish to open an attachment, IMAP > >> is better than using SSH and local spool. > > > > Is there a way to view the body of an imap message without mutt actually > > fetching (not saving) all attachments? > > Not with mutt. Since mutt was originally designed for viewing a local > mail spool, it has no concept of "partial" messages. Mutt's IMAP > features are really there to simulate a local mail spool, which means > certain features like that would be tough to add (not impossible, but > tough). Ok, understood. > > Depending on your definitions, that may mean that mutt isn't a "good" > IMAP client. It's *reliable*, and it *works*, but it certainly doesn't > take advantage of all the features of IMAP that it theoretically > could. I agree. Support for IMAP in mutt certainly has improved over the years though. Before header-cache, IMAP was basically unusable without something like offlineimap. > > > Fetching a 5-10mb attachment just to view the body text is a > > significant annoyance when I'm away from my local work LAN. I'd like > > to be able to view the body text and have mutt fetch the attachments > > only when I hit "v" -> "return" to view the attachment. > > Suggest the feature to the developers. Better yet, implement it > yourself and submit a patch! Be warned, though: that patch would take > a *lot* of work. I've been a user for over a decade now. I'd love to contribute, I just don't have time right now :( Marc
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, March 19 at 09:21 AM, quoth Marc Vaillant: >> Sorry, but I think, here you are wrong. Good IMAP-Clients don’t >> download the attachments without your interaction (at least you can >> configure them in such a way). So the reading of the mails should >> be fast in both ways. But if you wish to open an attachment, IMAP >> is better than using SSH and local spool. > > Is there a way to view the body of an imap message without mutt actually > fetching (not saving) all attachments? Not with mutt. Since mutt was originally designed for viewing a local mail spool, it has no concept of "partial" messages. Mutt's IMAP features are really there to simulate a local mail spool, which means certain features like that would be tough to add (not impossible, but tough). Depending on your definitions, that may mean that mutt isn't a "good" IMAP client. It's *reliable*, and it *works*, but it certainly doesn't take advantage of all the features of IMAP that it theoretically could. > Fetching a 5-10mb attachment just to view the body text is a > significant annoyance when I'm away from my local work LAN. I'd like > to be able to view the body text and have mutt fetch the attachments > only when I hit "v" -> "return" to view the attachment. Suggest the feature to the developers. Better yet, implement it yourself and submit a patch! Be warned, though: that patch would take a *lot* of work. ~Kyle - -- Nothing gives one person so great advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances. -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Eppes, 1816 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iEYEARECAAYFAknCUVcACgkQBkIOoMqOI17vGQCg7UqubNX93Du65UCkES116RkV /BEAoKc3F1P82k4Tc3sEfx71rVyn1rE1 =HlHJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, March 18 at 09:14 PM, quoth John J. Foster: >On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:13:19PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: >> and IMAP makes it possible for me to sue my own client when I can. > >I'm so glad you're not my lawyer. HA! Whoops, typo. :D ~Kyle - -- To brand a book as unsuitable is an important step toward making it required reading. -- Marvin Kaye -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iEYEARECAAYFAknCTlAACgkQBkIOoMqOI15gFACgwxyACxWCZ8jmiTCXzYMDmKcl cooAn1JRYaNYrp9QRmFPorC+P9LZTXcF =Kjp0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:23:30AM +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:14AM +, Chris G wrote: >> Are they on your LAN? Using IMAP across the internet (even with a >> good ADSL connection) can never really be as quick as a local mbox >> spool, especially if you're dealing with attachments and such. Think >> about it - a 1Mbyte attachment is going to take some seconds to pull >> across even a 2 or 3Mb/s ADSL link whereas it's going to be near >> instantanous from a local file. > > Sorry, but I think, here you are wrong. Good IMAP-Clients don’t download > the attachments without your interaction (at least you can configure them > in such a way). So the reading of the mails should be fast in both ways. > But if you wish to open an attachment, IMAP is better than using SSH and > local spool. Is there a way to view the body of an imap message without mutt actually fetching (not saving) all attachments? Fetching a 5-10mb attachment just to view the body text is a significant annoyance when I'm away from my local work LAN. I'd like to be able to view the body text and have mutt fetch the attachments only when I hit "v" -> "return" to view the attachment. > With IMAP you only download the attachment, and then the > local application will deal with it. With SSH and local spool you must > start the application remote. >
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:34:18PM +0100, Rocco Rutte wrote: > Depends. Most people using IMAP use it through IMAP providers which > "guarantee" you 24/7 availability. You mostly have professional admins > who do the work for you and ensure you have access to mail. With local > management, that would be your job. For example, your harddisk with the > mail spool dies and all mail is gone. That is rather unlikely to happen > with say gmail. It depends on your situation. If you only ever check mail from one machine then by all means use pop. Just make sure that one machine has redundancy and a backup policy. Most servers have some kind of backups and if you are the administrator you deal with them, but most mail users don't. If you use multiple computers imap has many benefits. Checking mail from a friends house using webmail? You can still dig up the 2 month old joke and show it to him. You can sift through your sent mail to show him the scathing email you sent some tool on a mailing list. Most people that use pop don't have that ability. If you want the best of both worlds checkout offlineimap. Your mail can be local and you an get all the speed. Yet its still stored on a mail server that presumably someone else is taking care of and has proper backups. Guess what ... if they don't you have an automatic backup and your mail will get pushed back to the server when you can connect again. IMHO IMAP is just more flexible. -- Nick Anderson Network & Systems Administrator PilgrimPage Inc. | Absorbent Ink http://www.pilgrimpage.com | http://www.absorbentprinting.com Office: (785) 842.9164 Desk: (785) 830.6812
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
Hi, * Chris G wrote: On the other hand if you *don't* need to access mail from anywhere then IMAP is slower than other ways of doing it and doesn't add any other particular advantages. Depends. Most people using IMAP use it through IMAP providers which "guarantee" you 24/7 availability. You mostly have professional admins who do the work for you and ensure you have access to mail. With local management, that would be your job. For example, your harddisk with the mail spool dies and all mail is gone. That is rather unlikely to happen with say gmail. Rocco
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
Hi, * Joost Kremers wrote: so the "leave mail on server" option that most pop-clients have is certainly not a convenient way to access your mail remotely from different locations. Plus: POP needs locking, i.e. only one client at a time can access the mailbox which implies that tools should not perform time-consuming tasks while they have a POP session open. Rocco
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:32:23AM +0100, Joost Kremers wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:14AM +, Chris G wrote: > > Are they on your LAN? Using IMAP across the internet (even with a > > good ADSL connection) can never really be as quick as a local mbox > > spool, especially if you're dealing with attachments and such. Think > > about it - a 1Mbyte attachment is going to take some seconds to pull > > across even a 2 or 3Mb/s ADSL link whereas it's going to be near > > instantanous from a local file. > > true, but when i get attachments, i usually save them immediately to my > home dir, which is sync'ed with a usb drive that i carry around (almost) > everywhere i go... certainly the inconvenience of waiting a few secs for an > attachment to download doesn't weigh up to the convenience of accessing my > mail boxes from anywhere i like. > But that wasn't the issue. I quite agree that if you need to access your mail while on the move then IMAP is an easy way of doing it. On the other hand if you *don't* need to access mail from anywhere then IMAP is slower than other ways of doing it and doesn't add any other particular advantages. I.e. IMAP is good for some people but not for other people, it depends on your requirements. -- Chris Green
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:23:30AM +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:14AM +, Chris G wrote: >> Are they on your LAN? Using IMAP across the internet (even with a >> good ADSL connection) can never really be as quick as a local mbox >> spool, especially if you're dealing with attachments and such. Think >> about it - a 1Mbyte attachment is going to take some seconds to pull >> across even a 2 or 3Mb/s ADSL link whereas it's going to be near >> instantanous from a local file. > > Sorry, but I think, here you are wrong. Good IMAP-Clients don’t download > the attachments without your interaction (at least you can configure them > in such a way). So the reading of the mails should be fast in both ways. > But if you wish to open an attachment, IMAP is better than using SSH and > local spool. With IMAP you only download the attachment, and then the local > application will deal with it. With SSH and local spool you must start the > application remote. > Er, but I need to download the attachments, otherwise what is the point of having them! :-) OK, I can see a list of messages (relatively) quickly using IMAP but that can hardly be claimed to be reading my E-Mail as fast as when I'm using a local spool. What do you mean "using SSH and local spool"? What I mean by "using a local spool" is exactly that, running the MUA on the system where the mail spool is, i.e. my desktop machine. I'm pretty sure that's what the original person making the comment meant too. -- Chris Green
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:14AM +, Chris G wrote: > Are they on your LAN? Using IMAP across the internet (even with a > good ADSL connection) can never really be as quick as a local mbox > spool, especially if you're dealing with attachments and such. Think > about it - a 1Mbyte attachment is going to take some seconds to pull > across even a 2 or 3Mb/s ADSL link whereas it's going to be near > instantanous from a local file. true, but when i get attachments, i usually save them immediately to my home dir, which is sync'ed with a usb drive that i carry around (almost) everywhere i go... certainly the inconvenience of waiting a few secs for an attachment to download doesn't weigh up to the convenience of accessing my mail boxes from anywhere i like. -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:14AM +, Chris G wrote: Are they on your LAN? Using IMAP across the internet (even with a good ADSL connection) can never really be as quick as a local mbox spool, especially if you're dealing with attachments and such. Think about it - a 1Mbyte attachment is going to take some seconds to pull across even a 2 or 3Mb/s ADSL link whereas it's going to be near instantanous from a local file. Sorry, but I think, here you are wrong. Good IMAP-Clients don’t download the attachments without your interaction (at least you can configure them in such a way). So the reading of the mails should be fast in both ways. But if you wish to open an attachment, IMAP is better than using SSH and local spool. With IMAP you only download the attachment, and then the local application will deal with it. With SSH and local spool you must start the application remote. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net | | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:02:12AM +, Chris G wrote: > *By default* in both cases. There's nothing that actually forces you > to leave mail on an IMAP server, neither is there anything that forces > you to remove mail when you download it from a POP3 server. However > most POP3 services expect you to remove mail when you download it and > most IMAP services expect you to keep mail on the server. it's a little more than that. pop was designed with the former in mind, imap with the latter. pop doesn't have the facilities to treat a remote mailbox the same way as a local one. you can leave the mail on the server with pop, but that's about it. it certainly doesn't allow you to store sent mail on the server, or move messages from one mailbox to another on the server. so the "leave mail on server" option that most pop-clients have is certainly not a convenient way to access your mail remotely from different locations. -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:01:14AM +0100, Joost Kremers wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Henrik Enberg wrote: > > The main drawback, and the mainreason I don't use it directly is that > > unless you run a local server with the low latency that gives you, > > it's just too slow. 1 second to display an email is more noticeable > > than you'd think before you try it. > > mmm... i use two imap servers, and both are about as fast as a local mail > box most of the time. to me, the speed difference is too small to really > notice or be a bother. > Are they on your LAN? Using IMAP across the internet (even with a good ADSL connection) can never really be as quick as a local mbox spool, especially if you're dealing with attachments and such. Think about it - a 1Mbyte attachment is going to take some seconds to pull across even a 2 or 3Mb/s ADSL link whereas it's going to be near instantanous from a local file. -- Chris Green
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:06:12AM +0100, Joost Kremers wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51:56PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > > Another meta-question, where can I find a straight-forward description of > > imap, without the enthusiastic pushing? What is it? > > it's just a protocol to access email on a remote server. that description > would apply to pop3 as well. the difference between them is that imap > leaves the messages on the server, while pop3 downloads them to the local > machine. *By default* in both cases. There's nothing that actually forces you to leave mail on an IMAP server, neither is there anything that forces you to remove mail when you download it from a POP3 server. However most POP3 services expect you to remove mail when you download it and most IMAP services expect you to keep mail on the server. -- Chris Green
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 02:18:01AM -0400, Ed Blackman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:06:12AM +0100, Joost Kremers wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51:56PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: >>> Not in some narrow sense, >>> but what is involved in 'being an imap user'? >> >> first, your mail server has to support it. then you simply set up your mail >> client to use imap. (or preferably imaps.) that's about it. > > Well, that and the ceremony with the goat. Wait! That's secre... I > mean, there's no ceremony! no goat, no ceremony, and no bucket of lard either! *g* -- Joost Kremers, PhD University of Frankfurt Institute for Cognitive Linguistics Grüneburgplatz 1 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:06:12AM +0100, Joost Kremers wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51:56PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: Not in some narrow sense, but what is involved in 'being an imap user'? first, your mail server has to support it. then you simply set up your mail client to use imap. (or preferably imaps.) that's about it. Well, that and the ceremony with the goat. Wait! That's secre... I mean, there's no ceremony! Ed signature.txt Description: Digital signature
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51:56PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > Another meta-question, where can I find a straight-forward description of > imap, without the enthusiastic pushing? What is it? it's just a protocol to access email on a remote server. that description would apply to pop3 as well. the difference between them is that imap leaves the messages on the server, while pop3 downloads them to the local machine. for that reason, imap has ways to perform actions such as copying/moving and deleting messages on the server. imap basically makes the remote server accessible to your mail client as if it were (a set of) local mail folders. > Not in some narrow sense, > but what is involved in 'being an imap user'? first, your mail server has to support it. then you simply set up your mail client to use imap. (or preferably imaps.) that's about it. -- Joost Kremers, PhD University of Frankfurt Institute for Cognitive Linguistics Grüneburgplatz 1 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Henrik Enberg wrote: > The main drawback, and the mainreason I don't use it directly is that > unless you run a local server with the low latency that gives you, > it's just too slow. 1 second to display an email is more noticeable > than you'd think before you try it. mmm... i use two imap servers, and both are about as fast as a local mail box most of the time. to me, the speed difference is too small to really notice or be a bother. -- Joost Kremers, PhD University of Frankfurt Institute for Cognitive Linguistics Grüneburgplatz 1 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Re: what is the benefit of imap? Another meta-question.
On 2009-03-18_21:01:38, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote: > Hello, > > i have a "meta-question". > > imap-issues are being discussed on this list quite frequently. i wonder what > the benefit of imap generally is? > > if you have access to broadband flatrate internet (as many people in > agglomerations here in germany do) i can't think of the benefit of managing my > mails on a remote server. > > if you consider this question silly or off-topic please give me a hint where i > could find an answer. thanks. Another meta-question, where can I find a straight-forward description of imap, without the enthusiastic pushing? What is it? Not in some narrow sense, but what is involved in 'being an imap user'? I suspect it is more complicated than the pusher would have one believe, but ... I don't know. I sense that it is useful to people who travel. Is that its main feature? -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:13:19PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > and IMAP makes it possible for me to sue my own client when I can. I'm so glad you're not my lawyer. festus -- I just want to break even. pgpVsQJIFrmZI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, March 18 at 09:01 PM, quoth Jan-Herbert Damm: > imap-issues are being discussed on this list quite frequently. i > wonder what the benefit of imap generally is? The same as any network-accessible system: access. Here's a comparable question: what's the benefit of having your travel itineraries available on travel websites (like expedia or travelocity)? For whatever bizarre reason, people use those services a lot, rather than printing their itineraries or saving them to local disk. The benefit is that you can get to them from anywhere. I was at a hotel recently on business travel. My laptop's wireless connection was frotzed (long story), so I was forced to use the computers provided by the hotel. These were locked-down Windows machines, with a minimal web browser, but it was enough to get into my webmail. You might ask: why use IMAP when you have webmail? Well, I think the reason is pretty clear. While it's true that you do get the centrality and availability from webmail, it doesn't have the convenience that a real email client has (for example, I *love* composing email in vim - but I can't do that with webmail). But IMAP is the protocol that makes both things possible: most webmail applications are centered on IMAP, and IMAP makes it possible for me to sue my own client when I can. > if you have access to broadband flatrate internet (as many people in > agglomerations here in germany do) i can't think of the benefit of > managing my mails on a remote server. IMAP is more likely to be let through a strict hotel firewall than SSH is. Of course, you can host your own IMAP server on your home computer, just as you host your own SSH server. There is also something to be said for reliability. My home machine sometimes loses power, or the neighborhood broadband goes out for a half an hour JUST BECAUSE (that's what I get for living in a monopoly: damn you Time-Warner!!! (note: their competitors are no better)). But just in general, the connectivity of my home machine *cannot* match the connectivity of my colocated system, which has two different routes to the internet. I have a battery backup here in my apartment, but it only lasts a few minutes, and doesn't keep the internet up. My hosting provider has a permanent diesel generator hooked into their electric system. As an example, they recently survived an ice storm that caused power to go out for a *week*, but the generator that kept my server happy the whole time (even the air conditioning was powered by the generator). Yes, I could set up something similar for my apartment, but not for anywhere near a reasonable amount of money. My desktop machine has a cheapie IDE hard drive. I have regular backups (onto more, external cheapie IDE drives), but if lightning hits... I'm pretty much screwed. My colocated server has enterprise-class SCSI hard drives with offsite backups. There's no way that I could justify doing that for my desktop computer, not for a reasonable amount of money. And the beauty of it is that this server of mine allows me to provide the same level of service to my entire family. But there's no way I'd insist that they learn ssh or the command line just to get access. No, IMAP allows me to provide that service in a way that they can understand, that's convenient, and that's fast. Did I mention fast? It takes much less than a second to read my email. Granted, mutt caches most of it, but that's fine: it's optimizing for the common case. Gosh, I guess I'm thinking: there's no reason NOT to use IMAP---especially if you have lots of bandwidth at your disposal. Does that answer your question? ~Kyle - -- To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1912 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iEYEARECAAYFAknBY+8ACgkQBkIOoMqOI164jwCgrCHUyfFkDMW+Cu8Q1K8S0LW7 ZnsAn3bf1BcZiPC96C0oCcrU3OcHejy2 =hHBo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On 2009-03-18, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote: > i have a "meta-question". > > imap-issues are being discussed on this list quite frequently. > i wonder what the benefit of imap generally is? Compared to what? > if you have access to broadband flatrate internet (as many > people in agglomerations here in germany do) i can't think of > the benefit of managing my mails on a remote server. 1) Managing e-mail on one server is a lot easier than managing them on a half-dozen different machines. 2) I don't know about your boxes, but none of my machines have redundant disks with automated backup, redundant internet connections, backup power, 99.999% uptime, and so on. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! What PROGRAM are they at watching? visi.com
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
* Henrik Enberg [03-18-09 16:18]: > > Well, It's quite useful if you wish to access your mail on many > different computers and mobile devices. In fact, fast flatrate > connectivity probably increases the usefulness of something like IMAP. > > The main drawback, and the mainreason I don't use it directly is that > unless you run a local server with the low latency that gives you, > it's just too slow. 1 second to display an email is more noticeable > than you'd think before you try it. > I agree. I perfer to ssh into my home machine and access my email. With a flash drive and putty I have access from nearly any windoz machine and almost all linux boxes have ssh, so my email is available from nearly anywhere. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
Jan-Herbert Damm writes: > if you have access to broadband flatrate internet (as many people in > agglomerations here in germany do) i can't think of the benefit of > managing my mails on a remote server. Well, It's quite useful if you wish to access your mail on many different computers and mobile devices. In fact, fast flatrate connectivity probably increases the usefulness of something like IMAP. The main drawback, and the mainreason I don't use it directly is that unless you run a local server with the low latency that gives you, it's just too slow. 1 second to display an email is more noticeable than you'd think before you try it. -- If animal trapped call 410-844-6286
Re: what is the benefit of imap?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 09:01:38PM +0100, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote: > Hello, > > i have a "meta-question". > > imap-issues are being discussed on this list quite frequently. i wonder what > the benefit of imap generally is? > > if you have access to broadband flatrate internet (as many people in > agglomerations here in germany do) i can't think of the benefit of managing my > mails on a remote server. > > if you consider this question silly or off-topic please give me a hint where i > could find an answer. thanks. > > jan > IMAP is a must for me so I can access *ALL* my email from *ANY* system using *ANY* email client.
