On 17/02/12 16:51, hawker wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:15 PM, MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 16/02/2012 20:07, hawker told the world:
There are plenty of valid reasons to use POP over IMAP, especially if
you have a limited bandwidth connection (such as cell phone). I have
some of my e-mail accounts IMAP, and some POP. There are valid reasons
why I use both and different ones for different accounts.
Actually, for limited bandwidth IMAP is a rather good choice, since you
don't run the risk of downloading 20mb attachments by accident. You
don't even have to download the message *body* if you know from the
header that it can wait until you are somewhere with better/unlimited
bandwidth.
I suppose for some accounts that could be true. For my work account on my phone
I have
it set to not download any attachment over 50k unless I say. POP downloads
anything
new and takes a few seconds to check the account (on thing to check, only new
files I
have not downloaded). IMAP must check though all the folders on the IMAP
account and
so take around 90 seconds for my work account. It must also sync up anything
that has
changed and that I have done locally which takes another 30-120 seconds.
I also noticed that IMAP is rather fragile on my (also slow) connection when I do bulk
operations such as moving (more than 10) emails. POP never crashed Thunderbird as a
side effect of moving mail. I think there is some stuff still programmed synchronously
which doesn't matter when you have super-fast broadband (and / or leave everything in
your inbox).
Ax
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
