Re: IMAP (was Re: NoSquint For SeaMonkey)
Ant wrote:
...
IMAP can do all POP can do, plus a lot more. So why bother with POP?
Especially a bad one.
To me, IMAP is dang slow compared to POP3. I usually download my
emails to my local desktop. Synchronizing with the IMAP server is
slow. I am spoiled by POP3 and SMTP without their synchronizations. :(
Again, whatever works best for you! Matching ISP email servers & email
client software helps! Not all work well together. I changed email
servers & email client packages numerous times over the years. Even
tried webmail seriously several times. Yuck!
It does not help to compare an overloaded or bad IMAP server to a fast
POP server, or a bad IMAP implementation / setup / design to a
reasonably well made & setup POP server. Any server may be slow for
many reasons, not because it is IMAP or POP. I doubt under a competent
test that a true IMAP is any slower than a true POP for email
transfer, under duplicate conditions. I suspect they compare equally.
Email client software makes a big difference too! Some email packages
are not coded well to handle both POP & IMAP. They are coded well to
handle one much better than the other. For example:
I would recommend to never use UofWash Pine/Alpine email client for
any POP server, as it is known to be poorly coded for POP; it is an
imitation POP code UofWash wrote. But Pine/Alpine screams under true
IMAP use. I love that email package - it is fast - no graphics to
slow you down loading & reading high volumes of email! Fast with many
IMAP folders open to jump around to. Interfaces well with a graphical
browser for inline or attachments. It mimes HTML fairly well. Yet
connected to a bad (proprietary) IMAP server design like Gmail or
Hotmail it crumbles with all kinds of problems, because Pine/Alpine is
RFC compliant - not a hack job. Complaints to the Pine/Alpine support
forums continue over & over for the same old Gmail & Hotmail problems.
Seamonkey / Mozilla can handle Gmail & Hotmail (POP or IMAP servers)
far better than Pine/Alpine, if those servers are so important to the
user to keep them.
Sylpheed seems to be a good email client package too, but I cannot
claim much experience with it. And for Gmail POP & IMAP servers
Sylpheed offers special setup selections. Gee I wonder why? Could
GMail be something other than IMAP RFC compliant? Like Proprietary?
I would not blame POP for being a slow design, but it often is slow
for me - using Seamonkey or otherwise, for some reason (whether
Inbox.com or Yahoo.com, & I used numerous other POPs over the years).
All email servers I ever used, dozens, periodically were slow. I
suspect email servers by the work they are expected to do are
inherently slow. They all are often under tremendous work loads. Time
of day makes a big difference too!
And worse with POP, if the server connection breaks - I often found no
recovery, start over transferring all msgs. If that doesn't slow you
down & tick you off nothing will!
I never find POP to be useful for me! Just good for testing out
setups, quick mail checking - but not downloading, etc.
The fastest & best overall system I found is Alpine running on
Fastmail.fm, an IMAP system. I don't think Fastmail operates a POP
server. They broke away from Opera Browser now, so no more nonsense!
But, Use what works best for you! Am I too much off topic?
--
The Best To You & Yours,
M.Ross All Rights Reserved
~~~
The Ends Of Gov't Can Be Viewed In Graveyards.
---end-of-message---
sm
-------------------------------------------------
ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the
NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
