--> Friday, November 14, 2003, 11:24:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Friday, November 14, 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
>> I think there is an option to retrieve more than just the headers >> when retrieving messages. If not, I am fairly sure IMAP allows such >> a functionality. > Of course, otherwise how do you read your emails ;) There are various > synchronization options available (right click a folder, and see in > there), but those are preemptive options, ie while you're reading > mail, it collects the items you have selected for that folder. That > makes reading the message faster on next loading, or that is how I've > seen it working. I think IMAP allows, and perhaps even a TB option implements this (or maybe it was Becky), the contents of the mail to be sync'ed without a human actually clicking the mail, ie. when the head is sync'ed. ie. along with the head. ie. fetch all of it initially. >>>> Conversely, does TB allow me to use IMAP and store every message >>>> on the server, never locally? >>> IMAP is a protocol that stores the message on the server. That is >>> the nature of the protocol. >> Well, IMAP is supposed to be a superset of POP. So I would say this >> statement is not the whole truth. > Not entirely true... they're two different protocols, they work > completely differently. Obviously I meant, IMAP is a superset of POP in features. Yes the protocols differ. IMAP was designed this way, the design and advocation documents make sure to explicitly note this, probably due to their confusion when IMAP was not taking off, and this probably due to the misconception that IMAP is for one thing and POP is for another thing, when in fact IMAP was designed to allow both sorts of operation, "online" and "offline", remote and local. >> It is designed to allow operation like POP for those that desire it. >> Perhaps this misconception is what makes IMAP less than it's design. > Erm, not really. You cannot do 90% of the things with POP that you can > do with IMAP. It's also uses an entirely different command structure, > and reply format. From what I have read IMAP can do everything POP does. Yes, the command structure is different. I think everyone knows that. I only argue this because I think this is what IMAP was meant for. Arguing against this would be crippling IMAP and more widespread use. I glean this from documentation, I'm pretty sure it was at imap.org. I guess I shouldn't care, but I must say IMAP is annoying in TB and I am not sure that's the fault of the IMAP designers. Additionally, everything I have read says IMAP is able to do the things I asked. I can't care too much now because it's really just a waste of time. However, my urge to create good forces me to waste some time here now. I have just gone back to POP, dropped BayesIt in favor of SpamAssassin at my ISP and use Terminal Services (Remote Desktop) to access my mail remotely for only a few k/second, it's rather nice. Another thing to think about in the IMAP implementation is attachments. I get a larger than average amount of larger than average binary attachments. Ideally I would think an IMAP client would consider this possibility coupled with the possibility of server disk quota limitations. I don't need to argue this though. I'm not going to change my mind. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________ Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
