On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 16:45 +0000, Paul Leyland wrote: > > Quite a few valid reasons for IMAP. Except. In my situation, I don't > > need backup by an administrator, I'm him. All the accounts on my single > > machine are from only two hosts. I don't need auto vacation messages. > > I keep my folders quite small in size/number of messages. I have a huge > > distrust of having personal stuff on someone else's computer. I know it > > passes through one, but it doesn't stay. > > > > Would you agree in my situation I am as well served with POP3 as IMAP? > > > > Bart > > I agree with you because I'm largely in your situation. I've been a > Unix sysadmin for well over 20 years and think I know how to run a > reliable system, including the need for regular (and restorable!) > backups. My boxes check the POP servers every few minutes and download > any waiting mail. Spam filtering, auto-forwarding, classification into > folders, etc, happen on my machines. Remote access to my mail is no big > deal because my systems are running 24/7 and have ssh access. > > I also sympathize with your privacy concerns but recognize that in > practice there is relatively little difference between IMAP and POP from > the point of view of a determined attacker. The lower residence time in > a POP server is only a minor distinction and if you want privacy you > need encryption. > > OTOH, anyone who isn't capable and willing to run a professional set-up > may be better served by IMAP.
Sounds like you could just run your own mail server and get all the above plus easier remote access. poc _______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
