On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/24/2012 01:09 AM, Brandon Long wrote: >> Of course, if we aren't parsing the messages on the server, we have to >> ask why we're implementing IMAP5 and not POP4 > > Some time ago you wrote that IMAP is the de facto API for talking to > gmail. I understand that you offer POP too, but IMAP's what people use, > right?
Yes. For simple backups / migrations, they'll tend to use POP which is easier to deal with, but for anything that requires actually writing to the store or getting specific pieces of information, performing searches, obviously IMAP is the better choice. I was being mostly facetious about POP4. There may be an argument for a simpler protocol which does 2-way syncing in a log-like fashion with a side-order of mail sending. That's essentially what the Android Gmail client uses (our own http based two-way sync based on actual changes going across). But, I tend to be a believer in the off-line syncing clients instead of the always connected ones. Brandon _______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
