Adam Bailey wrote:
>>1. AOL is so huge that standard protocols couldn't handle the volume. Is
>>that a valid argument? I doubt it.
>>
>Back that up with some engineering expertise.
>
I have heard other sources too saying that IMAP stresses servers a lot.
Several reasons (oin comparison to POP3):
- You keep messages on the server, which means that you might
reretrieve the same msg several times.
- You keep connected while you read mail, not just for downloading them
- Some clients stress servers quite much, opening many connections for a
single user.
While AOL does use IMAP in Netscape 6 to access AOL servers, restricting
the access to its own clients (by keeping the authentication
proprietary) allows it to control the behaviour of the client.
But, of course, that is no reason not to support POP3, like every other
provider (huge or not) does.
BTW: Pure size of the provider is not an argument either. They get
payments from each of those many users, and email can be made to scale,
so they could just add servers, if they wanted.
>>2. Support for 3rd party software is too costly. All they would need is
>>to teach their technicians how to install/configure about 3 programs (M$
>>OE, Netscape and Opera). That would cover 99% of their user base
>>(including those too stupid to not use the AOL software).
>>
>Back that up with some support expertise.
>
Just ask an arbitary ISP other than AOL. All ISPs I know "support"
arbitary clients, just that the hotline might not be able to help.
The third argument (Right now, it is very difficult to forge an email
message from one AOL member) is just mood. It is trivial to forge emails
looking to come from aol members by sedning them from another ISP. If
you look at the IP address, AOL can offer SMTP servers that add
addtional headers or force a certain From: header. There are ISPs which
do that.
