Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:06 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 08:42 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 05:13 -0600, Bart wrote: Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? It depends upon your server; if you have a powerful full-featured IMAP server like Cyrus IMAPd [you can get a free Cyrus IMAP account at http://fastmail.fm/] you can really exploit the power of a real mailbox management protocol and server features. If you are using some hack ISP's IMAP implementation then it may not matter - or your ISP may provide nothing but POP3. With IMAP you can have multiple folders on the server, move messages between folder [on the server], access the mailbox from multiple clients/hosts/interfaces, etc... all of which are impossible with POP [which simply uses the INBOX on the server as a store-and-download bucket]. Mail on the server is backed up by the server admins - a BIG advantage over mail stored on the client. If your server supports it you can also setup rules [filters] on the server that are invoked when the message is *delivered* vs. the crappy client side filters that most mail clients try to implement. There is a lot of power in having the server filter [discard, file into folder, flag as important, forward, auto respond, etc...] your messages - it happens even when you are on vacation. Real IMAP servers also let you set annotation on folders that might do things like discard messages after a certain number of days; again, without you having to do anything [you don't even have to login]. While all of this is true, it should also be said that Evo doesn't support server-side filtering or folder annotations, so you have to use some other means to set these up. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list First, thanks for the rapid and thorough responses. 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 ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 04:34 -0600, Bart 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? I'm a bit in your situation, but with more users. I'm using a home IMAP server, simply because I have several computers I want to access my mail from (plus a webmail, plus my phone). Using IMAP (with a dyndns.org name) I can read my mail everywhere, on any machine. POP3 cant beat that. Xav ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:34:22 -0600 Bart montana_evolution_u...@hardinmt.us wrote: snip/ 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? Even if going rather OT by now: 1. Your distrust of having personal stuff on someone else's computer, although correct (I am also paranoid), does not change the fact that simply by using public ISPs (either as the source, sink, or forwarder) has already made your personal stuff be accessible by anyone in the middle. As such, trust/distrust in third parties does not affect a decision between either POP or IMAP. 2. If you only use one machine, and will keep on using the same one machine until hell freezes over, or you die, or you cease to use email (any condition satisfies) then certainly POP is more than enough. If not, you may want to consider IMAP. 3. POP allows for offline access of emails (already received, of course), IMAP does not (but most clients will offer the option for local storage of email). As simple as that ;-) Cheers. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 04:34 -0600, Bart wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:06 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 08:42 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 05:13 -0600, Bart wrote: Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? It depends upon your server; if you have a powerful full-featured IMAP server like Cyrus IMAPd [you can get a free Cyrus IMAP account at http://fastmail.fm/] you can really exploit the power of a real mailbox management protocol and server features. If you are using some hack ISP's IMAP implementation then it may not matter - or your ISP may provide nothing but POP3. With IMAP you can have multiple folders on the server, move messages between folder [on the server], access the mailbox from multiple clients/hosts/interfaces, etc... all of which are impossible with POP [which simply uses the INBOX on the server as a store-and-download bucket]. Mail on the server is backed up by the server admins - a BIG advantage over mail stored on the client. If your server supports it you can also setup rules [filters] on the server that are invoked when the message is *delivered* vs. the crappy client side filters that most mail clients try to implement. There is a lot of power in having the server filter [discard, file into folder, flag as important, forward, auto respond, etc...] your messages - it happens even when you are on vacation. Real IMAP servers also let you set annotation on folders that might do things like discard messages after a certain number of days; again, without you having to do anything [you don't even have to login]. While all of this is true, it should also be said that Evo doesn't support server-side filtering or folder annotations, so you have to use some other means to set these up. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list First, thanks for the rapid and thorough responses. 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? If you never want to leave any messages (whatever their nature) on a server, then there's little difference, but note that with IMAP you can easily store some messages locally and others remotely. It's just more flexible. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
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. Paul ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 16:45 +, 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 Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 08:32 -0500, C de-Avillez wrote: 3. POP allows for offline access of emails (already received, of course), IMAP does not (but most clients will offer the option for local storage of email). If you use offlineimap (great software!), you get IMAP offline anytime you want, WITH the benefits of IMAP (for me, primarily that what is read in one place stays read in another). ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
[Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? Bart ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 05:13 -0600, Bart wrote: Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? Bart well i have some imap only mail servers and the users that use it don't notice anything initially when they switch to it coming from pop, usually i have to explain the difference between imap and pop. THAT is the biggest plus i can think of considering the extra advantages it brings of having all mail in one location available from everywhere. most of my users are sometimes at their desktop computer, sometimes on the road or at home using blackberry's, laptop, webmail etc. and e-mail is important to them, its simply a big archive with valuable information and they simply need that information to do their business. with POP everybody needed to call the office several times a day to ask someone to resend an email from some weeks ago for me as administrator it brings less problems since many email clients have limited storage of a few Gig, i used to have exploding mailboxes on a frequent schedule several years ago when we did pop, nowadays having someone with 20 or 30 gig in their inbox is not uncommon (yes, i know) besides that i can also easily make regular backups of all mailboxes and restore them if needed ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 05:13 -0600, Bart wrote: Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? It depends upon your server; if you have a powerful full-featured IMAP server like Cyrus IMAPd [you can get a free Cyrus IMAP account at http://fastmail.fm/] you can really exploit the power of a real mailbox management protocol and server features. If you are using some hack ISP's IMAP implementation then it may not matter - or your ISP may provide nothing but POP3. With IMAP you can have multiple folders on the server, move messages between folder [on the server], access the mailbox from multiple clients/hosts/interfaces, etc... all of which are impossible with POP [which simply uses the INBOX on the server as a store-and-download bucket]. Mail on the server is backed up by the server admins - a BIG advantage over mail stored on the client. If your server supports it you can also setup rules [filters] on the server that are invoked when the message is *delivered* vs. the crappy client side filters that most mail clients try to implement. There is a lot of power in having the server filter [discard, file into folder, flag as important, forward, auto respond, etc...] your messages - it happens even when you are on vacation. Real IMAP servers also let you set annotation on folders that might do things like discard messages after a certain number of days; again, without you having to do anything [you don't even have to login]. -- Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org LPIC-1, Novell CLA http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com OpenGroupware, Cyrus IMAPd, Postfix, OpenLDAP, Samba ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 12:39 +0100, randall wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 05:13 -0600, Bart wrote: Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? for me as administrator it brings less problems since many email clients have limited storage of a few Gig, i used to have exploding mailboxes on a frequent schedule several years ago when we did pop, nowadays having someone with 20 or 30 gig in their inbox is not uncommon (yes, i know) besides that i can also easily make regular backups of all mailboxes and restore them if needed Ditto; and as an admin the features like Delayed Expunge (provided by Cyrus IMAP) are simply wonderful. They make both help desk and auditors happy when you can simply and quickly retrieve *deleted* messages from a user's mailbox. Without such features it is extremely difficult to implement a data retention policy [which is legally *required* for *every* organization, company, and corporation in the United States]. Data Retention w/Open Source http://mosg.googlegroups.com/web/DataRetention.odp?gda=rvjMLkMAAAC-jgpod-Vm3IqponsAjiNYMY_Qgfw51_BXRzpTapN-rPS7ePkljeN75DZzkM47KrAytiJ-HdGYYcPi_09pl8N7FWLveOaWjzbYnpnkpmxcWg -- Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org LPIC-1, Novell CLA http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com OpenGroupware, Cyrus IMAPd, Postfix, OpenLDAP, Samba ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] IMAP vs. POP
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 08:42 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 05:13 -0600, Bart wrote: Hope this is not too far off topic. I am using pop for all my email accounts. I receive all my mail on one machine at one location. But I keep seeing remarks that indicate IMAP as being just SO much better. Would someone either explain or point me to a place where I can learn the reasons for these comments? It depends upon your server; if you have a powerful full-featured IMAP server like Cyrus IMAPd [you can get a free Cyrus IMAP account at http://fastmail.fm/] you can really exploit the power of a real mailbox management protocol and server features. If you are using some hack ISP's IMAP implementation then it may not matter - or your ISP may provide nothing but POP3. With IMAP you can have multiple folders on the server, move messages between folder [on the server], access the mailbox from multiple clients/hosts/interfaces, etc... all of which are impossible with POP [which simply uses the INBOX on the server as a store-and-download bucket]. Mail on the server is backed up by the server admins - a BIG advantage over mail stored on the client. If your server supports it you can also setup rules [filters] on the server that are invoked when the message is *delivered* vs. the crappy client side filters that most mail clients try to implement. There is a lot of power in having the server filter [discard, file into folder, flag as important, forward, auto respond, etc...] your messages - it happens even when you are on vacation. Real IMAP servers also let you set annotation on folders that might do things like discard messages after a certain number of days; again, without you having to do anything [you don't even have to login]. While all of this is true, it should also be said that Evo doesn't support server-side filtering or folder annotations, so you have to use some other means to set these up. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
