Hello Thomas,
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003 at 11:46:12 AM you [TF] wrote (at least in
part):
>>> No, let me download my mail (server-side spam filtering is
>>> appreciated), disconnect, and *then* think about which messages I
>>> want to read or delete. I'm under no pressure while making my
>>> decisions, as the clock is not ticking. ;-)
>> If you're using true UID supported servers... clock isn't ticking for
>> IMAP either really... you can fetch the headers, disconnect, browse
>> the headers in the folders, decide which ones to fetch, reconnect,
>> start fetching them, go make your coffee ;)
TF> You suggest I download the headers from the server, disconnect from
TF> the internet, browse and choose, then dial up to the internet again
TF> (which not only costs me another 3 Baht/per phone call, but also often
TF> has problems, as I often do not get in on first attempt), and then
TF> download the messages?
TF> And that is easier than POP?
No. It /can/ be less cost intensive. With IMAP you're able to decide
1.) Which message you want to read. This is comparable to fetching
mail headers via POP3 first, show them in the dispatcher and let
you decide. Only with the advantages of
a.) You browse the messages in the "normal folder view" and not a
separate "Dispatcher Windows".
b.) IMAP can selectively download headers. While POP3 only can
execute a "TOP <MSGNUM> 0" and get all headers IMAP can fetch
only the necessary headers (From, To, Subject, Date, whatever)
2.) After telling what messages you're interested in IMAP can fetch
exactly these messages, similar to "POP3 via dispatcher", but with
the advantage of IMAP being capable to download only specific body
parts, e.g. only text body, leaving HTML alternative body and
attachments on the server. Therefore IMAP /can/ reduce traffic and
therefore decrease necessary bandwidth and costs.
If you pay not only per-minute but additionally per dial-in this
/might/ not lower your costs this much, but IMAP at least is capable
in general while POP3 ain't.
With IMAP also 'Selective download' can be made more efficient, as
IMAP supports "Server side searching", i.e. the IMAP client can let
the server search for messages matching certain criteria, remember the
UIDs and decide not to download these messages, while with POP3 the
client has to download the header (and probably bodies if search
should be done in message body) and take appropriate actions. But than
the messages already went through the line, bandwidth is lost, traffic
was generated.
So even for you IMAP can be an improvement, even if it's only because
you can spare the attachment download. If coded and setup properly
you'll only get text parts of a messages, attachments left on the
server and you don't have to struggle with "This damn 10 MiByte
message" blocking your line. You'll see there's an attachment and if
you're really interested you mark it for download. If you're not you
don't.
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't able to use current TB!-IMAP
implementation this way, in fact I wasn't even able to read mails with
set to "Don't synchronize", The Bat! than hangs on "Retrieving
structure of message UID #XX", albeit a network sniff showed me this
structure was already sent by the server. But that's a different
story, IMAP implementation is "under development" and I just wasn't
able to formulate a proper bug report / request about this specific
problem. But I assume this kind of problems will be fixed in the
release candidate and release version, so you might benefit from IMAP
with your dialup connection as well.
--
Regards
Peter Palmreuther
(The Bat! v2.0 Beta/1 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1)
Man who falls in blast furnace is certain to feel overwrought.
________________________________________________________
Current beta is 2.0b1 | "Using TBBETA" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
