Chris, many thanks for your feedback.
Best regards, Alan On Jul 4, 12:01 am, Chris Clifton <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm in the UK, but my yahoo.com email account was subject to the same > conditions as a USA account. I looked this morning at the options on the > website, and, yes, I do have the option of POPing spam. In fact there > are three options, "Don't POP spam", "Include spam messages" and > "Include spam messages and add [bulk] as a prefix to the subject line". > PS yahoo.co.uk accounts have long had free POP access, but yahoo! > wouldn't let me set up a .co.uk account with the same user name as the > .com account. > > On 04/07/2011 07:39, alanrf wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > you always seem to beat me to the send button. Well this weekend I > > will claim to be in laid-back mode since it is a holiday weekend where > > I live. > > > Of course I agree with your comments with one caveat. Please read my > > comments and let me know your experience. As I mentioned I find that, > > even with a US location for my free Yahoo account, I now find that I > > have POP options available to me. Not only that - within the POP > > options is the ability to have the contents of the Junk mail folder > > included in the download of the POP mail Inbox. Is that available in > > your geographical location? > > > Regards, > > > Alan > > > On Jul 3, 11:00 pm, Chris Clifton<[email protected]> wrote: > >> One reason that no-one else has mentioned. Some workplace IT systems > >> block access to the normal POP ports on any servers other than the > >> companies own mail servers. If you want to read your Hotmail or Yahoo! > >> mail at work you either have to use the websites or the extensions. > > >> On 03/07/2011 15:41, VulcanTourist wrote: > > >>> Since GMail, HotMail, and Yahoo already support POP3 delivery > >>> internally, and accounts for those services can be configured as POP3 > >>> in Thunderbird with the publicly available servers for each, exactly > >>> when and why would these extensions ever be needed for those services > >>> in particular? It seems that this adds an unnecessary level of > >>> complexity, since HTTP is not an e-mail protocol and changes to how > >>> the "Webmail" interfaces work could break these extensions, which > >>> NEVER happens with POP3/SMTP. > >>> When are these actually needed? > >> -- > > --
