mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 May 2022 16:12:45 -0500 Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>>I'm not familiar with an email client that doesn't automatically
>>store a local copy of your email, regardless of the protocol you use
>>to retrieve it from the server. If such a thing exists, others will
>>have to chime in.

>Unless I totally misunderstand you, IMAP stores mail on a server (run
>by some email service provider), and there is no local copy retained
>after the mail item is read.

>If you want mail to be retained locally you need something like
>Mailstore.

In my Mail client, I'm using IMAP while I read a message in an inbox on
a remote host. That inbox is not synced with a folder on the same host
that my Mail client resides on. If I wish to save the message, I save it
in an appropriate archive folder on the local host. In my client, it's
set to delete the message from the remote host whilst saving. The delete
action sets the delete flag but the actual expungement doesn't take
place till I close the remote inbox folder. If I wanted to, I could set
expunge with confirmation.

Using IMAP, I can store a message in any inbox in any archive folder,
local or remote. If I cared to, I could store a message received in the
local inbox in an archive folder on a remote host.

Those are choices I make with the Mail client's settings, none of which
are required actions of the protocol.

nospam,

> not wrong. they download headers *and* message bodies of new emails and
> send any unsent queued mail.

Wrong.

And I don't care how many times you claim they work like you say. Just like
you don't care about what anybody else says. Strange how that works, isn't
it ? :-)

>> > no, that's *not* how most email apps do it.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> you snipped to alter context, again.

No I didn't.

>> Which also doesn't work without a connection.
>
> nor does downloading headers, message bodies, or anything else for
> that matter.

Ah, straigh-forward "whataboutism" ... :-) But thanks for confirming you
where wrong.

>> You lose again.
>
> i'm not the one who is losing.

Ah, who now is removing context ? But /you/ are ofcourse allowed, because
of ... reasons.

> nope. what you describe is *not* how it works.

Yes it is.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t703qa$1nj8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > not wrong. they download headers *and* message bodies of new emails and
> > send any unsent queued mail.
>
> Wrong.

if you're going to claim it's wrong, then you need to provide proof.

several people in this thread have said it doesn't work that way, one
of whom asked for an example of an email app to show otherwise, for
which nobody has given an answer.

since you insist you are correct and everyone else is wrong, here's
your chance to provide an example of such an app, exactly how it's
configured and how it differs from the defaults. also explain why
didn't you respond to the other person's request for such an app.

history has shown that you will not do that.

> > you snipped to alter context, again.
>
> No I didn't.

oh yes you did, and the reasons why are very obvious.

nospam,

> if you're going to claim it's wrong, then you need to provide proof.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner !

Good, now you recognise that disagreeing with someone without providing at
least some explanation for it is "not nice"(tm)" (to say the least). So,
now you've been on the receiving end and have recognised how .... dishonest
that that is you will not ever do it again, right ?

And in this case ? You came up with the claim that all email clients do it
your way, so its upto you to underbuild that.

>> > you snipped to alter context, again.
>>
>> No I didn't.
>
> oh yes you did, and the reasons why are very obvious.

Lol. Just as in the previous message of yours where you blame me of
removing context and than blatantly doing it yourself, you now have told me
that I need to give proof to my claims and /directly after it/ refuse to do
so yourself.

As for that "its very obvious" blurb ? If that is so you could have
included/quoted it, and by it taken away all doubt. But you didn't. I
think that for most people "its very obvious" to what you tried to do there.

Bottom line, you have been a fullblown hypocrite in this and your previous
post, demanding stuff from me you refuse to give yourself *in those same
posts*. I don't think you could not have made your "one rule for them,
another for me" position more obvious if you tried.

I have only one conclusion to make : you have not actually learned anything,
and we go back to our "you're wrong" <full stop> responses.

So,

You're wrong.

Both in what you claim and as a person.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:05:42 -0500
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> Like I said, I've not seen an email client that works that way. If
> I was looking for a new/different client and I found one that
> doesn't store a local copy, I'd immediately reject it.
>
<quote from Google> How does IMAP work? As an incoming email
protocol, IMAP functions as the intermediary between the email
server and email client. When users read an email using IMAP, they
read them off the server. They don't actually download or store the
email on their local device. </quote>

> >If you want mail to be retained locally you need something like
> >Mailstore.

>> Or any decent email client.

Mailstore has good searching abilities.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:23:08 +0200
"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> nospam,
>
> >> What is cached is maybe a list of headers, not the whole message.
> >>
> >
> > nope. it's the whole message, or more commonly, messages (plural).
>
> Wrong. Its upto the client program to decide.
>
> But mechanic is right, that is how most email clients do it. For
> good reasons.

Strange to me that some on here - who I thought were pretty
knowledgable - fail to understand the simple outline of IMAP and how
it works. There's some confusion with POP too. Also people seem to
confuse the operation of particular mail clients with the transfer
protocol.

As to email clients that support IMAP, the canonical application was
Mullberry but that isn't so easy to set up. I use Alpine which has
the same origins as IMAP itself so it's likely they (UW) know what
they're doing. Not that Alpine is that easy to setup, you need to
know a bit about server names and security protocols. And some
patience. Claws mail seems pretty useful too.

mechanic,

> Strange to me that some on here - who I thought were pretty
> knowledgable - fail to understand the simple outline of IMAP and
> how it works. There's some confusion with POP too.

With the ammount of information available on both (RFC and otherwise) thats
a bit odd. Its easy enough to find.

> Also people seem to confuse the operation of particular mail
> clients with the transfer protocol.

Yep. As I tried to make clear to them, but was ignored every time. Oh
well.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <20220530173438.3a79b4c3@lmde>, mechanic
<mechanic@example.net> wrote:

> > Like I said, I've not seen an email client that works that way. If
> > I was looking for a new/different client and I found one that
> > doesn't store a local copy, I'd immediately reject it.
> >
> <quote from Google> How does IMAP work? As an incoming email
> protocol, IMAP functions as the intermediary between the email
> server and email client. When users read an email using IMAP, they
> read them off the server. They don't actually download or store the
> email on their local device. </quote>

that quote is not from google.

it's from several sites, one of which is this:
<https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/IMAP-Internet-Message-Acce
ss-Protocol>

anyone who has used imap will tell you that is very much wrong.

what happens is mail is synced between the client and the server, with
local copies cached for offline reading and replying. that means it
*must* be downloaded.

In article <20220530175507.78df7cf9@lmde>, mechanic
<mechanic@example.net> wrote:

> Strange to me that some on here - who I thought were pretty
> knowledgable - fail to understand the simple outline of IMAP and how
> it works.

yourself included.

> There's some confusion with POP too.

true. in fact, one person claims he can make pop work like imap, which
is impossible.

> Also people seem to
> confuse the operation of particular mail clients with the transfer
> protocol.

no, and what matters is what email apps actually do, not some feature
in the spec that's not implemented.

In article <t71v5i$1jqg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> > if you're going to claim it's wrong, then you need to provide proof.
>
> Ding, ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner !
>
> Good, now you recognise that disagreeing with someone without providing at
> least some explanation for it is "not nice"(tm)" (to say the least). So,
> now you've been on the receiving end and have recognised how .... dishonest
> that that is you will not ever do it again, right ?
>
> And in this case ? You came up with the claim that all email clients do it
> your way, so its upto you to underbuild that.
>
> >> > you snipped to alter context, again.
> >>
> >> No I didn't.
> >
> > oh yes you did, and the reasons why are very obvious.
>
> Lol. Just as in the previous message of yours where you blame me of
> removing context and than blatantly doing it yourself, you now have told me
> that I need to give proof to my claims and /directly after it/ refuse to do
> so yourself.
>
> As for that "its very obvious" blurb ? If that is so you could have
> included/quoted it, and by it taken away all doubt. But you didn't. I
> think that for most people "its very obvious" to what you tried to do there.
>
> Bottom line, you have been a fullblown hypocrite in this and your previous
> post, demanding stuff from me you refuse to give yourself *in those same
> posts*. I don't think you could not have made your "one rule for them,
> another for me" position more obvious if you tried.
>
>
> I have only one conclusion to make : you have not actually learned anything,
> and we go back to our "you're wrong" <full stop> responses.
>
> So,
>
> You're wrong.
>
> Both in what you claim and as a person.

exactly as expected, you refuse to answer, twist things, lie about what
i and others have said and then resort to your usual ad hominem
attacks.

nospam,

> exactly as expected, you refuse to answer, twist things, lie
> about what i and others have said and then resort to your usual
> ad hominem attacks.

Your current "reply" is no different from the others : claiming, but not
providing anything to support it.

In short,

You're wrong.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

nospam,

> it's from several sites, one of which is this:
> <https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/IMAP-Internet-Message-Acce
> ss-Protocol>
>
> anyone who has used imap will tell you that is very much wrong.

You're as always making broad claims while not bothering / being carefull
not to give any kind of explanation or underbuilding to why you think so.

In this case you refer to a full document *without giving /any/ hint* to
which parts of it your claims are directed towards - effectivily forcing
anyone who thinks you know a lot about the subject to do a wild goose chase,
guessing what part or parts thereof you might possibly be talking about.

.... by which if someone comes back disagreeing with you you can simply claim
that you where not referring to that.

It is behaviour consistent with either someone who knows he knows rather
little and wants to evade being found out, or is /very/ unsure of what he
knows. I think we can forget te latterone.

> what happens is mail is synced between the client and the server,
> with local copies cached for offline reading and replying. that
> means it *must* be downloaded.

As mechanic and I have tried to tell you, you're *still* mixing up the
protocol with the programs using it.

I could post a Microsoft link explaining a bit about what POP and IMAP are
and how they are supposed to be used quite differently from each other, but
than I would do something for you which you refuse to do for us. And we
can't have that, can we ?

That also means that if you want to prove I'm wrong you have to go off
checking all of the Microsoft servers trying to find the document I am
talking about and than explain how I misunderstood it and what it actually
means.

Happy goose-chase. You always like to send others on it, lets see how you
like it when you are the one being send.

tl;dr:

You're wrong. Again.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

nospam,

> yourself included.

Another claim without explanation or underbuilding. Its worth ? Absolutily
nothing.

> true. in fact, one person claims he can make pop work like imap,
> which is impossible.

Another claim without explanation or underbuilding. Its worth ? Absolutily
nothing.

It also shows us how little you know about either protocol.

> no, and what matters is what email apps actually do,

You do not even know how many there are and as such are not in any position
to make a claim about what "email apps", as in all of them, actually do.

> not some feature in the spec that's not implemented.

Another claim without explanation or underbuilding. Its worth ? Absolutily
nothing.

tl;dr:

You're wrong. Again.

regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:05:57 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>nospam,
>
>> it's from several sites, one of which is this:
>> <https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/IMAP-Internet-Message-Acce
>> ss-Protocol>
>>
>> anyone who has used imap will tell you that is very much wrong.
>
>You're as always making broad claims while not bothering / being carefull
>not to give any kind of explanation or underbuilding to why you think so.
>
>In this case you refer to a full document *without giving /any/ hint* to
>which parts of it your claims are directed towards - effectivily forcing
>anyone who thinks you know a lot about the subject to do a wild goose chase,
>guessing what part or parts thereof you might possibly be talking about.
>
>... by which if someone comes back disagreeing with you you can simply claim
>that you where not referring to that.
>
>It is behaviour consistent with either someone who knows he knows rather
>little and wants to evade being found out, or is /very/ unsure of what he
>knows. I think we can forget te latterone.
>
>> what happens is mail is synced between the client and the server,
>> with local copies cached for offline reading and replying. that
>> means it *must* be downloaded.
>
>As mechanic and I have tried to tell you, you're *still* mixing up the
>protocol with the programs using it.
>
>I could post a Microsoft link explaining a bit about what POP and IMAP are
>and how they are supposed to be used quite differently from each other.

OT (as we're on a Ffox discussion forum)... Aw, c'mon.

Put all of us out of our collective misery:

<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/what-are-imap-and-pop-ca2c5799-49f9-4079-aefe-ddca85d5b1c9>

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/28/2022 10:09 AM, Chris wrote:
>> R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>>> You make that sound like a bad thing. Why would you want the deleted email
>>>> to remain on your phone?
>>>
>>> Maybe because its relevant on the device that you can take with you, but not
>>> on the 'puter stationary in your house ? Just take anything like a
>>> route description. Or an appointment
>>
>> And then you end up with some emails existing in some devices and not on
>> others. A recipe for confusion. Why wouldn't you just keep them all sync'd.
>
> Because I only want to see URGENT RIGHT NOW messages on my phone, which
> I use ONLY RARELY (when I'm away from home and within free wifi hotspot
> range) for this purpose. Anything else is just clutter.

That's a totally different issue to what you stated before. Now you're
saying you only want new mail on your phone?

You also wanted it to work without internet access, now you're dependent on
it.

If that's not confusing, I don't know what is?

> My REAL email
> device is my computer, on which I want to keep everything I want to
> actually KEEP regardless of internet status.
>
> Apparently most people use only (or predominantly) their phones for
> email. Their preferences would be very different.

Most people want to be able access all their email anywhere without faff.

nospam,

> true. in fact, one person claims he can make pop work like imap,
> which is impossible.
....
> no, and what matters is what email apps actually do, not some
> feature in the spec that's not implemented.

Only after I send my previous post I realized that the above defines you in
a nutshell :

A claim something "is impossible" - without giving any hint to why you think
so, based on

A claim of "some feature" - without mentioning which one or any hint to what
its supposed to be doing, followed by

A claim its "not implemented" - without giving any underbuilding of it. Or
in relation to which (or both) of the protocols. Or where, outof at least
two possible locations, that has not been done.

In short, you have just stacked a series on hollow, meaningless claims ontop
of each other, and while doing that you, no doubt on purpose, provide zero
actual information anywhere.

As a result you have made sure that nobody can disagree with you - not
because you're right, but because there is simply nothing that can be talked
about and thus not challenged either.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Nobody,

>>I could post a Microsoft link explaining a bit about what POP and IMAP are
>>and how they are supposed to be used quite differently from each other.

> Put all of us out of our collective misery:
>
> <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/what-are-imap-and-pop-ca2c5799-49f9-4079-aefe-ddca85d5b1c9>

Yep, thats the one.

Thanks for spoiling my attempt to get nospam to condem me for - again -
doing something he does himself.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t735hd$ipt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > what happens is mail is synced between the client and the server,
> > with local copies cached for offline reading and replying. that
> > means it *must* be downloaded.
>
> As mechanic and I have tried to tell you, you're *still* mixing up the
> protocol with the programs using it.

i'm not mixing anything up.

what matters are the apps that people use and how they work.

a bigger question is why would anyone want to download only headers? it
greatly limits functionality, namely offline reading and replying. as
another poster said, any app that does that is broken.

downloading only headers might have made sense back in the 1980s, when
connections were slow dial-up and downloading everything could
potentially be time-consuming, however, even then, it was only useful
in very specific circumstances and not the norm. it certainly doesn't
make any sense now.

> I could post a Microsoft link explaining a bit about what POP and IMAP are
> and how they are supposed to be used quite differently from each other,

you could, but you'd only be digging yourself a deeper hole.

the mere fact that you're citing microsoft as a reference for email
standards indicates you know very little about email (or much else).

unfortunately for you, someone else linked it. it's demonstrably wrong
and you don't even realize it.

what's even more amusing is that outlook, microsoft's own email app,
does *not* work the way that link describes.

<https://www.officetooltips.com/outlook_2016/tips/how_to_set_outlook_to_
download_only_e-mail_headers.html>
Outlook offers the capability to download only the e-mail header,
which includes the sender and the subject of the e-mail, and display
these onscreen before downloading the message itself.
....
Note: This works only for POP3, not for IMAP protocol...

you previously claimed you can make pop look like imap, something which
is impossible, which means you do *not* understand the differences.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 14:10:35 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > Also people seem to confuse the operation of particular mail
> > clients with the transfer protocol.
>
> no, and what matters is what email apps actually do, not some
> feature in the spec that's not implemented.

And there we see what we refer to as an 'own goal'.

nospam,

>> As mechanic and I have tried to tell you, you're *still* mixing up the
>> protocol with the programs using it.
>
> i'm not mixing anything up.
>
> what matters are the apps that people use and how they work.

Well, you're absolutily free to supply a list of "the apps" and the "people"
that use them. Otherwise your above claim is devoid of any meaning as all
your others are.

> a bigger question is why would anyone want to download only headers?

You've already been told one reason, and you are even challenging that
reason further down. Therefore your current question looks rather dishonest
to me. But than again, whats new about that.

> downloading only headers might have made sense back in the 1980s,
> when connections were slow dial-up and downloading everything could
> potentially be time-consuming, however, even then, it was only useful
> in very specific circumstances and not the norm. it certainly doesn't
> make any sense now.

Well, that show us how little you know, or care, about different situations
the users might be in. I could describe a few of them, but I've decided to
play your game as you do. So no, examples.

>> I could post a Microsoft link explaining a bit about what POP and IMAP
>> are and how they are supposed to be used quite differently from each
>> other,
>
> you could, but you'd only be digging yourself a deeper hole.
>
> the mere fact that you're citing microsoft as a reference for email
> standards indicates you know very little about email (or much else).

You can ofcourse prove, underbuild or just explain how you are able to
determine that I "know very little about email (or much else)" ? No? I
didn't think so.

Or that that webpage I referred to would claim something different from what
the "email standards"(1) say. No? I didn't think so either.

(1) which do not even exist like that in any shape or form.

In short, another hollow claim, again worth absolutily nothing.

> what's even more amusing is that outlook, microsoft's own email app,
> does *not* work the way that link describes.
>
> <https://www.officetooltips.com/outlook_2016/tips/how_to_set_outlook_to_
> download_only_e-mail_headers.html>

LOL!!!!! The very first paragraph there describes how to configure Outlook
to do exactly that, just downloading headers. But here you are, trying to
convince us/me that that is *not* how Outlook works.

The question is not *if* you fell outof a tree, but only from how high. :-)

> Note: This works only for POP3, not for IMAP protocol...

Yeah ? For anyone knowing what IMAP is that should be a no-brainer.

> you previously claimed you can make pop look like imap, something
> which is impossible,

Just repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more true you know. It
just makes you look like someone who has no clue how to defend his own
position. Regardless of which or how many "email standards" he suggests(!)
he has seen.

> which means you do *not* understand the differences.

A hollow claim, not supported by anything. Its worth ? Absolutily nothing.

tl;dr:

You're wrong.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t74vbg$657$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > what's even more amusing is that outlook, microsoft's own email app,
> > does *not* work the way that link describes.
> >
> > <https://www.officetooltips.com/outlook_2016/tips/how_to_set_outlook_to_
> > download_only_e-mail_headers.html>
>
> LOL!!!!! The very first paragraph there describes how to configure Outlook
> to do exactly that, just downloading headers.

except you're deliberately ignoring this very important part:

> > Note: This works only for POP3, not for IMAP protocol...
>
> Yeah ? For anyone knowing what IMAP is that should be a no-brainer.

you claim to know what imap is and how it differs from pop, so it
should be easy for you to explain how to read only headers it in
outlook, something which microsoft says is not possible.

> > you previously claimed you can make pop look like imap, something
> > which is impossible,
>
> Just repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more true you know. It
> just makes you look like someone who has no clue how to defend his own
> position. Regardless of which or how many "email standards" he suggests(!)
> he has seen.

more deflection.

explain how to make pop look like imap, another thing you claim can
easily be done despite it being impossible.

now's your chance to show everyone just how much you know about imap
and pop.

nospam,

> you claim to know what imap is and how it differs from pop, so
> it should be easy for you to explain how to read only headers
> it in outlook,

:-D As someone who refuses to explain /anything/ you've lost the privilege
of me explaining stuff to you. I thought I already made that quite clear.

Besides, isn't that what that document you linked to describes ?

> something which microsoft says is not possible.

Another hollow claim, not supported by anything. Again worth absolutily
nothing.

Besides, if you know Microsoft has said that you should be able to post a
link to the document and quotings outof it which exact sentences support
your claim. The fact that you have not already done so ...

And fun, in your previous post you said that "citing microsoft as a
reference for email standards indicates you know very little about email",
but now you want to refer to it to support your own stance ...

> more deflection.

Another hollow claim, not supported by anything. Again worth absolutily
nothing.

> explain how to make pop look like imap, another thing you
> claim can easily be done

Nope. As said, you have lost that privilege.

But why don't you go to Microsoft and find my document that says it can be
done and how.

If you think that that is dishonest and I am not allowed to expect/demand
that from you and I should be underbuilding/proving my own claims - that is
exactly what you have been trying to do to me, even in this very post.

> despite it being impossible.

Another hollow claim, not supported by anything. Again worth absolutily
nothing.

> now's your chance to show everyone just how much you know about
> imap and pop.

:-) They didn't ask, so I have no reason to do such a thing just to show
off.

Instead I would just be providing you with some more ammo to make another
series of hollow denial claims.

Besides, the people who know even just the basics about both will already
have recognised how that would work. Its just you who, nonwithstanding you
trying to make everyone believe that you know all about email, has no clue.

By the way, thats the second time you're asking me that in the same post.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 05/30/2022 11:58 PM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/28/2022 10:09 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>>> You make that sound like a bad thing. Why would you want the deleted email
>>>>> to remain on your phone?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because its relevant on the device that you can take with you, but not
>>>> on the 'puter stationary in your house ? Just take anything like a
>>>> route description. Or an appointment
>>>
>>> And then you end up with some emails existing in some devices and not on
>>> others. A recipe for confusion. Why wouldn't you just keep them all sync'd.
>>
>> Because I only want to see URGENT RIGHT NOW messages on my phone, which
>> I use ONLY RARELY (when I'm away from home and within free wifi hotspot
>> range) for this purpose. Anything else is just clutter.
>
> That's a totally different issue to what you stated before. Now you're
> saying you only want new mail on your phone?

Exactly right. And most of that will be spam in one account.

> You also wanted it to work without internet access, now you're dependent on
> it.

Only new current mail -- WHILE I'M OUT OF THE HOUSE -- on my phone.

ALL mail kept on my computer at home. Always accessible, even when the
net is down. If I had a UPS it would be ALWAYS accessibe.

> If that's not confusing, I don't know what is?

I assume you wear loafers, although I think there are probably a number
of youtube videos that deal with shoelace operation.

>> My REAL email
>> device is my computer, on which I want to keep everything I want to
>> actually KEEP regardless of internet status.
>>
>> Apparently most people use only (or predominantly) their phones for
>> email. Their preferences would be very different.
>
> Most people want to be able access all their email anywhere without faff.

They're probably the people whose phones are always on and always in
use. A number of them are run down by cars each day because they forget
to check traffic before stepping out into the street.

--
Cheers, Bev
"We've got some stupid people out there. This morning, I woke
up in a bathtub filled with ice and I had an extra kidney."

nospam,

And so the adventure ends with the hero of it sneaking away into the dark
night, leaving behind his business unfinished ...

Kid, face it :

You've made a loooong series of claims you refused to prove, underbuild or
even explain - other than by making even more claims.

You've accused me of doing "bad stuff" - removing context, not explaining
myself - while making yourself guilty of the same /even in the same post/.

You've accused me of deflection - which you ofcourse refused to underbuild
or explain - while in fact trying to do some deflecting (trying to get me to
defend myself from such empty accusations) yourself. And yes, thats some of
the "bad stuff" too.

You've tried to bash me for referring to a Microsoft document to support my
stance, and than in the next message having no problem with doing it
yourself.

You've demanded I provide proof for my claims, but refused to provide any
yourself, *even after you where called out for that behavior*.

You've claimed that "what matters are the apps that people use", while,
ofcourse, not even giving a /hint/ to which apps that would be or how you
would know that.

Fun that in the same post you said "it's demonstrably wrong and you don't
even realize it. " without, ofcourse, demonstrating anything.

Also fun is that you you have remained amadant that POP cannot be used to
just download headers, while at some point providing a link to a /microsoft
page/(1) describing exactly how to do that.

(1) remember how you tried to attack me me for referring to microsoft as the
source of my information ? *Ofcourse* you do the same yourself.

You've also peppered your thread with - as always unproven, unsupported and
even unexplained - claims that making POP3 behave, in regard to message
retention, like IMAP is "impossible".

Bottom line : you do not seem to know much of anything but are using your
claiming as a method to make it /look/ as if you do.

You've also made sweeping claims about how email programs work which you
cannot even /hope/ to prove (There are just too many of them and you will
likely miss a number of obscure ones).

You also have shown that when I rebut what you say you simply ignore it and
sometimes just repeat it a post or so down.

And lets not forget that you have shown yourself to be a fullblown
hypocrite, accusing me of (not) doing something which you than, even
directly after it in the same post, (not) do yourself.

Kid, you've painted a very bleak picture of yourself.

Why ? Why are you doing all of the above ? To try to make yourself look
important ? That never works for the long run. There is /always/ someone
(your future boss) who expects you to perform in accordance to what you
claim you know, or people like in this newsgroup who actually know something
about the subject you are making hot-air claims about.

tl;dr:

I'm going to give you a chance to learn something new, something you just
*know* can't be done. I'm going to ask you a question. If you answer that
question than I'm going to use that to ask you another question. If you
keep answering them I will - or at least try to - guide you to figure out
how to make the, to you, impossible possible.

IOW, you have to work for it. And that also means that when you stop
answering I will stop trying to guide you. So, its upto you.

The first question is :

In a very general sense, nothing specific : how does POP3, in relation to
message retention, work differently from IMAP.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t75cee$138o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> > you claim to know what imap is and how it differs from pop, so
> > it should be easy for you to explain how to read only headers
> > it in outlook,
>
> :-D As someone who refuses to explain /anything/ you've lost the privilege
> of me explaining stuff to you. I thought I already made that quite clear.

as usual, you're avoiding answering the question, because you know
you're over your head.

> Besides, isn't that what that document you linked to describes ?

nope. read it again.

> > something which microsoft says is not possible.
>
> Another hollow claim, not supported by anything. Again worth absolutily
> nothing.

it's supported by both the link i provided and microsoft itself, as
well as common knowledge (except to you).

> Besides, if you know Microsoft has said that you should be able to post a
> link to the document and quotings outof it which exact sentences support
> your claim. The fact that you have not already done so ...

actually, i did, you just don't understand enough to realize it.

> And fun, in your previous post you said that "citing microsoft as a
> reference for email standards indicates you know very little about email",
> but now you want to refer to it to support your own stance ...

nope. you cited microsoft as a reference for pop/imap and i pointed out
that their own email app contradicts what that link stated. do you not
understand the problem there?

> > now's your chance to show everyone just how much you know about
> > imap and pop.
>
> :-) They didn't ask, so I have no reason to do such a thing just to show
> off.

it's not to show off, but to demonstrate you aren't pretending to know
more than you actually do.

> Instead I would just be providing you with some more ammo to make another
> series of hollow denial claims.

actually, what you'd be doing is digging yourself a deeper hole, which
is why you continue to avoid answering.