In message <ecmdnQ04SadNbLb_nZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.

> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC.

Which you can do with IMAP.

Again, for those not paying attention.

There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.

> I do use IMAP if I need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at
> home to use my home PC.

Then you should know how to use IMAP.

For example, I have an account where old mail (anything over 6 months)
is moved to an archive mailbox. this archive is a mailbox that is on my
desktop machine. This means the archive mail doesn't show up on my
laptop, iPhone, or iPad. This is fine, I rarely need to look at those
archived mails, but I do want to keep them, and my desktop is backed up
to Backblaze, a local NAS, a remote NAS, and Time Machine.

--
The "H" in Jesus H Christ comes from "Harold be Thy name" in the
Lord's Prayer.

On 2022-03-12 13:35, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ecmdnQ04SadNbLb_nZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
>
>> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC.
>
> Which you can do with IMAP.
>
> Again, for those not paying attention.
>
> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.

Absolutely.

Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.

>
>> I do use IMAP if I need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at
>> home to use my home PC.
>
> Then you should know how to use IMAP.
>
> For example, I have an account where old mail (anything over 6 months)
> is moved to an archive mailbox. this archive is a mailbox that is on my
> desktop machine. This means the archive mail doesn't show up on my
> laptop, iPhone, or iPad. This is fine, I rarely need to look at those
> archived mails, but I do want to keep them, and my desktop is backed up
> to Backblaze, a local NAS, a remote NAS, and Time Machine.
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-12 05:12:40 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:

>> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
>> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
>
> Absolutely.

Why?

What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 14:12:40, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
>simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
>their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.
[]
I'm quite willing to believe you, but isn't that the foundation of what
seems to be the main advantage touted for IMAP - in other words, if you
keep all your mail on one local PC (and _not_ on the server) under IMAP,
doesn't that dismiss that main advantage?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... unlike other legal systems the common law is permissive. We can do what we
like, unless it is specifically prohibited by law. We are not as rule-bound
and codified as other legal systems. - Helena Kennedy QC (Radio Times 14-20
July 2012).

In article <t0ibv7$1jl$1@dont-email.me>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> >> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
> >> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Why?
>
> What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?

because it was designed to go beyond the limitations of pop.

In article <zo6sdgOrqMLiFwvK@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
> >simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
> >their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.
> []
> I'm quite willing to believe you,

you should, because it's true.

> but isn't that the foundation of what
> seems to be the main advantage touted for IMAP - in other words, if you
> keep all your mail on one local PC (and _not_ on the server) under IMAP,
> doesn't that dismiss that main advantage?

it's one of numerous additional features and functionality that imap
offers. whether a user utilizes any of that is their choice, rather
than being forced to do something a particular way due to limitations
in the protocol.

nospam wrote:

>> What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?
>
> because it was designed to go beyond the limitations of pop.

Much like Android is designed to go beyond the limitations of iOS.

There are zero app functionalities on iOS not already on Android.
There are plenty of app functionalities on Android not on iOS.

The reasons are the same.
It's not the hardware.

It's the enormous restrictions Apple places on what apps can do.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
>> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
>
> Absolutely.

If you don't understand the _why_, you basically don't understand anything.

Just saying "IMAP is newer" doesn't mean you understand _why_ it may be more
functional in all ways than is POP.

It's like saying the iPhone 15 is newer than a an old Android phone, and
that alone gives it the functionality no iPhone will ever have over Android.
--
If you don't understand _why_, then you understand nothing.

In article <t0ipic$1bs0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Much like Android is designed to go beyond the limitations of iOS.

hah, no.

> There are zero app functionalities on iOS not already on Android.

repeating that lie doesn't change the fact that it's a lie, trollboi.

Am 12.03.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ant:
> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
>
> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC. I do use IMAP if I
> need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.

Once more you prove that you neither understand POP nor IMAP.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 19:52:22, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>Am 12.03.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ant:
>> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
>>
>> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC. I do use IMAP if I
>> need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.
>
>Once more you prove that you neither understand POP nor IMAP.
>
If Frank and Ant have something that works for them, why does it really
bug you so? How is it inconveniencing _you_?

Most POP users I know (including me) are _not_ bothered when they find
someone is using IMAP; as far as I'm concerned, if it works fine for
you, I have no intention of trying to change you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
[...]

> I've had an email address since email addresses contained ! (a bang
> path, it was called).

I already used email nearly a decade before UUCP even existed, so
there you go! :-)

[...]

> POP stores all the mail in a single text file. This was fine when you
> got a few KB of email. It is not great when emails are often in the
> 15-20MB range. An IMAP account has no issues with large mailboxes, and I
> have accounts that have 5GB of mail. I just moved a client to a new
> mailhost and her email archive was 3.7GB, but it was in thousands of
> files, not one single file.
>
> I stopped supporting POP on my own mailserver when a user had a 1.4GB
> mailbox and his checking mail brought the server to it's knees because
> every time he checked mail it had to parse that file. This was in 2000
> or 2001.

I see! Your *server* was badly designed, so you blame the (POP)
*protocol* for that.

[...]

nospam wrote:

>> Much like Android is designed to go beyond the limitations of iOS.
>
> hah, no.

As just one example, Android allows sideloading sans rooting.
iOS doesn't.

Hence, Apple can (and does) restrict apps the average user can load.
Google can't.

>> There are zero app functionalities on iOS not already on Android.
>
> repeating that lie doesn't change the fact that it's a lie, trollboi.

I can easily name many app functionalities on Android not on iOS.
Automatic call recording for one
Graphical wifi debugging for another
Ability to change launchers so you can organize a desktop for another
etc.

All this app functionality is available for free without needing a second
computer and without needing the cloud (the app does it all by its itty
bitty self).

Now it's your turn to provide facts that underlie your belief systems:
Name even a _single_ app functionality that I can load on my iPads
today that provides an app functionality that doesn't exist on Android.

*Name just one*

HINT: You can't.
You'll claim you did and nobody listened.
But you can't. And you never did. And you never will.
All you can do is paste Marketing garbage from Apple advertisements.

The reason there is zero app functionality on iOS not already on Android is
simple.

Apple drasticall limits what apps can do; Google can't.

It has _nothing_ to do with the hardware.
It has everything to do with Apple's control over the apps on the App Store.

Apple drastically limits what apps can be on the Apple App Store.
Google does not.

Google can't even limit what apps the average user can sideload (sans root).
Most people don't understand _why_ iOS is so crippled compared to Android.

But it's not just Android as almost all functionality that is limited by iOS
is already on _every_ other common consumer platform (even on the mac).

It's iOS that's crippled.

Since you claim that this is a lie, simply provide proof of your claim.
*Name just one app functionality on the App Store not available to Android*

Name just one.
--
The most obvious mark of a bullshitter is they can't ever back their claims.

nospam wrote:

>> If you understood what I know
>
> which is absolutely nothing

And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
*is dismal*

Not a single one of you iKooks knew that before I told it to you.

And uneducated ignorant morons like Alan Browne are still desperately
struggling to figure out child-like rationales to explain it away.

Yet, *Apple's MARKETING budget is stupendous*

What I know, none of you iKooks will ever know, which is...
*It's not Apple who is well managed - it's Apple's customer.*
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
[...]

> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.

So you IMAP 'proponents' keep saying! But as has been mentioned - and
dutyfully ignored by the fanbois - there are other aspects to the matter
than just the features of the protocols.

One of the issues which were mentioned - and also ignored, except for
nospam's paper tigers - is the fact that you cannot have one single/
unified folder structure across multiple IMAP servers, i.e. multiple
accounts with multiple MSPs. That's not a limitation of the IMAP
protocol, but an inherent limitation of the structure/design of IMAP
servers.

From several responses it seems that several people need/want that
(single/ unified folder structure) feature, but itheir needs get ignored
and they get snowed under by 'IMAP is best' rants.

N.B.Before you get on my case as well, remember that I'm using POP
*and* IMAP. I'm just using what suits my needs best. No need to get all
religious either way.

[ ...]

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 12.03.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ant:
> > In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > ...
> >> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
> >
> > Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC. I do use IMAP if I
> > need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.
>
> Once more you prove that you neither understand POP nor IMAP.

Once more you prove that you cannot conceive that people might have
other needs/wants than you.

I prefectly understand what Ant wants/needs/does and - as I said
before - I use both POP and IMAP and understand their features very well,
thank you very much.

On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?
>>
>> because it was designed to go beyond the limitations of pop.
>
> Much like Android is designed to go beyond the limitations of iOS.
>
> There are zero app functionalities on iOS not already on Android.
> There are plenty of app functionalities on Android not on iOS.

Which has nothing to do with the OS per se.

>
> The reasons are the same.
> It's not the hardware.
>
> It's the enormous restrictions Apple places on what apps can do.

In article <t0j046.5l8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> One of the issues which were mentioned - and also ignored, except for
> nospam's paper tigers - is the fact that you cannot have one single/
> unified folder structure across multiple IMAP servers, i.e. multiple
> accounts with multiple MSPs. That's not a limitation of the IMAP
> protocol, but an inherent limitation of the structure/design of IMAP
> servers.

nope. that's a limitation of the email client.

On 2022-03-12 17:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 14:12:40, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
>> simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
>> their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.
> []
> I'm quite willing to believe you, but isn't that the foundation of what
> seems to be the main advantage touted for IMAP - in other words, if you
> keep all your mail on one local PC (and _not_ on the server) under IMAP,
> doesn't that dismiss that main advantage?

The first time I learned about imap was in a pure mail downloder program
(fetchmail in Linux). And for that download only program, the
documentation explained the advantages of using imap over pop3, for
example in avoiding duplicates.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-12 20:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
>> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
>
> So you IMAP 'proponents' keep saying! But as has been mentioned - and
> dutyfully ignored by the fanbois - there are other aspects to the matter
> than just the features of the protocols.
>
> One of the issues which were mentioned - and also ignored, except for
> nospam's paper tigers - is the fact that you cannot have one single/
> unified folder structure across multiple IMAP servers, i.e. multiple
> accounts with multiple MSPs. That's not a limitation of the IMAP
> protocol, but an inherent limitation of the structure/design of IMAP
> servers.
>
> From several responses it seems that several people need/want that
> (single/ unified folder structure) feature, but itheir needs get ignored
> and they get snowed under by 'IMAP is best' rants.

That's a feature of the client, not the server. The client designed
chose not to do it. I am not aware of anything in imap that impedes to
do what you propose.

>
> N.B.Before you get on my case as well, remember that I'm using POP
> *and* IMAP. I'm just using what suits my needs best. No need to get all
> religious either way.
>
> [ ...]

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 20:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
> >> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
> >
> > So you IMAP 'proponents' keep saying! But as has been mentioned - and
> > dutyfully ignored by the fanbois - there are other aspects to the matter
> > than just the features of the protocols.
> >
> > One of the issues which were mentioned - and also ignored, except for
> > nospam's paper tigers - is the fact that you cannot have one single/
> > unified folder structure across multiple IMAP servers, i.e. multiple
> > accounts with multiple MSPs. That's not a limitation of the IMAP
> > protocol, but an inherent limitation of the structure/design of IMAP
> > servers.
> >
> > From several responses it seems that several people need/want that
> > (single/ unified folder structure) feature, but itheir needs get ignored
> > and they get snowed under by 'IMAP is best' rants.
>
> That's a feature of the client, not the server. The client designed
> chose not to do it. I am not aware of anything in imap that impedes to
> do what you propose.

As I said, that's how the IMAP *servers* are structured/designed.
And, as I said, it's indeed not a limitation of the IMAP *protocol*.

But as long as IMAP servers are structured/designed as they are and
e-mail clients [1] are not overcoming this limitation, saying that the
IMAP protocol is not the limiting factor is irrelevant semantics. The
end result is still that IMAP servers have this limitation and e-mail
clients are not solving this limitation.

Bottom line: For the people who need/want a single/unified folder
structure accross multiple accounts, POP accounts enable to have such a
(by definition local) folder structure and IMAP accounts do not (unless
they are effectively converted to POP-like functionality). So for
*those* people, IMAP accounts offer no advantages over POP accounts.
Period.

> > N.B.Before you get on my case as well, remember that I'm using POP
> > *and* IMAP. I'm just using what suits my needs best. No need to get all
> > religious either way.
> >
> > [ ...]

[1] Except ofcourse for nospam's unnamed paper tigers.

In article <t0l3db.al0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > One of the issues which were mentioned - and also ignored, except for
> > > nospam's paper tigers - is the fact that you cannot have one single/
> > > unified folder structure across multiple IMAP servers, i.e. multiple
> > > accounts with multiple MSPs. That's not a limitation of the IMAP
> > > protocol, but an inherent limitation of the structure/design of IMAP
> > > servers.
> > >
> > > From several responses it seems that several people need/want that
> > > (single/ unified folder structure) feature, but itheir needs get ignored
> > > and they get snowed under by 'IMAP is best' rants.
> >
> > That's a feature of the client, not the server. The client designed
> > chose not to do it. I am not aware of anything in imap that impedes to
> > do what you propose.
>
> As I said, that's how the IMAP *servers* are structured/designed.
> And, as I said, it's indeed not a limitation of the IMAP *protocol*.

which means it's a limitation of the email app, not imap.

at least you finally agree, yet you continue to argue anyway.

> But as long as IMAP servers are structured/designed as they are and
> e-mail clients [1] are not overcoming this limitation, saying that the
> IMAP protocol is not the limiting factor is irrelevant semantics. The
> end result is still that IMAP servers have this limitation and e-mail
> clients are not solving this limitation.

it's not semantics.

email apps have long overcome that mythical limitation, which was never
actually a limitation in the first place.

*your* choice of email client might not implement that feature, making
it a limitation of that particular app, but that's on you, not imap.

> Bottom line: For the people who need/want a single/unified folder
> structure accross multiple accounts, POP accounts enable to have such a
> (by definition local) folder structure and IMAP accounts do not (unless
> they are effectively converted to POP-like functionality). So for
> *those* people, IMAP accounts offer no advantages over POP accounts.
> Period.

bottom line: you are wrong. what you call a unified folder structure
works with imap without issue and pop offers nothing to make it easier
(it actually makes it worse).

On 13/03/2022 at 14:42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Bottom line: For the people who need/want a single/unified folder
> structure accross multiple accounts, POP accounts enable to have such a
> (by definition local) folder structure and IMAP accounts do not (unless
> they are effectively converted to POP-like functionality). So for
> *those* people, IMAP accounts offer no advantages over POP accounts.
> Period.

I see what you are saying. If you are careful enough to download all
emails to all your clients via POP and then manually file them into the
identical folder structures, then all will remain the same on all
clients. But how would that work for sent emails? How would emails
sent using a particular client end up in the sent folders of the other
clients?

--
Wilf

Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
> On 13/03/2022 at 14:42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Bottom line: For the people who need/want a single/unified folder
> > structure accross multiple accounts, POP accounts enable to have such a
> > (by definition local) folder structure and IMAP accounts do not (unless
> > they are effectively converted to POP-like functionality). So for
> > *those* people, IMAP accounts offer no advantages over POP accounts.
> > Period.
>
> I see what you are saying. If you are careful enough to download all
> emails to all your clients via POP and then manually file them into the
> identical folder structures, then all will remain the same on all
> clients. But how would that work for sent emails? How would emails
> sent using a particular client end up in the sent folders of the other
> clients?

No, this is about a single email client on a single device. That is
the usage model of these users (with perhaps the occasional use ('peek')
from another e-mail client on another device). These users are perfectly
happy with that usage model.

*Other* users may want to access their email from multiple devices and
for those users, IMAP is indeed generally the preferred solution.

So all this (non-)discussion is about is that one-size (IMAP) does
*not* fit all, it only fits many and perhaps even most

On 13/03/2022 at 15:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/03/2022 at 14:42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Bottom line: For the people who need/want a single/unified folder
>>> structure accross multiple accounts, POP accounts enable to have such a
>>> (by definition local) folder structure and IMAP accounts do not (unless
>>> they are effectively converted to POP-like functionality). So for
>>> *those* people, IMAP accounts offer no advantages over POP accounts.
>>> Period.
>>
>> I see what you are saying. If you are careful enough to download all
>> emails to all your clients via POP and then manually file them into the
>> identical folder structures, then all will remain the same on all
>> clients. But how would that work for sent emails? How would emails
>> sent using a particular client end up in the sent folders of the other
>> clients?
>
> No, this is about a single email client on a single device. That is
> the usage model of these users (with perhaps the occasional use ('peek')
> from another e-mail client on another device). These users are perfectly
> happy with that usage model.
>
> *Other* users may want to access their email from multiple devices and
> for those users, IMAP is indeed generally the preferred solution.
>
> So all this (non-)discussion is about is that one-size (IMAP) does
> *not* fit all, it only fits many and perhaps even most

Ok, thanks.

--
Wilf