>>> IMAP requires much more bandwidth to support fully than POP3 does - this
>>> is still a valid argument for 56K modem links.
>> This is not a valid argument with a properly-written IMAP client such as
>> Pine. Pine is quite usable even on CDPD links.
>> Early IMAP work was done over a 2400 baud model line.
> You're **ing me ? Didn't know IMAP was that old...
>> I doubt that anyone
>> would want to use a POP client over such a line. A good IMAP client is
>> quite usable.
> I'll certainly keep that in mind...
>>> The most important ones:
>>> - live checking for new mail in ALL folders on the server
>> THAT is due to inferior losing clients, such as Outlook [Express] and
>> Netscape, which in their hearts are POP3 clients babbled to talk IMAP.
>>> - making folders & manipulating messages ON THE SERVER
>> Why is this a "bandwidth" problem?
> Hrm.. prolly guilty again - I was under the impression that IMAP tends
> to keep connections open if it can, for "performance" reasons...
> While the actual *data* exchanged is not much, the line would be kept busy.
> But - guilty again, I use decent mail clients but have the most
> "experience" using those funny M$ products...
>>> These things cost two-way traffic each and every time. It may not be
>>> much but it is *traffic* - with POP you can be sure that it will never
>>> generate more traffic than there is mail in the box.
>> That presumes that messages are always downloaded to the client and then
>> deleted from the server. What about POP3 clients that don't delete, and
>> always do a UIDL command as part of a synchronization step?
> I'm no expert - not even an amateur on mail protocols.
>>> Plus POP3 is easier to set up and maintain on the client side...
>> You must be talking about Outlook [Express] an Netscape again.
> Yes, among others...
> smtp server
> pop server
> That IS the minimal info needed - with IMAP you need at least one extra
> bit - the structure of the mailbox.
> Good thing I wasn't talking about sExchange, eh ?
> As I said, I'm no expert of any kind - just used most of the clients
> that exist over the years.
> So... seeing that you run in academic circles - do YOU have any idea why
> POP still persists with major ISPs ?
> Since bandwidth (my God and yours) is not an issue, then what is it ?
> My ISP uses it, by the way, but I use IMAP webmail from them
> (squirrelmail, which rocks).
The main difference between POP3 and IMAP is where the messages are
stored after being read. Few people configure thier POP3 clients to not
delete messages from the server. Having previously read messages on the
IMAP server increases the bandwidth as the client must download the
message each time they view it. Try going back to a message with a
large graphic embeded in it, or even worse, an M$ attachment of some kind.
With IMAP (and forms of web mail) the ISP must run cleanup on the
client's mailboxes to delete messages older than the defined storage
limt. The mail server also must have the storage to handle all the