John Hawkinson <jh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > [ I want to preface this by saying the recent discussions about POP3 that > suggest it is a reasonable approach or a viable alternative are quite > concerning to me, becauase as a practical matter, my understanding is that > basically "nobody should still be using POP3" and it is a moribund and > technically inadequate protocol with a lot of problems,
I'm not sure where you read/heard that. POP3 and IMAP4 are really aimed at different use cases - POP3 is basically just used to pull messages from a server when the machine you're on doesn't receive mail by SMTP. Yes, it can be used in more complex environments, and can be used as a live store of mail accessed remotely by a client - but that really isn't its forte. IMAP4 *is* designed as a live remote store of mail, providing features that a full MUA needs to be able to provide a reasonable approximation of "normal email" service when the mailstore is remote. For what it's designed to do, POP3 is still fully capable of serving those needs. "No one should be using POP3" is a religious argument, not a technical one. If POP3 serves your needs, use it. If it doesn't, or you don't want to, use IMAP4. But you needn't be "concerned" about other people using POP3 - it's a perfectly valid thing to do. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
