POP3 Vs. IMAP

injinuity · 12th April 2002, 04:17 AM

Why does FM say that IMAP is a better option .....because..

1. It helps in syncronising the mail between your server and your mail client.

>> But I don't want any syncronisation, I deleted the mails in my inbox without thinking much ( I was a pop3 user till date)...and when I opened my OE inbox later on did I realize that all my mails had gone offline too.....fortunately there were no important messages....at this rate if I have to read messages offline I will have to keep my messages on my FM server too....intime I will exceed my mail storage quota and I will have to buy more space...or is this the hidden agenda????

2. IMAP helps you download headers, if there is a message with a big attatchment you can download it later.

>> I don't want to download headers either, on a dialup connection this makes things more slow. On a pop3 account also you can define rules to not download big messages.

3. IMAP is newer technology.

>> Its like telling someone with a '56 cadillac that its outdated and he should get a new V8 roadster. Newer technology need not always be what the user wants.

>>> IMAP is more resource hungry, then why is it that it is provided to free guest accounts, and the less resource hungry POP3 only to full and enhanced accounts. If one were to think logical shouldnt the least resource hungry and the protovol that works on all platforms be the standard.. or like I mentioned earlier is this the hidden business gimmick.

Tango · 12th April 2002, 04:41 AM

Dunno what Jeremy and Rob's agenda is, but I would never ever use POP3...absolutely inferior, in my opinion, and in many others' opinions I've found on the net...

runboxer · 12th April 2002, 04:48 AM

I agree with injuinity (did I spell right?)
While IMAP has its place, most of the times I do NOT want synchronization. Like the case cited, deletion by mistake on one end means deletion everywhere...unless you have downloaded the messages and kept in safe folders.

**psalzer** · 12th April 2002, 04:50 AM

I guess it depends how you want to use mail. I need my mail to be available regardless of what computer I'm on, so POP was really annoying. My ISPs POP was useless if I wanted to get it from a computer where I couldn't run a client. I had POP with uReach so I could get the stuff from the web but had to set it to leave the messages on the server so I could access them from other than my own computer, so then I had to delete and manage e-mail twice. So, I'd say that POP works ok if you only use your own computer and only one of them at that, but for anyone else IMAP is much better.

**munchkin** · 12th April 2002, 04:55 AM

I mainly use web mail. If I use a client than I access my main account via POP. I'm using the bat and it lets me decide whether I want to download, keep, delete, read or any combination of it on each check. I've set up Outlook Express and it works well with fastmail's imap server but I just don't like Outlook Express and I don't want to install Mozilla either. I like simple clients since I get only a few emails a day but those only support pop so I dunno. Upgrading to full or enhanced to be able to access my mail via pop and get awesome features or just keeping my main account that does support pop but thats almost all...mh

sterdeus · 12th April 2002, 04:58 AM

I believe that Fastmail is trying to create their own little niche in the email business by offering IMAP instead of POP. There isnt much competition since very few email providers offer IMAP. Fastmail is for users who love IMAP and couldn't live without it. For other people who say that POP is better, I would suggest they use another service such as ureach.

**munchkin** · 12th April 2002, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by psalzer
So, I'd say that POP works ok if you only use your own computer and only one of them at that, but for anyone else IMAP is much better.

I fully agree with you psalzer. I use my own computer for my private stuff and don't need to get my few and non-important emails at airports etc

. So pop is okie for me. My mom is traveling around the world all the time and very happy with her enhanced account she accesses via imap.

pcguy · 12th April 2002, 05:20 AM

I agree. If you are using only one machine and do not have to have access to the messages from other computers then POP is fine otherwise the possible added expense of jeeping all of your messages on the server and using IMAP is probably the way to go. FastMail may want to indicate this in their FAQ so that people are aware of the good and possible bad points with each.

david chaney · 12th April 2002, 05:40 AM

I to find POP just fine for my use.

At home I use pop and via OutlookXP I have a 70mb mail file.

Here at work I have to options. I can log in via the Web to check my mail, or when it's slow I'll get out my laptop and use OE. I find the sync-ing to much extra to keep up with.

Also, it created an extra list of folders in OutlookXP which would have required all new filters to be created.

So in the end I went back to POP.

But I"m sure I'll try IMAP again down the road, but for now POP works fine, and does everything that I need it to.

David

pobelly · 12th April 2002, 05:58 AM

it was discussed in another thread (somewhere 'round here) that IMAP is essentially a _superset_ of POP, and could actually be used in any number of versatile ways, given a client that was set up for it. at the moment, i don't like the way most IMAP clients work, since i don't have a full-time connection, and don't really like two-way synchro... the IMAP functions of The Bat!, while hardly 'complete' turned out to be pretty much just what i wanted: an 'offline IMAP' which allows me to check multiple folders on the server, and have messages deleted locally be deleted on the server, but nothing that happens on the server influences the local message store... it's weird, but it works.

**Jeremy Howard** · 12th April 2002, 06:02 AM

I didn't like IMAP until I commited to it for a month. It wasn't until I really tried it out that I realised how often it came in handy. Rather than dragging my laptop everywhere and getting it out I could just use webmail on whatever PC I could find, knowing that all my messages would be in the folders I'd left them in. I loved it when I was using a modem and I received a huge attachment--I didn't have to wait for it to download but could just read the body. And then I started using the server-side filters to reject messages or move them into folders for reading later. So on a modem I found it saved a lot of time.

Nowadays I'm on broadband, and the connection-saving stuff isn't an issue. But the ability to access my email from anywhere is now the big win. It's only every couple of weeks that I want to access my email and I'm not at my PC, but it is *so* handy when it happens. One of my business partners still uses POP, and every time he is around here he seems to be missing some email he needs... Still I know from trying to convince him for the last few years that not everyone is going to use IMAP--he's still a POP user!

lux · 12th April 2002, 06:29 AM

One little thing is we are accustomed to the trash can feature in POP. It is a little bit inconveinient and uncomfortable to see a bunch of crossed-out messages mess with the useful ones...

**Jeremy Howard** · 12th April 2002, 06:32 AM

Netscape/Mozilla can use the Trash, instead of crossing out messages.

pcguy · 12th April 2002, 06:34 AM

And as another thread in this forum shows just because one trashes a message in IMAP that space is not necessarily reclaimed automatically. One apparently has to compact the space on the server to regain it.

esTester · 12th April 2002, 03:24 PM

I am starting to like IMAP a little more than I have before, but I had to vote POP because that is my true favorite. At least it is for now.

- esTester

View Poll Results: Which do you prefer
pop3	31	26.05%
IMAP	88	73.95%
Voters: 119. You may not vote on this poll

12th April 2002, 04:17 AM	#1
injinuity Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 801	POP3 Vs. IMAP Why does FM say that IMAP is a better option .....because.. 1. It helps in syncronising the mail between your server and your mail client. >> But I don't want any syncronisation, I deleted the mails in my inbox without thinking much ( I was a pop3 user till date)...and when I opened my OE inbox later on did I realize that all my mails had gone offline too.....fortunately there were no important messages....at this rate if I have to read messages offline I will have to keep my messages on my FM server too....intime I will exceed my mail storage quota and I will have to buy more space...or is this the hidden agenda???? 2. IMAP helps you download headers, if there is a message with a big attatchment you can download it later. >> I don't want to download headers either, on a dialup connection this makes things more slow. On a pop3 account also you can define rules to not download big messages. 3. IMAP is newer technology. >> Its like telling someone with a '56 cadillac that its outdated and he should get a new V8 roadster. Newer technology need not always be what the user wants. >>> IMAP is more resource hungry, then why is it that it is provided to free guest accounts, and the less resource hungry POP3 only to full and enhanced accounts. If one were to think logical shouldnt the least resource hungry and the protovol that works on all platforms be the standard.. or like I mentioned earlier is this the hidden business gimmick.

12th April 2002, 04:41 AM	#2
Tango Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 529	Dunno what Jeremy and Rob's agenda is, but I would never ever use POP3...absolutely inferior, in my opinion, and in many others' opinions I've found on the net...

12th April 2002, 04:48 AM	#3
runboxer Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 10	I agree with injuinity (did I spell right?) While IMAP has its place, most of the times I do NOT want synchronization. Like the case cited, deletion by mistake on one end means deletion everywhere...unless you have downloaded the messages and kept in safe folders.

12th April 2002, 04:50 AM	#4
psalzer Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,650	I guess it depends how you want to use mail. I need my mail to be available regardless of what computer I'm on, so POP was really annoying. My ISPs POP was useless if I wanted to get it from a computer where I couldn't run a client. I had POP with uReach so I could get the stuff from the web but had to set it to leave the messages on the server so I could access them from other than my own computer, so then I had to delete and manage e-mail twice. So, I'd say that POP works ok if you only use your own computer and only one of them at that, but for anyone else IMAP is much better.

12th April 2002, 04:55 AM	#5
munchkin Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Milliways Posts: 1,165	I mainly use web mail. If I use a client than I access my main account via POP. I'm using the bat and it lets me decide whether I want to download, keep, delete, read or any combination of it on each check. I've set up Outlook Express and it works well with fastmail's imap server but I just don't like Outlook Express and I don't want to install Mozilla either. I like simple clients since I get only a few emails a day but those only support pop so I dunno. Upgrading to full or enhanced to be able to access my mail via pop and get awesome features or just keeping my main account that does support pop but thats almost all...mh

12th April 2002, 04:58 AM	#6
sterdeus Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Posts: 167	I believe that Fastmail is trying to create their own little niche in the email business by offering IMAP instead of POP. There isnt much competition since very few email providers offer IMAP. Fastmail is for users who love IMAP and couldn't live without it. For other people who say that POP is better, I would suggest they use another service such as ureach.

12th April 2002, 05:20 AM	#8
pcguy Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 79	I agree. If you are using only one machine and do not have to have access to the messages from other computers then POP is fine otherwise the possible added expense of jeeping all of your messages on the server and using IMAP is probably the way to go. FastMail may want to indicate this in their FAQ so that people are aware of the good and possible bad points with each.

12th April 2002, 05:40 AM	#9
david chaney Essential Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North Texas Posts: 276	I to find POP just fine for my use. At home I use pop and via OutlookXP I have a 70mb mail file. Here at work I have to options. I can log in via the Web to check my mail, or when it's slow I'll get out my laptop and use OE. I find the sync-ing to much extra to keep up with. Also, it created an extra list of folders in OutlookXP which would have required all new filters to be created. So in the end I went back to POP. But I"m sure I'll try IMAP again down the road, but for now POP works fine, and does everything that I need it to. David

12th April 2002, 05:58 AM	#10
pobelly Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 586	it was discussed in another thread (somewhere 'round here) that IMAP is essentially a _superset_ of POP, and could actually be used in any number of versatile ways, given a client that was set up for it. at the moment, i don't like the way most IMAP clients work, since i don't have a full-time connection, and don't really like two-way synchro... the IMAP functions of The Bat!, while hardly 'complete' turned out to be pretty much just what i wanted: an 'offline IMAP' which allows me to check multiple folders on the server, and have messages deleted locally be deleted on the server, but nothing that happens on the server influences the local message store... it's weird, but it works.

12th April 2002, 06:02 AM	#11
Jeremy Howard Moderator Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 11,434 Representative of: Fastmail.FM	I didn't like IMAP until I commited to it for a month. It wasn't until I really tried it out that I realised how often it came in handy. Rather than dragging my laptop everywhere and getting it out I could just use webmail on whatever PC I could find, knowing that all my messages would be in the folders I'd left them in. I loved it when I was using a modem and I received a huge attachment--I didn't have to wait for it to download but could just read the body. And then I started using the server-side filters to reject messages or move them into folders for reading later. So on a modem I found it saved a lot of time. Nowadays I'm on broadband, and the connection-saving stuff isn't an issue. But the ability to access my email from anywhere is now the big win. It's only every couple of weeks that I want to access my email and I'm not at my PC, but it is so handy when it happens. One of my business partners still uses POP, and every time he is around here he seems to be missing some email he needs... Still I know from trying to convince him for the last few years that not everyone is going to use IMAP--he's still a POP user!

12th April 2002, 06:29 AM	#12
lux The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,273	One little thing is we are accustomed to the trash can feature in POP. It is a little bit inconveinient and uncomfortable to see a bunch of crossed-out messages mess with the useful ones...

12th April 2002, 06:32 AM	#13
Jeremy Howard Moderator Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 11,434 Representative of: Fastmail.FM	Netscape/Mozilla can use the Trash, instead of crossing out messages.

12th April 2002, 06:34 AM	#14
pcguy Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 79	And as another thread in this forum shows just because one trashes a message in IMAP that space is not necessarily reclaimed automatically. One apparently has to compact the space on the server to regain it.

12th April 2002, 03:24 PM	#15
esTester Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 966	I am starting to like IMAP a little more than I have before, but I had to vote POP because that is my true favorite. At least it is for now. - esTester