Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #22110 > unrolled thread

"We'll sent you a code" emails?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 00:13 +0100
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-09-28 19:26 -0400
      Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 01:48 +0100
        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-29 09:16 +0200
          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:00 +0100
        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-09-29 08:49 +0100
          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:04 +0100
        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:00 +0100
          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:59 +0100
            Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-09-29 15:42 +0100
              Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 17:31 +0100
              Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 22:25 +0200
                Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 22:29 +0100
                  Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 06:57 +0000
                  Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-02 09:38 +0100
                    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 09:16 +0000
                      Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) - 2026-10-02 11:33 +0000
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 11:42 +0000
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 13:20 +0100
                          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 12:29 +0000
                            Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 16:28 +0100
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-03 00:51 +1000
                          Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-10-02 18:11 +0200
                            IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 17:54 +0100
                              Re: IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 17:45 +0000
                                Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 21:08 +0100
                                  Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 20:30 +0000
                                    Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 21:52 +0100
                                      Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 21:43 +0000
                                Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-02 22:13 +0200
                                  Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 21:17 +0100
                                    Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-02 22:34 +0200
                                  Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-02 20:38 +0000
                        Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-02 22:04 +0200
                Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) - 2026-10-02 11:36 +0000
                  Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 13:30 +0100
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:09 -0700
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:13 +0100
      Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 09:31 +0100
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-09-29 11:31 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#22110 — "We'll sent you a code" emails?

Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
until someone plugs it back in again).

However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".

In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
behave - or be treated - differently?

In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
had to type in. Which never arrived.

(Thunderbird 'group added as I use Thunderbird, but I can't think why it
should be TB at fault. But then I can't see what the fault could be at all.)

The normal emails I _do_ receive include ones from a mailing list (a
groups.io one), if that's of any relevance.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Nothing starts with an N and ends with a G.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#22111

On Mon, 9/28/2026 7:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
> over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
> until someone plugs it back in again).
> 
> However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
> the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
> send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
> them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".
> 
> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
> behave - or be treated - differently?
> 
> In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
> and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
> accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
> saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
> spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
> something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
> had to type in. Which never arrived.
> 
> (Thunderbird 'group added as I use Thunderbird, but I can't think why it
> should be TB at fault. But then I can't see what the fault could be at all.)
> 
> The normal emails I _do_ receive include ones from a mailing list (a
> groups.io one), if that's of any relevance.
> 

The message was not addressed properly (from their end) and bounced.

The message ended up in a spam folder, somewhere in your delivery chain.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22112

On 2026/9/29 0:26:8, Paul wrote:
> On Mon, 9/28/2026 7:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
>> over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
>> until someone plugs it back in again).
>>
>> However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
>> the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
>> send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
>> them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".
>>
>> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
>> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
>> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
>> behave - or be treated - differently?
>>
>> In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
>> and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
>> accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
>> saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
>> spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
>> something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
>> had to type in. Which never arrived.
>>
>> (Thunderbird 'group added as I use Thunderbird, but I can't think why it
>> should be TB at fault. But then I can't see what the fault could be at all.)
>>
>> The normal emails I _do_ receive include ones from a mailing list (a
>> groups.io one), if that's of any relevance.
>>
> 
> The message was not addressed properly (from their end) and bounced.
> 
> The message ended up in a spam folder, somewhere in your delivery chain.
> 
>    Paul

(No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? Is
there anything I can do about it? (experience with telling companies
there's a fault at their end is not encouraging.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The early worm gets the bird.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22114

On 2026-09-29 02:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/9/29 0:26:8, Paul wrote:
>> On Mon, 9/28/2026 7:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:


>>
>> The message was not addressed properly (from their end) and bounced.
>>
>> The message ended up in a spam folder, somewhere in your delivery chain.
>>
>>     Paul
> 
> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? Is
> there anything I can do about it? (experience with telling companies
> there's a fault at their end is not encouraging.)

Then access via webmail to make certain they don't have a spam folder. 
You may also have a local only spam folder created by TB, via its own 
filtering.


Check with mail that was delayed where it was delayed, by looking at the 
received headers inside.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22116

On 2026/9/29 8:16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[]
>> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? Is
>> there anything I can do about it? (experience with telling companies
>> there's a fault at their end is not encouraging.)
> 
> Then access via webmail to make certain they don't have a spam folder. 
> You may also have a local only spam folder created by TB, via its own 
> filtering.
> 
> 
> Check with mail that was delayed where it was delayed, by looking at the 
> received headers inside.
> 
> 
Excellent - thanks! I've just tried with Greenby webmail, and they do
indeed have a spam folder - which had 98 in it, the vast majority of
which at a quick scan were NOT spam! I moved them to the inbox, and
Thunderbird collected them next time. I also looked at Greenby settings;
at first my heart sank when I saw a slider (from most aggressive
filtering to least - granted, it was set to most), but then I saw there
is also a switch, so I've turned it off altogether.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I use science as my model here. We will crawl toward the truth without
ever knowing if we are all the way there. - Scott Adams, 2015-3-20

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22115

On 29/09/2026 01:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/9/29 0:26:8, Paul wrote:
>> On Mon, 9/28/2026 7:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Most emails to me get through eventually, other than when Greenby trip
>>> over the cable again (in which case none get through for a few hours
>>> until someone plugs it back in again).
>>>
>>> However, increasingly, the sort containing a code or similar just don't:
>>> the sort where you're doing something on a website, and they say "we've
>>> send an email containing the code to <the email address you've just told
>>> them, or had told them before - anyway, it's the correct one>".
>>>
>>> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
>>> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
>>> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
>>> behave - or be treated - differently?

  They might not be, it is just that those are the ones you notice taking 
time to get through to the POP delivery. Not unique to Greenby.

>>> In the last few days I've had this from: Scottish Widows, Prudential,
>>> and two of the car insurance comparison sites. (Fortunately, those two
>>> accepted login by password.) The one from Scottish Widows was an email
>>> saying there was a secure message at <link>; when I did [it wasn't
>>> spam/phishing], the link went to something to do with Outlook or
>>> something like that, which said it had sent an email containing a code I
>>> had to type in. Which never arrived.
>>>
> 
> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? Is
> there anything I can do about it? (experience with telling companies
> there's a fault at their end is not encouraging.)

  You don't have one, but Greenby do. Their system may not send 'spam' 
emails via POP, nor a notification that they have hidden something.
You will have to use their web access, or switch to the more modern, 
popular, IMAP mechanism to sync your mail across one device.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22117

On 2026/9/29 8:49:24, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> On 29/09/2026 01:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> On 2026/9/29 0:26:8, Paul wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9/28/2026 7:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>>>> In the past, they've arrived eventually, though taking a few minutes,
>>>> which I put down to my unusual forwarding arrangements; but lately, I've
>>>> had some which just never arrive. Any suggestions why such emails might
>>>> behave - or be treated - differently?
> 
>   They might not be, it is just that those are the ones you notice taking 
> time to get through to the POP delivery. Not unique to Greenby.

That wasn't it ...[]
>> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? Is
>> there anything I can do about it? (experience with telling companies
>> there's a fault at their end is not encouraging.)
> 
>   You don't have one, but Greenby do. Their system may not send 'spam' 

... but that was; thanks (I found it after Carlos' suggestion).

> emails via POP, nor a notification that they have hidden something.

That was it - and, indeed, no notification.

> You will have to use their web access, or switch to the more modern, 
> popular, IMAP mechanism to sync your mail across one device.

No desire to use IMAP: I like to have control of my emails. Instead,
I've found a switch in Greenby settings, and turned it off altogether
(there's also a severity slider, but a quick glance at the 98 emails
suggested few or none really are).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I use science as my model here. We will crawl toward the truth without
ever knowing if we are all the way there. - Scott Adams, 2015-3-20

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22123

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote:

> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? 
They messed about with TB "renaming" Junk and Spam folders a while ago, 
wonder if you're seeing a side-effect of that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22124

On 2026/9/29 14:0:57, Andy Burns wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
> 
>> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? 
> They messed about with TB "renaming" Junk and Spam folders a while ago, 
> wonder if you're seeing a side-effect of that?
> 
No, it turned out that PlusNet -> Greenby had set up a spam folder - set
to maximum aggression - in their webmail system, so that emails they saw
as spam were shifted there, without POP having any _chance_ of seeing
them (and subsequently moving emails to its own spam/junk folder[s]).

I've now worked through the 98 emails that had been hidden from me.
About 3 to 6 (I didn't count) were "genuine"-ish unwanted - about three
phishing attempts, and three just unwanted junk mail (though these days
they tend to pretend to be e. g. pushing subsidies rather than just
selling their double glazing). OK, a lot of the rest were what might be
called soft spam - things like newsletters, and similar, but from things
I am signed up to or a customer for. Others, like energy statements,
definitely were _not_ spam - and I've lost two of those, presumably
because Greenby deleted them after a month. (Which make me wonder what
else I've lost.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22126

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/9/29 14:0:57, Andy Burns wrote:
> > "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
> > 
> >> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then? 
> > They messed about with TB "renaming" Junk and Spam folders a while ago, 
> > wonder if you're seeing a side-effect of that?
> > 
> No, it turned out that PlusNet -> Greenby had set up a spam folder - set
> to maximum aggression - in their webmail system, so that emails they saw
> as spam were shifted there, without POP having any _chance_ of seeing
> them (and subsequently moving emails to its own spam/junk folder[s]).
> 
> I've now worked through the 98 emails that had been hidden from me.
> About 3 to 6 (I didn't count) were "genuine"-ish unwanted - about three
> phishing attempts, and three just unwanted junk mail (though these days
> they tend to pretend to be e. g. pushing subsidies rather than just
> selling their double glazing). OK, a lot of the rest were what might be
> called soft spam - things like newsletters, and similar, but from things
> I am signed up to or a customer for. Others, like energy statements,
> definitely were _not_ spam - and I've lost two of those, presumably
> because Greenby deleted them after a month. (Which make me wonder what
> else I've lost.)

I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
telling me as pretty useless.  My current E-Mail service delivers
**everything** to the appropriate mailbox, it's only if **I** add
filters that E-mails will be not be delivered.  Compared with the
amount of valid E-Mails I receive spam/junk is pretty minimal.

In addition to the above my provider has a 'catchall' mailbox where
everything that isn't addressed to a specified mailbox will be delivered.
This allows me to apply my own filters to catch typos and bad guesses at
my E-Mail address - e.g. I can catch E-Mails to chriss@my.address.uk or
to chris.green@my.address.uk.


-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22127

On 2026/9/29 15:42:37, Chris Green wrote:
[]
> I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
> telling me as pretty useless.  My current E-Mail service delivers

Me too. I can see a place for such filters for some people, either who
are new to email or genuinely receive a lot of spam; I've never
encountered anything that filters well enough (too many false positives)
for me to leave it in place, but ...

> **everything** to the appropriate mailbox, it's only if **I** add
> filters that E-mails will be not be delivered.  Compared with the
> amount of valid E-Mails I receive spam/junk is pretty minimal.

... I've never received enough to bother me. I'd say about 5% at the
moment, and in the - 40-odd? - years I've been receiving email, I'm sure
I've had weeks, of not months or possibly the odd _year_ without getting
_any_. (Yes, I've been lucky.)

> 
> In addition to the above my provider has a 'catchall' mailbox where
> everything that isn't addressed to a specified mailbox will be delivered.
> This allows me to apply my own filters to catch typos and bad guesses at
> my E-Mail address - e.g. I can catch E-Mails to chriss@my.address.uk or
> to chris.green@my.address.uk.
> 
> 
Well, I receive email to <anything>@mydomain; isn't that the case for
anyone who has a domain (or even a subdomain at an ISP, such as
...@<name>.<ISP>)?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

History is not the past. It is the method we have evolved of organising
our ignorance of the past. - Hilary Mantel, first Reith Lecture 2017

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22136

On 2026-09-29 16:42, Chris Green wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/9/29 14:0:57, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>>
>>>> (No spam folder here [Thunderbird and POP].) Is this common then?
>>> They messed about with TB "renaming" Junk and Spam folders a while ago,
>>> wonder if you're seeing a side-effect of that?
>>>
>> No, it turned out that PlusNet -> Greenby had set up a spam folder - set
>> to maximum aggression - in their webmail system, so that emails they saw
>> as spam were shifted there, without POP having any _chance_ of seeing
>> them (and subsequently moving emails to its own spam/junk folder[s]).
>>
>> I've now worked through the 98 emails that had been hidden from me.
>> About 3 to 6 (I didn't count) were "genuine"-ish unwanted - about three
>> phishing attempts, and three just unwanted junk mail (though these days
>> they tend to pretend to be e. g. pushing subsidies rather than just
>> selling their double glazing). OK, a lot of the rest were what might be
>> called soft spam - things like newsletters, and similar, but from things
>> I am signed up to or a customer for. Others, like energy statements,
>> definitely were _not_ spam - and I've lost two of those, presumably
>> because Greenby deleted them after a month. (Which make me wonder what
>> else I've lost.)
> 
> I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
> telling me as pretty useless. 

They did tell. You are supposed to use IMAP, not POP. If you insist on 
using POP, there are caveats.



-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22141

On 2026/10/1 21:25:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-29 16:42, Chris Green wrote:
[]
>> I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
>> telling me as pretty useless. 
> 
> They did tell. You are supposed to use IMAP, not POP. If you insist on 
> using POP, there are caveats.
> 
> 
> 
I regard that as a very novel meaning of "tell".

If they really didn't want you to use POP, surely they wouldn't support it?

I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22145

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/10/1 21:25:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-29 16:42, Chris Green wrote:
> []
>>> I regard any mail provider who treats mail as spam/junk without
>>> telling me as pretty useless. 
>> 
>> They did tell. You are supposed to use IMAP, not POP. If you insist on 
>> using POP, there are caveats.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> I regard that as a very novel meaning of "tell".
> 
> If they really didn't want you to use POP, surely they wouldn't support it?
> 
> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).

There’s a reasonably balanced discussion of POP3 vs IMAP here

https://www.mailgun.com/blog/email/imap-vs-pop/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22148

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote:

> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).

I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22150

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
> 
>> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
>> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
> 
> I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?
> 

POP makes less demand on the connection, so in constrained circumstances it
can be helpful. But it’s been a long time since the average user has been
on a slow dial up link. For me the big advantage of IMAP, with a properly
designed mail client, is that outbound email is synchronised across
devices, which doesn’t happen with POP. So my sent items mail folder is the
same on, for example, my phone and my laptop. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22151

On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:16:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>> 
>>> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
>>> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
>> 
>> I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?
>> 
>
>POP makes less demand on the connection, so in constrained circumstances it
>can be helpful. But it’s been a long time since the average user has been
>on a slow dial up link. For me the big advantage of IMAP, with a properly
>designed mail client, is that outbound email is synchronised across
>devices, which doesn’t happen with POP. So my sent items mail folder is the
>same on, for example, my phone and my laptop. 
>

The big advantage of POP is that the mail is on my computer and not in
the cloud.  There is stuff that I don't need access to on-the-road.

-- 
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22153

AnthonyL <nospam@please.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:16:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
>>>> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
>>> 
>>> I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?
>>> 
>> 
>> POP makes less demand on the connection, so in constrained circumstances it
>> can be helpful. But it’s been a long time since the average user has been
>> on a slow dial up link. For me the big advantage of IMAP, with a properly
>> designed mail client, is that outbound email is synchronised across
>> devices, which doesn’t happen with POP. So my sent items mail folder is the
>> same on, for example, my phone and my laptop. 
>> 
> 
> The big advantage of POP is that the mail is on my computer and not in
> the cloud.  There is stuff that I don't need access to on-the-road.
> 

A decent email client can move emails from the server to local storage via
IMAP. Other than very low network speed applications I can’t think of any
other advantage of POP3.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22155

On 2026/10/2 12:33:41, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:16:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
>>>> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
>>>
>>> I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?
>>>
>>
>> POP makes less demand on the connection, so in constrained circumstances it
>> can be helpful. But it’s been a long time since the average user has been
>> on a slow dial up link. For me the big advantage of IMAP, with a properly
>> designed mail client, is that outbound email is synchronised across
>> devices, which doesn’t happen with POP. So my sent items mail folder is the
>> same on, for example, my phone and my laptop. 

I only have the one device (this laptop), so the main advantage isn't.>>
> 
> The big advantage of POP is that the mail is on my computer and not in
> the cloud.  There is stuff that I don't need access to on-the-road.
> 
That for me too; I feel more in control. But everyone's MMV - I'm by no
means a POP evangelist. Just prefer it for me.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo    # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo  # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22156

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/10/2 12:33:41, AnthonyL wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 09:16:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I find IMAP evangelists rather wearing (like the wore kinds of Linux,
>>>>> Mac etc. evangelists; enthusiasts are fine, evangelists less so).
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see much reason to use POP over IMAP?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> POP makes less demand on the connection, so in constrained circumstances it
>>> can be helpful. But it’s been a long time since the average user has been
>>> on a slow dial up link. For me the big advantage of IMAP, with a properly
>>> designed mail client, is that outbound email is synchronised across
>>> devices, which doesn’t happen with POP. So my sent items mail folder is the
>>> same on, for example, my phone and my laptop. 
> 
> I only have the one device (this laptop), so the main advantage isn't.>>
>> 
No phone with email?
But even if you only have one device, if that breaks, gets stolen etc, you
can use another computer to look at your email provider’s webmail and
access both your received and sent messages. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web