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 "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 23:46 +0100
                                          Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-03 05:32 +0000
                                      Re: IMAP and POP Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-03 12:12 +0100
                                        Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-03 18:29 +0000
                                          Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:56 +0200
                                            Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-04 16:02 +0000
                                              Re: IMAP and POP "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-04 17:14 +0100
                                                Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-04 16:46 +0000
                                                  Re: IMAP and POP "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-10-04 17:10 +0000
                                              Re: IMAP and POP "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 20:38 +0200
                                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
    Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:25 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#22161

On 2026/10/2 13:29:46, Tweed wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> I only have the one device (this laptop), so the main advantage isn't.>>
>>>
> No phone with email?

No - no smartphone. Increasingly, this makes me a weirdo (at least two
supermarkets won't give me a card, only an "app", for example; I tried
to open a bank account on Wednesday, but "online only" - and when I
tried that, it was obviously assuming a smartphone; and so on).

> 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. 
> 
True. Though I do back up my Thunderbird profile frequently.>
> 
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong. - H.L.Mencken

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

#22159

On 02/10/2026 21:33, 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.
>>
> 
> 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.
> 
My mail can be accessed quite happily using IMAP, because it live on 
*my* computer.

And I can access it remotely, when needed.

	Cheers,
		Gary	B-)

	

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

#22162

On 02/10/2026 16:51, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 21:33, 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>

So do you back up your e-mail or when your computer releases its magic 
smoke is it gone..

.. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about IMAP. Its a 
synchronisation process. What is in the cloud is a mirror of what is on 
my computer. I do back it up as well in case both die..

> My mail can be accessed quite happily using IMAP, because it live on 
> *my* computer.
> 
> And I can access it remotely, when needed.
> 
>      Cheers,
>          Gary    B-)
> 
> 
Dave

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

#22164 — IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?)

On 2026/10/2 17:11:13, David Wade wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 16:51, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>> On 02/10/2026 21:33, AnthonyL wrote:
[]
>>> 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.
>>>
> 
> So do you back up your e-mail or when your computer releases its magic 
> smoke is it gone..

I do back it up.>
> .. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about IMAP. Its a 
> synchronisation process. What is in the cloud is a mirror of what is on 
> my computer. I do back it up as well in case both die..

Not a lot of IMAP users realise that you _can_ have duplicated emails
between the server and the computer with POP; it is just that the
_default_ setting of most email clients is "download and delete from
server". On all clients I've looked at sp far, there is the _option_ to
"download but leave on server".

There is no _synchronisation_ function with POP, and it certainly does
not duplicate/synchronise any folder structure over the link; it is very
much a one-way system, other than the delete instructions going back to
the server if the client is left at the default setting. As such, it is
a lot simpler than IMAP - which doesn't make it better, just simpler.

I did know one person who still used POP, but with multiple devices: he
had one, master, device set to the default (delete from server after
downloading), and the others not; he made sure only run an email
connection on that machine after the others (I think it was only one or
two others). I'm not saying this was a good system, only give it as an
unusual example.

> 
>> My mail can be accessed quite happily using IMAP, because it live on 
>> *my* computer.
>>
>> And I can access it remotely, when needed.
>>
>>      Cheers,
>>          Gary    B-)
>>
>>
> Dave

I think there are certain parallels between IMAP and things like
OneDrive; some of us are uneasy about both, and don't really want to say
why :-)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Religion is a name for opinion that cannot be argued about.
[Heard on Radio 4, 2010-10-18, 9:xx.]

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

#22165 — Re: IMAP and POP (was: Re: "We'll sent you a code" emails?)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I think there are certain parallels between IMAP and things like
>OneDrive; some of us are uneasy about both, and don't really want to say
>why :-)

I use Windows because there are a few business-critical programs that
don't have a Linux alternative. I use Linux where it's the better
option.

That being said, there is no analogy. OneDriive will happily delete
files at your storage capacity; the user is not being protected. All
Microsoft account-based service force themselves on the user.
Installation tries to force accounr set up. An update changes settings
back to default, back to account-based services.

Under no circumstances am I forced to use IMAP and I've never had
settings changed with an update.

I'll bite: What dis-ease is there about IMAP? Note that I don't
syncronize. If I archive a message, it's always forwarded, then stored,
deleting it from the inbox. If I don't want to archive a message, I
delete it from the inbox. I like IMAP because the inbox can be on one
host and the archive folder on another.

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

#22168 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 18:45:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I think there are certain parallels between IMAP and things like
>> OneDrive; some of us are uneasy about both, and don't really want to say
>> why :-)
> 
> I use Windows because there are a few business-critical programs that
> don't have a Linux alternative. I use Linux where it's the better
> option.
> 
> That being said, there is no analogy. OneDriive will happily delete

I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
files and folders.

> files at your storage capacity; the user is not being protected. All
> Microsoft account-based service force themselves on the user.
> Installation tries to force accounr set up. An update changes settings
> back to default, back to account-based services.
> 
> Under no circumstances am I forced to use IMAP and I've never had
> settings changed with an update.
> 
> I'll bite: What dis-ease is there about IMAP? Note that I don't
> syncronize. If I archive a message, it's always forwarded, then stored,
> deleting it from the inbox. If I don't want to archive a message, I
> delete it from the inbox. I like IMAP because the inbox can be on one
> host and the archive folder on another.

I have never operated email on more than one device at once, so the main
advantage of IMAP passes me by; the secondary one of extra backup, I do
appreciate would be a boon.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

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

#22172 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>files and folders.

Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

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

#22175 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 21:30:3, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>> you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>> and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>> files and folders.
> 
> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
sync, what is its advantage?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.

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

#22176 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>On 2026/10/2 21:30:3, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>>I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>>>you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>>>and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>>>files and folders.

>>Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

>I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>sync, what is its advantage?

I have my message archive folders on one host, with inboxes on a variet
of different hopes. IMAP allows me to check, save, or delete messages
between folders on different hosts. POP3 can ceck an inbox only.

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

#22177 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/2 22:43:6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On 2026/10/2 21:30:3, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>>>> I meant in the way they work. AIUI (I've never actually used IMAP), if
>>>> you create a folder one one device, it gets created on the remote one
>>>> and all others involved with that account - and something similar for
>>>> files and folders.
> 
>>> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.
> 
>> I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>> sync, what is its advantage?
> 
> I have my message archive folders on one host, with inboxes on a variet
> of different hopes. IMAP allows me to check, save, or delete messages
> between folders on different hosts. POP3 can ceck an inbox only.

OK, so it's a multi-host file (or email) manager. As I only have one
host, it's not for me - I can see it is for some.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"...told me to connect with the electorate, and I did!" John Prescott
on having punched the man who threw an egg at him (Top Gear, 2011-2-28)

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

#22179 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>OK, so it's a multi-host file (or email) manager. As I only have one
>host, it's not for me - I can see it is for some.

IMAP acts on messages, not files. If I wanted to copy an entire folder,
if a Berkeley-style flat file, I'd use scp or sftp.

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

#22180 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.
> 
> I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
> sync, what is its advantage?

Most IMAP users will choose to sync the inbox, sent items, and perhaps 
spam and drafts folders, with most servers you can create any other 
folders you like to organise the mailbox, they won't automatically sync, 
but most clients will let you choose ...

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

#22181 — Re: IMAP and POP

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>>It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

>>I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>>sync, what is its advantage?

>Most IMAP users will choose to sync the inbox, sent items, and perhaps 
>spam and drafts folders, with most servers you can create any other 
>folders you like to organise the mailbox, they won't automatically sync, 
>but most clients will let you choose ...

I would not phrase it like that.

Like pine/alpine, IMAP was written at UWash to support its own students
who used email, perhaps for the first time at college.

pine and alpine don't sync.

The protocol supports syncing but it's a Mail client feature. The user
must both desire syncing and choose a Mail client like Thunderbird that
syncs. There may be Mail clients invoked from the Unix or linux shell
that both support IMAP and syncing, but someone else will have to tell
us. In my opinion, syncing increases the chance of an unwanted handling
of a message because there is more than one host affected.

Syncing is undesireable. Other users want syncing despite this increased
risk of mishandling.

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

#22182 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026-10-03 20:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 
>>>> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>>> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.
> 
>>> I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>>> sync, what is its advantage?
> 
>> Most IMAP users will choose to sync the inbox, sent items, and perhaps
>> spam and drafts folders, with most servers you can create any other
>> folders you like to organise the mailbox, they won't automatically sync,
>> but most clients will let you choose ...
> 
> I would not phrase it like that.
> 
> Like pine/alpine, IMAP was written at UWash to support its own students
> who used email, perhaps for the first time at college.
> 
> pine and alpine don't sync.

Fetchmail downloads. I have used pop3 or imap with fetchmail to download 
from remote servers to local machine, to then read with Pine.

> 
> The protocol supports syncing but it's a Mail client feature. The user
> must both desire syncing and choose a Mail client like Thunderbird that
> syncs. There may be Mail clients invoked from the Unix or linux shell
> that both support IMAP and syncing, but someone else will have to tell
> us. In my opinion, syncing increases the chance of an unwanted handling
> of a message because there is more than one host affected.
> 
> Syncing is undesireable. Other users want syncing despite this increased
> risk of mishandling.

As we have the Thunderbird group in these posts, TB syncs just fine. I 
never noticed a problem, using more than one computer.

Unless you are working offline, then the local version might differ from 
the remote version.

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

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

#22183 — Re: IMAP and POP

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2026-10-03 20:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>>>>It's not a requirement. I don't sync.

>>>>I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>>>>sync, what is its advantage?

>>>Most IMAP users will choose to sync the inbox, sent items, and perhaps
>>>spam and drafts folders, with most servers you can create any other
>>>folders you like to organise the mailbox, they won't automatically sync,
>>>but most clients will let you choose ...

>>I would not phrase it like that.

>>Like pine/alpine, IMAP was written at UWash to support its own students
>>who used email, perhaps for the first time at college.

>>pine and alpine don't sync.

>Fetchmail downloads. I have used pop3 or imap with fetchmail to download 
>from remote servers to local machine, to then read with Pine.

alpine has a fetchmail-equivalent feature (or may call fetchmail)
called Maildrop, which downloads messages from an inbox on a remote
host. I don't use it myself. I believe the host receiving the messages
may also be remote. I suppose the inbox could be on a local host! That's
the wonderful thing about handling messages, as the client and the inbox
or folder of archived messages may be on different hosts, without caring
about remote versus local.

>>The protocol supports syncing but it's a Mail client feature. The user
>>must both desire syncing and choose a Mail client like Thunderbird that
>>syncs. There may be Mail clients invoked from the Unix or linux shell
>>that both support IMAP and syncing, but someone else will have to tell
>>us. In my opinion, syncing increases the chance of an unwanted handling
>>of a message because there is more than one host affected.

>>Syncing is undesireable. Other users want syncing despite this increased
>>risk of mishandling.

>As we have the Thunderbird group in these posts, TB syncs just fine. I 
>never noticed a problem, using more than one computer.

I didn't say that syncing failed. I'm saying that the user may
misunderstand that the user may delete the message on one host without
understanding that it will also get deleted at the other host upon
syncing, and that he needed to move it from the inbox into an archive
message folder immediately upon first reading it in the inbox.

>Unless you are working offline, then the local version might differ from 
>the remote version.

But I'm not supposed to store messages in the inbox in the first place!
I should be archiving them in folders as I check the inbox!

I swear I'll get to the backlong in my inbox some day.

Seriously, IMAP works so nicely with multiple hosts, syncing gives me no
added advantage.

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

#22184 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026/10/4 17:2:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[]

> I swear I'll get to the backlong in my inbox some day.

I expect it was a mistype, but I rather like the word "backlong"!>
> Seriously, IMAP works so nicely with multiple hosts, syncing gives me no
> added advantage.

I thought syncing was the main advantage of IMAP?!? (Even the _point_?)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of
the good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5

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

#22185 — Re: IMAP and POP

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>On 2026/10/4 17:2:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Seriously, IMAP works so nicely with multiple hosts, syncing gives me no
>>added advantage.

>I thought syncing was the main advantage of IMAP?!? (Even the _point_?)

pine and IMAP were developed together at UWash. pine/alpine doesn't
sync. IMAP supports syncing but syncing is not an IMAP feature. It's a
feature of the Mail client.

IMAP has always had a superior method versus POP of message
store-and-forward because error checking was an original IMAP feature,
not added to POP till later versions.

Unlike POP, IMAP allows messages in any folder, remote or local, inbox
or message archive, to be read or manipulated.

No, syncing is not the main point, not at all. The main point is
superiority to POP in everywhere, especially in the era in which POP was
notorious for message transfer failure due to noisy dialup connections.

I've explained all this.

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

#22186 — Re: IMAP and POP

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>pine and IMAP were developed together at UWash. pine/alpine doesn't
>sync. IMAP supports syncing but syncing is not an IMAP feature. It's a
>feature of the Mail client.

I should comment that because of a notorious federal court ruling
misapplying copyright law to computer code, UWash had code in pine
replaced that was copyrighted with code under a public license like
copyleft. UWash then stopped maintaining it and laid off the
programmers. alpine was forked, one of the forks was abandoned. Eduardo
Chappa maintains it now.

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

#22187 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026-10-04 18:02, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-03 20:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Whether the client keeps folders in sync is supported by the protocol.
>>>>>> It's not a requirement. I don't sync.
> 
>>>>> I'll freely admit I know nearly nothing about IMAP, but if you _don't_
>>>>> sync, what is its advantage?
> 
>>>> Most IMAP users will choose to sync the inbox, sent items, and perhaps
>>>> spam and drafts folders, with most servers you can create any other
>>>> folders you like to organise the mailbox, they won't automatically sync,
>>>> but most clients will let you choose ...
> 
>>> I would not phrase it like that.
> 
>>> Like pine/alpine, IMAP was written at UWash to support its own students
>>> who used email, perhaps for the first time at college.
> 
>>> pine and alpine don't sync.
> 
>> Fetchmail downloads. I have used pop3 or imap with fetchmail to download
>>from remote servers to local machine, to then read with Pine.
> 
> alpine has a fetchmail-equivalent feature (or may call fetchmail)
> called Maildrop, which downloads messages from an inbox on a remote
> host. I don't use it myself. I believe the host receiving the messages
> may also be remote. I suppose the inbox could be on a local host! That's
> the wonderful thing about handling messages, as the client and the inbox
> or folder of archived messages may be on different hosts, without caring
> about remote versus local.
> 
>>> The protocol supports syncing but it's a Mail client feature. The user
>>> must both desire syncing and choose a Mail client like Thunderbird that
>>> syncs. There may be Mail clients invoked from the Unix or linux shell
>>> that both support IMAP and syncing, but someone else will have to tell
>>> us. In my opinion, syncing increases the chance of an unwanted handling
>>> of a message because there is more than one host affected.
> 
>>> Syncing is undesireable. Other users want syncing despite this increased
>>> risk of mishandling.
> 
>> As we have the Thunderbird group in these posts, TB syncs just fine. I
>> never noticed a problem, using more than one computer.
> 
> I didn't say that syncing failed. I'm saying that the user may
> misunderstand that the user may delete the message on one host without
> understanding that it will also get deleted at the other host upon
> syncing, and that he needed to move it from the inbox into an archive
> message folder immediately upon first reading it in the inbox.

Ah! Yes.

Can be done automatically, with the aid of a TB filter.

> 
>> Unless you are working offline, then the local version might differ from
>> the remote version.
> 
> But I'm not supposed to store messages in the inbox in the first place!
> I should be archiving them in folders as I check the inbox!
> 
> I swear I'll get to the backlong in my inbox some day.
> 
> Seriously, IMAP works so nicely with multiple hosts, syncing gives me no
> added advantage.


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

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

#22169 — Re: IMAP and POP

On 2026-10-02 19:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I think there are certain parallels between IMAP and things like
>> OneDrive; some of us are uneasy about both, and don't really want to say
>> why :-)
> 
> I use Windows because there are a few business-critical programs that
> don't have a Linux alternative. I use Linux where it's the better
> option.

In Linux it was traditional to use "fetchmail" to get mail using POP3. 
The thing is, when IMAP came, I simply changed some words in the 
fetchmail config file, and mail continued to be downloaded to my local 
storage. My mail was not in the cloud and I was using imap.

In the fetchmail documentation, developers recommended using imap over 
pop3 for multiple reasons, one of them being safer and easier to handle. 
IMAP could do the same things as PO3, and then more.

...

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

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web