|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] POP vs. IMAP...which is better?
|
> I've finally learned what IMAP is today, I never
> bothered looking into it because I thought that it was
> just an equivelent alternative to POP3. After finding
> out what it is, it sounds great, because I can access
> my inbox from anywhere and I dont have to rely on this
> stupid yahoo web mail anymore. My question is, why do
> I never hear of anybody using it. All of the webhosts
> out there offer "POP3 email accounts" but no IMAP.
> ISP's I *think* are the same, but I pay less attention
> to those, even yahoo has a POP3 email service, but I
> never see IMAP offered anywhere, why is this?
Others have mentioned server load problems but there are two others as
well.
The first is security. IMAP is less secure than POP3 "out-of-the-box" so
to speak. While many of these problems can be administered, some
administrators can't or don't want to bother with it.
The second is customer support. IMAP has more overhead at the customer
support level than POP3. (i.e. "What do you mean I can't upload a 3MB
email to my one of my mail folders when I only have 1MB available?")
> Is there really a reason to use POP3 over IMAP?
Making comparisons between POP3 and IMAP is like comparing oranges and
lemons. They are basically the same family but radically different from
each other.
Security issues aside, you basically have to decide which solution is best
for your needs.
As for online services that offer IMAP; look at the email only services
like mailandnews.com and some others. (mailandnews.com use to offer IMAP
but I'm not sure if they still do since they were bought out.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|