Windows 8 mail app doesn't support POP!!!!

[Gordonbp]

Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
at all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!

http://blog.laptopmag.com/how-to-read-pop-mail-in-windows-8
--
Reg'd Linux User no 240308 https://linuxcounter.net/
Reg'd Ubuntu User 30183 http://ubuntucounter.geekosophical.net/index.php
I only accept odf or pdf documents by email
GBP's Alternative Computing: http://gbplinuxfoss.blogspot.co.uk/

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-10-29, Gordonbp <gordon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
> at all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>
> http://blog.laptopmag.com/how-to-read-pop-mail-in-windows-8

I don't use POP. I use IMAP.

Surely Win8 supports the IMAP protocol...

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[William Poaster]

Gordonbp wrote:

> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
> at all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>
> http://blog.laptopmag.com/how-to-read-pop-mail-in-windows-8

Nah, it's not extraordinary. It's just another SNAFU from M$.

--
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[Ezekiel]

"Gordonbp" <gordon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af73nv...@mid.individual.net...

> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>

It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone left
who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?

--
"Open Office can also use ANY addressbook source from any email client you
tell it to for mail merge ... "

Gortard - making more BS claims about things he knows nothing about.
20 Mar 2010
<ho2uvs$90r$2...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Torre Starnes]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:06:09 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Gordonbp" <gordon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:af73nv...@mid.individual.net...
>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>
>
> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone left
> who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?

ROTFLMAO !!!

Good one!

[Henk & Ingrid]

lol ! poor Gortard!, poor Lintards!
Does Windows 8 have a green screen mode for Jed?
A "magic cli" for Creepy?

[Ezekiel]

"Henk & Ingrid" <Henk_...@nospam.eu> wrote in message
news:201210291449...@anonymous.usenet...

If someone still needs to use ancient POP then they can find and use a 3rd
party mail client. The default Win8 mail app decided to give up on the
1980's POP protocol and good for them.

Gortard probably has a "rotary style" address book and complains to the
local office supply store that they no longer stock Rolodex cards.

--
"Anyone is welcome to the Church of Linux."
Another "advocate" worshiping his cult OS.
Sat, 13 Oct 2012
<f9kes.332267$2%5.4...@fx05.am4>

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ezekiel wrote:

> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>
> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?

Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also "ancient"
protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.

IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is a
better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost as
old) just sound like a lame excuse.

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlCPyYoACgkQGQjO2ccW76plEgD+Jur1CgSnHyE2CtnQnZRzB0XU
NF446JwxUeX2Ar0GUgsA/3SHMEnNClmS61RrY4wnHm4E60bfs+Q5HtLYu/rhZX70
=Owya
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ezekiel]

"Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
news:k6ohic$fet$1...@dont-email.me...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
>>> at
>>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>
>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>
> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also
> "ancient"
> protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.
>
> IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is a
> better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
> important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost as
> old) just sound like a lame excuse.
>

If someone needs POP that badly then they should quit whining and get a
client that supports POP. Non problem solved.

POP is inadequate for people who use more than one device to access their
email - which is most everyone today. IMAP is a superior solution for
situations where someone needs to access mail from more than one device and
it works equally well for people who do everything from a single computer.
Cases were POP is a better option... I'm hard pressed to think of any real
world cases.

I'm sure it's an important omission for some but lack of 5.25" floppy
support is probably an important omission for someone else and acoustic
modem support is probably an important omission for someone else. Someone
else may think that the lack of a 16-bit Windows subsystem is an important
omission. Life goes on.

--
"I suggest (Linus) Torvalds cures whatever disease /he/ is suffering from,
before he loses what little is left of his credibility."

Homer - "Mr. Credibility" himself worried about the lack of credibility
Linus has left within the Linux community.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9dd4f899cbc29f3e?hl=en

[William Poaster]

Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
>>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>
>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>
> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also "ancient"
> protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.
>
> IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is a
> better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
> important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost as
> old) just sound like a lame excuse.

Talking about 'ancient', I was rather surprised to read this in another
(non-windows related) group:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<question>
> IοΏ½ve recently, got myself a new laptop, which is 64 bit. I have
> question; Why isnοΏ½t Google Chrome web browser on 64 bit? & what do
> people, who also have 64 bit, in here, use as there default web browser?
> Chrome doesnοΏ½t seem to run as fast as it did on 32 bit machine.

<Reply>
Most software is still 32 bit. You don't need 64 bit software for a 64 bit
machine. 32 bit software will run fine with a 64 bit OS (but not the other
way round). The big advantage of 64 bit is that you can have much more
memory installed. 32 bit Windows 7 can only address 4 Gigs of Ram while 64
bit versions can address between 8 Gigs and 192 Gigs depending on which
version you have - Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this true? Is most windoze software *still only* 32-bit?
And why do the 64-bit Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional [1]
versions address different amounts of RAM?

[1] Windoze "Professional" makes me chuckle.

--
Linux is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who its friends
are.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Lusotec belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
>>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>
>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>
> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also "ancient"
> protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.
>
> IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is a
> better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
> important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost as
> old) just sound like a lame excuse.

My God, Zeke has become an idiot of Hadronesque proportions!

--
But as I said, put a copy of Linturd monthly in the back of your pants
cos rms is going to spank you real hard if you so much as make ONE
deviation from his philosophy. if you forget Gnu/Linux he may well storm
off! I can't wait : be sure to stream it live!
-- "Hadron" <es4o4zy...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Ezekiel]

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote in message
news:k6oj8t$p7p$1...@dont-email.me...

> After swilling some grog, Lusotec belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
>>>> at
>>>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>>
>>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>>
>> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also
>> "ancient"
>> protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.
>>
>> IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is
>> a
>> better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
>> important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost
>> as
>> old) just sound like a lame excuse.
>
> My God, Zeke has become an idiot of Hadronesque proportions!
>

Yet another "kwalitie post" from the Chris Ahlstrom moron. All this useless
moron is capable of is stupid one-liner insults. Is your middle name turdv?

Talking about idiots... has a shit-stain like you learned what NET PROFIT
means yet?

--
"I am not worthy to wipe your pee-pee <grin>."

Chris Ahlstrom replying to another guy.
MsgId: <6lc1k.4449$UF5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Lusotec belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
>>>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>>
>>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>>
>> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also "ancient"
>> protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.
>>
>> IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is a
>> better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
>> important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost as
>> old) just sound like a lame excuse.
>
>My God, Zeke has become an idiot of Hadronesque proportions!

If Windows can't do it, it's not important, you know.

[bbgruff]

Ezekiel wrote:

> If someone needs POP that badly then they should quit whining and get a
> client that supports POP. Non problem solved.
>
> POP is inadequate for people who use more than one device to access their
> email - which is most everyone today. IMAP is a superior solution for
> situations where someone needs to access mail from more than one device
> and it works equally well for people who do everything from a single
> computer. Cases were POP is a better option... I'm hard pressed to think
> of any real world cases.

So have Microsoft actually got IMAP support into Windows 8 now?
IIRC, they didn't have at the beginning of October, but perhaps they managed
to get some sort of patch out before the actual launch?

[Hadron]

"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
> news:k6ohic$fet$1...@dont-email.me...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
>>>> at
>>>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>>
>>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>>
>> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also
>> "ancient"
>> protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for short.
>>
>> IMAP is *not* a replacement for POP and there are use cases where POP is a
>> better option. If Windows 8 mail app does not support POP then it is an
>> important omission and calling POP "ancient" (as if IMAP was not almost as
>> old) just sound like a lame excuse.
>>
>
> If someone needs POP that badly then they should quit whining and get a
> client that supports POP. Non problem solved.

I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
solution.

[Hadron]

Not using MS anymore I was surprised at your claims. And even more
surprised to see they were correct. What were MS thinking? That
oversight strikes me as indicative of major feuding in product
development planning and direction.

--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[Tom Shelton]

bbgruff presented the following explanation :

The original built in client did not support it, but, they sent out
several updates to the built in apps over the couple weeks leading up
to the launch.

--
Tom Shelton

[Lloyd]

In article <k6p1ba$umk$1...@dont-email.me>,

I read a recent review that said POP mail was now supported, but didn't
mention IMAP.

[Tom Shelton]

Lloyd formulated the question :

I think it is jsut the opposite. Don't know, I don't use that thing
anyway. I use outlook.

--
Tom Shelton

[JEDIDIAH]

That does not answer the question in any satisfactory manner.

--

MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
that it is most compatable with itself. / | \

[Snit]

On 10/30/12 9:54 AM, in article vlfw4vv...@news.eternal-september.org,

I use POP... I like having my mail moved locally.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Lloyd]

In article <k6p2v8$apm$1...@dont-email.me>,

It may be just the opposite, but that isn't what the reviewer said.

Here's what Earthlink has posted about ways to use POP mail with Win8:
http://support.earthlink.net/articles/email/windows-8-pop-email-configura
tion.php

So who the hell knows? One reviewer I read said it did support POP
mail, but Earthlink and others, as well as the preview version of win8
all say no. But at least here's a workaround.

[Tom Shelton]

Lloyd explained on 10/30/2012 :

Well, I know it doesn't support pop - because I tried at one point to
connect that monstrosity of an email client to my isp's pop server.
failed.

And, that link - is basically saying tie your account to outlook.com or
essentially download the old live essentials email client. We are
talking about the default ModerUI client in windows 8.

--
Tom Shelton

[bbgruff]

Well, thanks guys.... that seems to have ceared that up....or not.....:-)

[chrisv]

bbgruff wrote:

>Well, thanks guys.... that seems to have ceared that up....or not.....:-)

It will be "cleared up" when Microshaft has closed its doors and the
perpetrators put behind bars.

[Tom Shelton]

chrisv presented the following explanation :

LOL.. Moron.

--
Tom Shelton

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Lusotec wrote:

>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
>>> at all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP
>>> mail!
>>
>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>
> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also
> "ancient" protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for
> short.

I'm another, running my own e-mail server. Started when I got tired of my
ISP's poor spam filtering. POP3 on the basement server, two users - myself
and my wife.

The server will be replaced one of these days and I'll probably use IMAP
on it. Oh, and the "new" server will be a PowerPC G4 running Debian :-)

[Lloyd]

In article <k6pbqe$d6c$1...@dont-email.me>,

Well I see we agree on something! :)

[Ezekiel]

"Lloyd" <lloydp...@me.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-981C...@news.eternal-september.org...

Microsoft will never go out of business as long as Linux "advocates" like
turdv keep supporting them.

What newsreader does he use? X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
(Windows only)

He also uses Windows exclusively at work:
- "I buy a lot of Windows PC's to use as test stations, and I've been buying
refurbished XP machines and have no plans to change."

And at home where his family also runs Windows:
- "Home Premium OEM is available for $100 online... My daughter runs it"


He's such a anti-Microsoft tough guy. Other people should do as he says and
not has he does.

--
It takes a special breed of dishonest idiot, like "Ezekiel", to twist
"founder" into "fail".

[Founder (verb) - To become wrecked; *fail* utterly:
"The project foundered because public support was lacking."]

chrisv - Too ignorant to use a dictionary.
Mar 22, 2012
Message-ID: <ns6nm7dcjighhd19q...@4ax.com>

[Ezekiel]

"Bjørn Steensrud" <bjo...@skogkatt.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:r6n5m9-...@astilbe.skogkatt.homelinux.org...

> Lusotec wrote:
>
>>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Gordonbp" wrote:
>>>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client
>>>> at all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP
>>>> mail!
>>>
>>> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
>>> left who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?
>>
>> Yes, other people use it. I'm one of them. I also use another also
>> "ancient" protocol known as Internet Message Access Protocol, or IMAP for
>> short.
>
> I'm another, running my own e-mail server. Started when I got tired of my
> ISP's poor spam filtering. POP3 on the basement server, two users - myself
> and my wife.
>

So which mail server do you run in your basement that only supports POP3 but
doesn't support IMAP?

> The server will be replaced one of these days and I'll probably use IMAP
> on it. Oh, and the "new" server will be a PowerPC G4 running Debian :-)
>

So which mail server do you run in your basement that only supports POP3 but
doesn't support IMAP?

--
"Knowing 'Word or Excel' is a hindrance."
The "Hardon" moron who can't think of his own nym.

28 Mar 2012 19:37:14
<KLJcr.103621$4c4....@news.usenetserver.com>

[Snit]

On 10/30/12 1:03 PM, in article k6pbqe$d6c$1...@dont-email.me, "Tom Shelton"

Wow... you really have your panties in a bunch.


--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[chrisv]

Lloyd wrote:

> Tom Shillton trolled:

>
>> chrisv presented the following explanation :
>> > bbgruff wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, thanks guys.... that seems to have ceared that up....or
>> >> not.....:-)
>> >
>> > It will be "cleared up" when Microshaft has closed its doors and the
>> > perpetrators put behind bars.
>>
>> LOL.. Moron.
>
>Well I see we agree on something! :)

No surprise. Many morons think that their superiors are "morons" or
whatever. They (you trolls) are out of your league, intellectually,
and are too stupid to know it.

P.S. "Ezekiel" post deleted, unread.

[Lloyd]

In article <arf098hvoqdignc1o...@4ax.com>,

I haven't seen anyone here that you are 'superior' to.

[Ezekiel]

"Lloyd" <lloydp...@me.com> wrote in message

news:lloydparsons-CD3F...@news.eternal-september.org...

Sure it was turdv - then again, you are a proven liar so why should anyone
believe you.

> I haven't seen anyone here that you are 'superior' to.

He's possibly superior to Chris Ahlstrom and the 7-tard. But it's very
close. It's like trying to figure out who the smartest Kardashian is.


--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining
stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.


<quote>
If we introduce positive, or regenerative, feedback into an amplifier
circuit, it has the tendency of creating and sustaining oscillations.

Negative feedback, on the other hand, has a "dampening" effect on an
amplifier. While positive feedback drives an amplifier circuit toward a
point of instability (oscillations), negative feedback drives it the
opposite direction: toward a point of stability.
</quote>
http://openbookproject.net/electricCircuits/Semi/SEMI_4.html#xtocid209015


<quote>
OSCILLATORS

We have already talked about FEEDBACK in terms of NEGATIVE FEEDBACK to
stabilize a circuit. We will now cover a new term called POSITIVE FEEDBACK -
it changes the performance of circuit completely. It makes the circuit
OSCILLATE. Negative feedback "kills" a circuits performance - positive
feedback makes it oscillate.
</quote>
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

"Negative feedback is a central concept in the design of linear amplifiers.
It enables them to be designed with predictable, precise and **stable**
performance."
Oxford University -
http://www-teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk/practical_course/ELManCh14.pdf

"Since it's hard to make the op-amp gain stable over all operating
conditions *negative feedback* is used to **stabilize** the op-amp"
MIT - http://www.mit.edu/~godoy/6098/study/review_all.pdf

[GreyCloud]

You need to take your meds... you are hullucinating again.

[Captain Napalm]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:45:57 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Wow... you really have your panties in a bunch.

In the meantime, you probably *wear* your wife's panties.

[Snit]

On 10/30/12 7:17 PM, in article 1u7tjtob...@ban.the.trolls, "Captain

Amazing how lacking in social skills you are.


--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>No surprise. Many morons think that their superiors are "morons" or
>whatever. They (you trolls) are out of your league, intellectually,
>and are too stupid to know it.

"Lloyd" and "Ezekiel" responses were deleted, unread. As will any
further responses in this thread.

--
"He replies (yet again) to my post to claim how he doesn't respond to
my posts. Stupidity that extreme can't be faked... it's the real
deal." - "Ezekiel", lying shamelessly, and with extreme stupidity

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>"Lloyd" and "Ezekiel" responses were deleted, unread. As will any
>further responses in this thread.

P.S. Did you know that "Ezekiel" can't understand why it's not
possible to have "too much choice" in a free market?

Now *there's* a real mental giant, for 'ya.

*snicker*

Of course, "Hadron" and "DFS" (and others) are in the same boat - so
weak-minded, so thick skulled, so proud of their ignorance, that it's
pathetic.

Troll responses will be deleted, unread.

[Lloyd]

In article <5m52981723998rvac...@4ax.com>,

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>
> >No surprise. Many morons think that their superiors are "morons" or
> >whatever. They (you trolls) are out of your league, intellectually,
> >and are too stupid to know it.
>
> "Lloyd" and "Ezekiel" responses were deleted, unread. As will any
> further responses in this thread.

As usual, you read every word.

[TomB]

On 2012-10-30, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:

8<

> POP is inadequate for people who use more than one device to access
> their email - which is most everyone today. IMAP is a superior
> solution for situations where someone needs to access mail from more
> than one device and it works equally well for people who do
> everything from a single computer. Cases were POP is a better
> option... I'm hard pressed to think of any real world cases.

I still use POP3 to keep a local copy of all my mail (4 accounts) in a
single mailbox archive. For regular access from multiple stations I
use IMAP of course.

Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.

[Lloyd]

In article <201210311...@usenet.drumscum.be>,

Doesn't your mail client allow for local and online copies of your IMAP
email?

I keep a small set of copies for important emails on both my local
machine and on my IMAP account.

[Gordonbp]

On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:

>
> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.
>

AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
facilities - BT certainly does not.
These wintrolls don't seem to live in the real world...but then, they've
sold their souls to Hotmail....

--
Reg'd Linux User no 240308 https://linuxcounter.net/
Reg'd Ubuntu User 30183 http://ubuntucounter.geekosophical.net/index.php
I only accept odf or pdf documents by email
GBP's Alternative Computing: http://gbplinuxfoss.blogspot.co.uk/

[Tom Shelton]

Gordonbp explained on 10/31/2012 :

> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>
>>
>> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
>> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your
>> mails.
>>
> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
> facilities - BT certainly does not.
> These wintrolls don't seem to live in the real world...but then,
> they've sold their souls to Hotmail....

LOL. I really dont' get all the fuss. If the app doesn't work for
you, you install one that does.

Besides, you can use pop indirectly - if you have say an account like
outlook.com (maybe gmail?). You can just tie the pop account to it.

I don't even understand why this even matters - no one is going to use
that crappy email program anyway (excpet on maybe windows rt)

--
Tom Shelton

[Bob Hauck]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:32:17 -0600, Tom Shelton
<tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote:

> Gordonbp explained on 10/31/2012 :
>> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:

>> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
>> facilities - BT certainly does not.

Somebody uses ISP email?

>> These wintrolls don't seem to live in the real world...but then,
>> they've sold their souls to Hotmail....
>
> LOL. I really dont' get all the fuss. If the app doesn't work for
> you, you install one that does.
>
> Besides, you can use pop indirectly - if you have say an account like
> outlook.com (maybe gmail?). You can just tie the pop account to it.

Yes, you can do that on GMail. And then read your mail with the
excellent GMail client for Android.

GMail also supports POP and IMAP access, and authenticated SMTP for
sending.

> I don't even understand why this even matters - no one is going to use
> that crappy email program anyway (excpet on maybe windows rt)

It matters because Android tablets come with a dedicated GMail client
that is really quite nice, and a not too bad generic POP/IMAP client as
well.


--
Bob Hauck

[Tom Shelton]

Bob Hauck formulated the question :

Who was talking about android? We were talking about the defautl
windows mail client. Nobody has used a default windows mail client for
like ever :)

--
Tom Shelton

[chrisv]

Bob Hauck wrote:

>Somebody uses ISP email?

Eh? What's wrong with "ISP email"?

--
shitty troll: Pretty sad the low level the Linux community will stoop
to in order to defend their beloved operating system.

"philo" responds: Yes

[Lloyd]

In article <0f23985juafigqa6t...@4ax.com>,

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >Somebody uses ISP email?
>
> Eh? What's wrong with "ISP email"?

Nothing wrong with it, other than if you change ISPs you have to change
your email.

I haven't used any ISPs email for a very long time.

[7]

Ezekiel wrote:


>> Absolutely extraordinary! Windows 7 came with NO built-in email client at
>> all - the mail app that comes with Windows 8 doesn't support POP mail!
>>
>
> It probably doesn't support 5.25" floppy drives either. Is there anyone
> left
> who still uses ancient POP mail? Other that you of course?

Are you an online LYING troll Ezekiel?

Ezekeel will now name one big ISP that doesn't support POP.

[chrisv]

Lloyd wrote:

> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong with "ISP email"?
>
>Nothing wrong with it, other than if you change ISPs you have to change
>your email.

It's working for me, and, considering that the local cable company is
easily the best ISP option in my area, that's not likely to soon
change.

>I haven't used any ISPs email for a very long time.

That's OK. "Hadron" hasn't used toothpaste or soap for a very long
time.

--
"Hadron": No wonder MS booted Keith out....
Keith: Hadron, you are a liar.
"Hadron": No. I am not. I was trolling there. You can always tell when
you see "...." on the end. I doubt you even worked for MS.

[GreyCloud]

On 10/31/12 13:12, Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:32:17 -0600, Tom Shelton
> <tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Gordonbp explained on 10/31/2012 :
>>> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>
>>> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
>>> facilities - BT certainly does not.
>
> Somebody uses ISP email?
>
>

Yes, if you are paying for services from your ISP.
A good ISP also filters out a lot of malware and viruses.

>>> These wintrolls don't seem to live in the real world...but then,
>>> they've sold their souls to Hotmail....
>>
>> LOL. I really dont' get all the fuss. If the app doesn't work for
>> you, you install one that does.
>>
>> Besides, you can use pop indirectly - if you have say an account like
>> outlook.com (maybe gmail?). You can just tie the pop account to it.
>
> Yes, you can do that on GMail. And then read your mail with the
> excellent GMail client for Android.
>
> GMail also supports POP and IMAP access, and authenticated SMTP for
> sending.
>

I don't know what the big deal is here about POP. I've read where win8
doesn't supply it with their email client, but it doesn't stop one from
using win8 and using Thunderbird email client.

[GreyCloud]

There are quite a few that do. The win7 news group has had a lot of
comments on this.

[GreyCloud]

On 10/31/12 15:26, chrisv wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
>
>> chrisv<chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong with "ISP email"?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with it, other than if you change ISPs you have to change
>> your email.
>
> It's working for me, and, considering that the local cable company is
> easily the best ISP option in my area, that's not likely to soon
> change.
>
>> I haven't used any ISPs email for a very long time.
>
> That's OK. "Hadron" hasn't used toothpaste or soap for a very long
> time.
>

And you haven't used toilet paper in a long time as well. :-))

[Lloyd]

In article <mi5398p6l1tf2dc38...@4ax.com>,

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Lloyd wrote:
>
> > chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> What's wrong with "ISP email"?
> >
> >Nothing wrong with it, other than if you change ISPs you have to change
> >your email.
>
> It's working for me, and, considering that the local cable company is
> easily the best ISP option in my area, that's not likely to soon
> change.
>

Best as defined as... ?

I had cable modem for a couple years, then they decided that since I
didn't want any of their other stuff that I should pay them $65/month to
keep 12mbps service.

Since I don't actually need that speed, I switched to 6mbps DSL which is
more than good enough to get my hd and sd videos smoothly and it is only
$30/month.

Nice to save $35/month!

> >I haven't used any ISPs email for a very long time.
>
> That's OK. "Hadron" hasn't used toothpaste or soap for a very long
> time.

:)

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-10-31, Bob Hauck <postm...@avalanche.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:32:17 -0600, Tom Shelton
><tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Gordonbp explained on 10/31/2012 :
>>> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>
>>> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
>>> facilities - BT certainly does not.
>
> Somebody uses ISP email?

Yep. I still have an active ISP email account *and* it supports the IMAP
protocol.

> Yes, you can do that on GMail. And then read your mail with the
> excellent GMail client for Android.
>
> GMail also supports POP and IMAP access, and authenticated SMTP for

> sendieng.

I use both a gmail and my AOL (netscape.net) email accounts through
supported IMAP protocol.

I really can't stand using the web mail interfaces. They're slow and
clunky and not very configurable. It also seems that the webmail server
goes down more than the POP/IMAP server.

> It matters because Android tablets come with a dedicated GMail client
> that is really quite nice, and a not too bad generic POP/IMAP client as
> well.

On my cheap Galaxy GIO smartphone there's an email client that works for
both IMAP and POP protocols. It was very useful on my last trip overseas
in November '11.

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-10-31, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong with "ISP email"?
>>
>>Nothing wrong with it, other than if you change ISPs you have to change
>>your email.
>
> It's working for me, and, considering that the local cable company is
> easily the best ISP option in my area, that's not likely to soon
> change.

I haven't changed my ISP in 15 years. They are *very* reliable and not
expensive.

My email address is actually a relic from the time before the local ISP
was bought out by a bigger company (the first buyout).

BTW, the email address in my usenet articles is *not* my local ISP
address. This one I've had before Netscape was bought out by AOL.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

Exactly.

Dropping POP would leave a large number of (American) users in the
lurch.

Maybe they'll go out and pay for Outlook, a la' Tom (Shelton).

--
Your cluelessness knows no bounds. Clearly the plethora of movies where a
GOOD teacher wakes up smart children and makes them apply themselves
have gone whistling by your head. It takes a LOT of effort to teach
smart kids : primarily because they tend to be listless and bored and
think they know it all.
-- "Hadron" <ii100u$igl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Bob Hauck belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:32:17 -0600, Tom Shelton
> <tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Gordonbp explained on 10/31/2012 :
>>> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>
>>> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
>>> facilities - BT certainly does not.
>
> Somebody uses ISP email?

Yes. There are a lot of people who know only what their ISP exposes to
them.

Far more than people who actually know about computing.

>> Besides, you can use pop indirectly - if you have say an account like
>> outlook.com (maybe gmail?). You can just tie the pop account to it.
>
> Yes, you can do that on GMail. And then read your mail with the
> excellent GMail client for Android.
>
> GMail also supports POP and IMAP access, and authenticated SMTP for
> sending.
>
>> I don't even understand why this even matters - no one is going to use
>> that crappy email program anyway (excpet on maybe windows rt)
>
> It matters because Android tablets come with a dedicated GMail client
> that is really quite nice, and a not too bad generic POP/IMAP client as
> well.

I always appreciate your knowledgeable perspective, Bob. Yes, that
would be a "slurp".

--
There is no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who has never met Chuck Norris.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, chrisv belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Lloyd wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong with "ISP email"?
>>
>>Nothing wrong with it, other than if you change ISPs you have to change
>>your email.
>
> It's working for me, and, considering that the local cable company is
> easily the best ISP option in my area, that's not likely to soon
> change.
>
>>I haven't used any ISPs email for a very long time.
>
> That's OK. "Hadron" hasn't used toothpaste or soap for a very long
> time.

Damn! I got Dogfish Head all over my keyboard!

--
I've been a SW developer for years and NEVER heard of someone "writing
websites" using "C" or "bash". If they were that leet they would say
they write backend server modules or plugins in bash or C. He didn't. He
doesn't.
ps, right or wrong, many sites use tables for layout still since CSS is
a bitch cross browser.
-- "Hadron" <idjf9q$4ep$6...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Bob Hauck]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:21:53 -0600, GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/12 13:12, Bob Hauck wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:32:17 -0600, Tom Shelton
>> <tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordonbp explained on 10/31/2012 :
>>>> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>>
>>>> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
>>>> facilities - BT certainly does not.
>>
>> Somebody uses ISP email?
>>
>>
> Yes, if you are paying for services from your ISP.
> A good ISP also filters out a lot of malware and viruses.

None of them hold a candle to GMail in that regard. But I was making a
joke son.

--
Bob Hauck

[Bob Hauck]

A major goal of Win8 would seem to be gaining a foothold in tablets.

Android is (some of) the competition in the tablet space. When potential
customers compare features they will be comparing to iOS and Android,
not to nothing.

--
Bob Hauck

[GreyCloud]

Hard to tell these days in here.

[Tom Shelton]

It happens that Bob Hauck formulated :

I would say that's accurate.

> Android is (some of) the competition in the tablet space. When
> potential customers compare features they will be comparing to iOS
> and Android, not to nothing.

Ok. But, unless they are windows rt - they can still install their
favorite email client... like outlook, thunderbird, etc. I don't know
if there are any 3rd party "modern ui" email apps in the market,
haven't looked. And, again, it's pretty easy in a pinch to just
associate a pop account with your outlook.com (which you basically ahve
if you have a live account - and you probably want one if you have a
surface or windows tablet) or gmail account and just point that
pathetic client to that.

I'm not defending that email client - I hate it. But, there are still
ways to do check your mail if you you have some weird reason to need
pop access.

And if you ask me - personally, there are a lot more important features
than that.

--
Tom Shelton

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that chrisv spake thusly:
>
> If Windows can't do it, it's not important, you know.

That sort of attitude only works when one has a monopoly.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, in the now-dominant mobile space, they
don't.


--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 8 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that Gordonbp spake thusly:

> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>>
>> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
>> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.
>
> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
> facilities - BT certainly does not.

BT uses Yahoo for mail, which has an IMAP server at imap.mail.yahoo.com.

However I agree that lacking support for POP3 is retarded, given that
there will in fact be a large number of people who still need it.

Just add it to the rapidly expanding list of things Windows doesn't
support OOTB.

[RonB]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:26:52 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> That's OK. "Hadron" hasn't used toothpaste or soap for a very long
> time.

You can smell him from all the way over there? Maybe the wind will change
direction.

--
RonB
Using Linux Mint Mate 13

[Ezekiel]

"Gordonbp" <gordon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afd56b...@mid.individual.net...

> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>
>>
>> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
>> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.
>>
> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account
> facilities - BT certainly does not.

"Certainly does not" huh? Then I guess this doesn't exist:


*** BTInternet IMAP settings: ***

Incoming
Server = imap.mail.yahoo.com
Type = IMAP
Username = xx...@btinternet.com (xx...@yahoo.com also works)
Password = your password
Security = SSL
Port = 993

Outgoing
Server = smtp.mail.yahoo.com
Type = SMTP
Username = xx...@btinternet.com (xx...@yahoo.com also works)
Password = your password
Security = SSL
Port = 465


The only thing "certain" here is your continued ignorance.

> These wintrolls don't seem to live in the real world...but then, they've
> sold their souls to Hotmail....
>

But a moron like you lives in the "real world" where "BT certainly does not"
support IMAP - you're a fucking moron gordon. You're either dumber than shit
or a liar - which is it?

Here's an idea for you. Instead of whining about one MS newsreader that
supports IMAP and not the inferior POP protocol. Why don't you complain
about your shit-ass ISP for not supporting the better IMAP and forcing it's
customers to use the crappy POP3 protocol?

--
"Knowing 'Word or Excel' is a hindrance."
The "Hardon" moron who can't think of his own nym.

28 Mar 2012 19:37:14
<KLJcr.103621$4c4....@news.usenetserver.com>

[Ezekiel]

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:201210311...@usenet.drumscum.be...

> On 2012-10-30, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>
> 8<
>
>> POP is inadequate for people who use more than one device to access
>> their email - which is most everyone today. IMAP is a superior
>> solution for situations where someone needs to access mail from more
>> than one device and it works equally well for people who do
>> everything from a single computer. Cases were POP is a better
>> option... I'm hard pressed to think of any real world cases.
>
> I still use POP3 to keep a local copy of all my mail (4 accounts) in a
> single mailbox archive. For regular access from multiple stations I
> use IMAP of course.
>

And you can do the exact same thing with IMAP. There is absolutely nothing
that prohibits you from downloading your mail using IMAP and storing it
locally however you choose.

> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.

So does POP somehow increase the amount of storage your ISP gives you? Of
course not so configure IMAP to download the mail locally if that's an issue
with your ISP.

There's not one thing you mentioned that makes POP equal to or better than
IMAP. You listed ISP limitations that people will need to deal with no
matter what protocol they use to retrieve the mail from the server.

--
"Anyone is welcome to the Church of Linux."
Another "advocate" worshiping his cult OS.
Sat, 13 Oct 2012
<f9kes.332267$2%5.4...@fx05.am4>

[Ezekiel]

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote in message
news:k6se5h$ef3$1...@dont-email.me...

> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2012-10-30, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> POP is inadequate for people who use more than one device to access
>>> their email - which is most everyone today. IMAP is a superior
>>> solution for situations where someone needs to access mail from more
>>> than one device and it works equally well for people who do
>>> everything from a single computer. Cases were POP is a better
>>> option... I'm hard pressed to think of any real world cases.
>>
>> I still use POP3 to keep a local copy of all my mail (4 accounts) in a
>> single mailbox archive. For regular access from multiple stations I
>> use IMAP of course.
>>
>> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
>> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.
>
> Exactly.
>

Since you have no idea what you're talking about you should STFU and quit
slurping about subjects you have zero understanding of. Go back to slurping
the RonB liar and his "7.4 billion net profit" you ignorant shit stain.

--
"They're confused. They think that pirating Windows or buying a copy of
Windows means you're choosing Windows.... goes out of his way to twist
words"

What passes for logic in the mind of an idiot like Chris Ahlstrom.
Wed, 24 Oct 2012
Message-ID: <k69avo$6eg$2...@dont-email.me>

[chrisv]

Bob Hauck wrote:

> Tom Shillton wrote:
>>
>> I don't even understand why this even matters - no one is going to use
>> that crappy email program anyway (excpet on maybe windows rt)
>
>It matters because Android tablets come with a dedicated GMail client
>that is really quite nice, and a not too bad generic POP/IMAP client as
>well.

The shill has a point, though. Micro$oft's applications (e.g.
NotePad) are often so crappy that it can be assumed that they won't be
used, so they may as well give-up.

--
"If you wish to contribute feel free: Telling lies, nymshifting and
telling more lies is rather lame don't you think?" - liar and
nymshifter "Hadron"

[Snit]

On 11/1/12 3:42 AM, in article k6tjmh$t6u$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:26:52 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> That's OK. "Hadron" hasn't used toothpaste or soap for a very long
>> time.
>
> You can smell him from all the way over there? Maybe the wind will change
> direction.

Maybe he can start eating things from his foot and you will worship him as
you do your cult-leader? LOL!


--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Hadron]

Gordonbp <gordon...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 31/10/12 16:47, TomB wrote:
>
>>

>> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
>> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.
>>

> AFAIAA none of the major ISPs in the UK have IMAP email account facilities - BT
> certainly does not.

> These wintrolls don't seem to live in the real world...but then, they've sold
> their souls to Hotmail....

Gortard : what have you been told about venturing opinions on technical
matters. You're never correct and invariably so hideously ill informed
it even makes the other advocates wince.

--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[Hadron]

"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:201210311...@usenet.drumscum.be...
>> On 2012-10-30, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> POP is inadequate for people who use more than one device to access
>>> their email - which is most everyone today. IMAP is a superior
>>> solution for situations where someone needs to access mail from more
>>> than one device and it works equally well for people who do
>>> everything from a single computer. Cases were POP is a better
>>> option... I'm hard pressed to think of any real world cases.
>>
>> I still use POP3 to keep a local copy of all my mail (4 accounts) in a
>> single mailbox archive. For regular access from multiple stations I
>> use IMAP of course.
>>
> And you can do the exact same thing with IMAP. There is absolutely nothing
> that prohibits you from downloading your mail using IMAP and storing it
> locally however you choose.

Indeed. And until recently I used offlineimap for just that. FOSS btw.

http://offlineimap.org/

>
>> Plus there's still a lot of ISP's that have a strict data limit, so
>> with those you should use POP3 anyway if you want to keep your mails.
>
> So does POP somehow increase the amount of storage your ISP gives you? Of
> course not so configure IMAP to download the mail locally if that's an issue
> with your ISP.
>
> There's not one thing you mentioned that makes POP equal to or better than
> IMAP. You listed ISP limitations that people will need to deal with no
> matter what protocol they use to retrieve the mail from the server.

POP has nothing pretty much nothing over imap. Only an "advocate" would
suggest otherwise. Gortard's post was hilarious. How can one man be so
wrong so often (ie every time)?

[Captain Napalm]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:36:30 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Maybe he can start eating things from his foot and you will worship him as
> you do your cult-leader? LOL!

Snot isn't getting enough attention so he's gone back to his usual sniping
hit and run attacks, in an attempt to get someone to throw a few followups
his way.

[Snit]

On 11/1/12 7:19 PM, in article iyq1lyb3...@ban.the.trolls, "Captain

You are the one who snipped all context away.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.2{0.04.AM.Seattle.2012}]
IMAP can be used as if it were POP3.
What does POP3 have that IMAP doesn't ?
No commercial server would offer just POP3, not IMAP.

[William Poaster]

Captain Napalm wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:36:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Maybe he can start eating things from his foot and you will worship him as
>> you do your cult-leader? LOL!

Well folks, coming from an iCultist Mac user, that is funny!

> Snot isn't getting enough attention so he's gone back to his usual sniping
> hit and run attacks, in an attempt to get someone to throw a few followups
> his way.

--
The Mac user really puts the 'stupid' in 'Keep It Simple, Stupid


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[chrisv]

*thread plonk*

[Snit]

On 11/2/12 2:30 AM, in article jfgcm9-...@alpha-one.wpnetwork.org,

"William Poaster" <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:

> Captain Napalm wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:36:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe he can start eating things from his foot and you will worship him as
>>> you do your cult-leader? LOL!
>
> Well folks, coming from an iCultist Mac user, that is funny!

No, it came from me, not an "iCultist", whatever that is. Remember, unlike
you I am not a part of any cult-like group.


--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[GreyCloud]

On 11/02/12 06:13, chrisv wrote:
> *thread plonk*

Yep, chrisv plonked his head back up his arse again.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hadron wrote:
> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
> solution.

POP is better than IMAP when:
- - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;
- - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;
- - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;
- - Using slow connections.

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlCUMkUACgkQGQjO2ccW76pjhQD/bZQWiLObq7Er9xUzb06fXR1l
9jB1reFnHkaDMtjG6GMA/AnE6J3kQQN5hU8RoJims6uBvfGXnAiU65cAAmUVwzS4
=GptH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Sinister Midget]

On 2012-11-02, Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> claimed:

>
> Hadron wrote:
>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
>> solution.
>
> POP is better than IMAP when:
> - - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;
> - - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;
> - - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;
> - - Using slow connections.

. . The mail provider limits space
. . Keep mail stored offline that you can access later
. . Find yourself in places where internet access is non-existent sometimes

Now if Quirk said he couldn't think of a reason to prefer O₂ over CO,
I'd agree with him, and encourage him to flood his domicile with as
much CO as he can possibly accumulate.

--
I know it all. I just can't remember it all at once.
Dell Inspiron 530, Snowlinux 3 Crystal
Friends don't let friends use Windows

[Hadron]

Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
>> solution.
>
> POP is better than IMAP when:
> - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;

Erm ......

> - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;

What!?!?!?!??!?!

> - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;

Err, Gnus does this easily.


> - Using slow connections.

Erm, you're SO wrong it scares me.

>
> Regards

[TomB]

On 2012-11-01, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:

Before we continue, let's make sure that this is no longer about
Microsoft's Windows 8 client that doesn't support POP. I couldn't care
less about that. At this point we're talking about the relevance of
the POP service itself.

With that out of the way, I say that POP is still very relevant. Yes,
you can keep mails locally when using IMAP, but the main use case for
IMAP is roaming access, where the mail use case for POP is local
access. And that's exactly how I use both tools. As such I cannot
agree with your position that POP is obsolete.

It's absolutely great to have fetchmail running as a daemon and have
it pull in the emails from all my accounts locally into a local
mailbox archive automatically, 24/7. I rarely use that archive, but it
gives me piece of mind that it is there.

[Hadron]

NO that is not the "main use case" at all.

It is *better* at roaming of course but thats another thing. TomB : go
and read about features of IMAP v POP before making such silly, silly,
claims in order to defend people's ignorance that is, once again, so
damnably extreme here in COLA.

>
> It's absolutely great to have fetchmail running as a daemon and have
> it pull in the emails from all my accounts locally into a local
> mailbox archive automatically, 24/7. I rarely use that archive, but it
> gives me piece of mind that it is there.

fetchmail works with imap too.

Since you appear to *want* to use an outdated and inefficint protocol
then fine. But it makes zero sense. Mobile devices work FAR better with
imap - its ludicrous to have a non synced pop3 copy too. The clients can
easily cache too.

http://mail2web.com/blog/2010/02/pop-imap-difference/

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Sinister Midget belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 2012-11-02, Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> claimed:
>>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
>>> solution.
>>
>> POP is better than IMAP when:
>> - - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;
>> - - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;
>> - - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;
>> - - Using slow connections.
>
> . . The mail provider limits space
> . . Keep mail stored offline that you can access later
> . . Find yourself in places where internet access is non-existent sometimes
>
> Now if Quirk said he couldn't think of a reason to prefer O₂ over CO,
> I'd agree with him, and encourage him to flood his domicile with as
> much CO as he can possibly accumulate.

Death by farting? Oh, that would be methane.

--
Dont oyu know NVidia closed source drivers are evil and their drivers
should be spurned. I heard it here in COLA.
-- Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[Ezekiel]

"Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
news:k71bo5$dhj$1...@dont-email.me...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hadron wrote:
>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
>> solution.
>
> POP is better than IMAP when:
> - - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;

Lame. It's the equivalent of saying that horse-meat is better than steak if
there's no steak. It doesn't address the protocol at all - just some
inferior ISP that doesn't support it.

> - - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;

There's nothing about IMAP that prevents you from moving mail.

> - - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;

Again, also possible with IMAP. This is more of a client function than
something that's inherent in the IMAP or POP3 protocol.

> - - Using slow connections.

Depends completely on the usage case. I can easily come up with a scenario
where IMAP outperforms POP on a slow connection and vice-versa. If anything
in the general sense the OPPOSITE is true. Read the explanation that the
computer-science dept at the University of Arizona says about this:

<quote>
IMAP protocol advantages:
-Constructs to permit online performance optimization, especially over
low-speed links.

IMAP has constructs to permit online performance optimization, especially
over low-speed links. These include the ability to fetch the structure of a
message without downloading it, to selectively fetch individual message
parts, and the ability to use the server for searching in order to minimize
data transfer between client and server.
Especially when connecting to a mail server via low-bandwidth lines, it is
useful to be able to defer transferring messages or parts of messages that
are not of immediate interest until a more propitious time. With multimedia
or multipart MIME messages, transferring selected parts of a message can be
a huge advantage, as when one is in a hotel room and has just received a
short text message with a 10MB video clip attached. Efficient processing of
MIME messages is a significant advantage of IMAP over POP. (MIME stands for
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions. It is the Internet standard method
for sending arbitrary files as attachments to SMTP and RFC-822 compatible
Internet mail messages.)
</quote>
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/computing/email/imap-pop.html

[Ezekiel]

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:201211030...@usenet.drumscum.be...

Agreed. It's the relevance of POP and the benefits of POP compared to IMAP.

Here's some good information from the University of Arizona Comp-Sci dept
that compares the two. The advantages of POP are essentially none.

<quote>
With that background, here is a brief comparison of POP and IMAP
technologies:

** Characteristics common to both POP and IMAP:
-Both can support offline operation.
-Mail is delivered to a shared, "always up" mail server.
-New mail accessible from a variety of client platform types.
-New mail accessible from anywhere in network.
-Protocols are open; defined by Internet RFCs.
-Freely available implementations (including source) available.
-Clients available for PCs, Macs, and Unix.
-Commercial implementations available.
-Internet oriented; no SMTP mail gateways required.
-Protocols deal with access only; both rely on SMTP to send.
-Both support persistent message IDs (for disconnected operation).

** POP protocol advantages:
-Simpler protocol; easier to implement.
-More client software currently available.

** IMAP protocol advantages:
-Can manipulate persistent message status flags.
-Can store messages as well as fetch them.
-Can access and manage multiple mailboxes.
-Can support concurrent updates and access to shared mailboxes.
-Suitable for accessing non-email data; e.g., NetNews, documents.
-Can also use offline paradigm, for minimum connect time and disk use.
-Companion protocol defined for user configuration management (IMSP).

-Constructs to permit online performance optimization, especially over
low-speed links.

</quote>
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/computing/email/imap-pop.html

> With that out of the way, I say that POP is still very relevant. Yes,
> you can keep mails locally when using IMAP, but the main use case for
> IMAP is roaming access, where the mail use case for POP is local
> access. And that's exactly how I use both tools. As such I cannot
> agree with your position that POP is obsolete.
>

It's not obsolete if some crappy ISP doesn't support it and someone is
forced to use it. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the protocol
and is merely an indication of a bad ISP.

Technically there's nothing that POP can do that IMAP can't. POP is a very
simple and basic protocol and IMAP is a super-set of that protocol. There
are features and capabilities that IMAP has that POP doesn't but not
vice-versa.

> It's absolutely great to have fetchmail running as a daemon and have
> it pull in the emails from all my accounts locally into a local
> mailbox archive automatically, 24/7. I rarely use that archive, but it
> gives me piece of mind that it is there.

And the messages can be downloaded locally either via POP or IMAP. It's no
reason why the download can only be done with POP. One thing that's better
about IMAP is that POP is a "polling protocol" that needs to connect, check
if mail is available, then disconnect. IMAP can be configured to also poll
if you want it to but the most common usage is to keep a connection open to
the mail server and it'll get notified in real-time if there's new mail
available.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ezekiel wrote:
> "Lusotec" wrote

>> Hadron wrote:
>>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
>>> solution.
>>
>> POP is better than IMAP when:
>> - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;
> Lame. It's the equivalent of saying that horse-meat is better than steak
> if there's no steak. It doesn't address the protocol at all - just some
> inferior ISP that doesn't support it.

What is lame is to think that IMAP is better than POP in cases where IMAP is
not even supported.

>> - - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;
>
> There's nothing about IMAP that prevents you from moving mail.

I never wrote otherwise. What I wrote is that POP is better than IMAP for
this use case.

>> - - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;
> Again, also possible with IMAP. This is more of a client function than
> something that's inherent in the IMAP or POP3 protocol.

Yes, it is possible with IMAP (again, never wrote otherwise) but POP is
better for doing it.

>> - - Using slow connections.
> Depends completely on the usage case.

True. I was actually thinking of my personal case.

> I can easily come up with a scenario where IMAP outperforms POP on a slow
> connection and vice-versa. If anything in the general sense the OPPOSITE
> is true.

For many small messages (the usual case for me), using POP to transfer all
the messages is faster than using IMAP (either by transferring all the
messages or on request).

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlCVnsIACgkQGQjO2ccW76ogxwD/Rj0c2kcPhhuBKLsAqSQZ4lFu
/RshS8LLpKPyaVMCa5oA/R/MCGQ24n1Fz0iolcjnRBK/Td+jhWbDtucgjV6FtMkQ
=+8BO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Hadron]

"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
> news:k71bo5$dhj$1...@dont-email.me...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the better
>>> solution.
>>
>> POP is better than IMAP when:
>> - - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;
> Lame. It's the equivalent of saying that horse-meat is better than steak if
> there's no steak. It doesn't address the protocol at all - just some
> inferior ISP that doesn't support it.

Its the equivalent of Gortard's definition of a "PC" ... LOL.

Only Telnet Porter comes close to idiocy as Gortard.

[Ezekiel]

"Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message

news:k746s2$l9b$1...@dont-email.me...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Lusotec" wrote
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> I can think of NO reason to use POP over IMAP. IMAP is easily the
>>>> better
>>>> solution.
>>>
>>> POP is better than IMAP when:
>>> - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;
>> Lame. It's the equivalent of saying that horse-meat is better than steak
>> if there's no steak. It doesn't address the protocol at all - just some
>> inferior ISP that doesn't support it.
>
> What is lame is to think that IMAP is better than POP in cases where IMAP
> is
> not even supported.

IMAP is still better than POP. Because some ISP doesn't support it doesn't
change the benefits of the actual protocol.

>>> - - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;
>>
>> There's nothing about IMAP that prevents you from moving mail.
>
> I never wrote otherwise. What I wrote is that POP is better than IMAP for
> this use case.
>

You also wrote that it's more bandwidth efficient (the part you conveniently
snipped) but that wasn't accurate either. This "POP is better" is another
claim that you've provided no evidence or support for.

>>> - - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;
>> Again, also possible with IMAP. This is more of a client function than
>> something that's inherent in the IMAP or POP3 protocol.
>
> Yes, it is possible with IMAP (again, never wrote otherwise) but POP is
> better for doing it.
>

Again - you say "Pop is better" but you have not backed up your claim at
all. Here's a link from a Comp-Sci department at a University that lists the
advantages and disadvantages of both protocols. (With the details in the
article). Note the lack of benefits of POP and the many benefits of IMAP.
The two (2) benefits of POP actually have nothing to do with the protocoll
itself - "easier to implement" (read - because it's more limited and thereby
simpler) and "more client software" which is related to the first benefit
but is rarely the case these days.

-Constructs to permit online performance optimization, especially over
low-speed links.

</quote>
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/computing/email/imap-pop.html

>>> - - Using slow connections.
>> Depends completely on the usage case.
>
> True. I was actually thinking of my personal case.
>

Your sample of one doesn't make it true in the general case.

>> I can easily come up with a scenario where IMAP outperforms POP on a slow
>> connection and vice-versa. If anything in the general sense the OPPOSITE
>> is true.
>
> For many small messages (the usual case for me), using POP to transfer all
> the messages is faster than using IMAP (either by transferring all the
> messages or on request).
>

Your specific sample of one doesn't make it true. If you had originally
written "for my specific case..." but instead you made a general statement
that POP is better than IMAP.

<quote>

POP is better than IMAP when:

- - POP is supported but IMAP isn't;

- - Moving emails instead of just accessing it;

- - Aggregating emails from multiple email accounts in to one;

- - Using slow connections.

</quote>


The above link ends with this summary:
<quote>
Because there are freely available IMAP development libraries, its
additional complexity over POP should not be a significant barrier to use.
Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that the only advantage of POP over
IMAP is that there is currently more POP software available.

*** However, this is changing rapidly, and IMAP's functional advantages over
POP are nothing less than overwhelming.***

POP3 is defined in RFC-1725 and IMAP4 is defined in RFC-1730.

</quote>

[TomB]

On 2012-11-03, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:

8<

> Technically there's nothing that POP can do that IMAP can't. POP is
> a very simple and basic protocol and IMAP is a super-set of that
> protocol. There are features and capabilities that IMAP has that POP
> doesn't but not vice-versa.

Yes, POP is the simpler protocol, and that is exactly why I prefer it
to do simple stuff.

Yes, I could do it with IMAP too, but I don't /need/ IMAP to do it.
That's about the reasoning.

8<

> And the messages can be downloaded locally either via POP or IMAP.
> It's no reason why the download can only be done with POP. One thing
> that's better about IMAP is that POP is a "polling protocol" that
> needs to connect, check if mail is available, then disconnect. IMAP
> can be configured to also poll if you want it to but the most common
> usage is to keep a connection open to the mail server and it'll get
> notified in real-time if there's new mail available.

I never have been a fan of the "always on" approach for email and
communication in general. Even with IMAP I just use the polling
approach at a 15 minute interval.

This brings us to a completely different side-topic, that of email
being considered as "immediate" communication nowadays. The problem is
that it isn't, and that it probably never will be. It just was never
designed that way.

In case of problems, email relay servers typically keep submitted
messages queued for several *days* before a delivery failure is
generated. This alone is reason enough to never consider email as
"immediate" communication.

Also, with IMAP's "pseudo push" mechanism (ie. the idle connection you
mention), network time-outs (gateway, IMAP server, intermittent
connection loss...) can delay delivery of messages significantly.

[Ezekiel]

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:201211040...@usenet.drumscum.be...

> On 2012-11-03, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>
> 8<
>
>> Technically there's nothing that POP can do that IMAP can't. POP is
>> a very simple and basic protocol and IMAP is a super-set of that
>> protocol. There are features and capabilities that IMAP has that POP
>> doesn't but not vice-versa.
>
> Yes, POP is the simpler protocol, and that is exactly why I prefer it
> to do simple stuff.
>

Unless you're writing the actual code/implementation you're not the one who
has to deal with the protocol level details. Most likely you're going to use
something like a command-line-utility like 'mail' (man mail(1)) or simply
calling a Python class. The easy/difficulty of the underlying protocol is
going to be hidden from you.

Years ago (I looked at the file dates and scared myself) I wrote some mail
protocol classes. The underlying C++ mail classes were wrapped in a COM
object so they could easily be scripted or automated. (The class interface
is at the end of this post) - But to use the class for pop mail access the
user would simply script it like this:

var pop = new Object("MailUtils.Pop3Client");

if (pop.Connect("mail.myserver.com", "MyUserName", "SecretPassword")){

var numEmails = pop.MessageCount();
for(i=0; i<inumEmails; i++){
var emailmsg = pop.GetPopMessage(i); // Get the message[i] object

if(emailmsg.IsSpam()){
....
emailmsg.DeleteMessage();
}
else{
var name = emailmsg.GetFromName());
var subj = emailmsg.GetSubject());
....
}
} // for(numEMails)
}

The user never sees how difficult or easy the underlying protocol is. In
this case it's a POP automation object but I also wrote an IMAP client that
has essentially the same interface. The difference being when the mail
object is created it's a "MailUtils.ImapClient" object that would get
created instead of a "MailUtils.Pop3Client".

> Yes, I could do it with IMAP too, but I don't /need/ IMAP to do it.
> That's about the reasoning.
>
> 8<
>

Okay, to each his own.

>
> I never have been a fan of the "always on" approach for email and
> communication in general. Even with IMAP I just use the polling
> approach at a 15 minute interval.
>

I have a script on my server that monitors my various email accounts and my
wife's email account. The purpose of the script is to delete spam before it
reaches the inbox. Originally it would poll every 20-minutes and check the
incoming mail. This worked but the problem was that the spam could sit in
the inbox for up to 19-minutes before the script ran and deleted it. So my
phone would beep telling me there's email which was spam. A few years back
(when I got a smartphone) I converted the server to use IMAP so the script
would wake-up immediately when the message was available and delete spam in
real-time.

> This brings us to a completely different side-topic, that of email
> being considered as "immediate" communication nowadays. The problem is
> that it isn't, and that it probably never will be. It just was never
> designed that way.

True. In most cases mail gets delivered almost immediately and it's easy for
people to assume that it's an immediate protocol. But every once in a while
I see a long delay in the delivery time but that's fairly rare these days.
But there's no guarantee of when mail will get delivered.

>
> In case of problems, email relay servers typically keep submitted
> messages queued for several *days* before a delivery failure is
> generated. This alone is reason enough to never consider email as
> "immediate" communication.

Above I was talking about delivery to a valid recipient. But in the delivery
error case I see a massive variety. Sometimes I get the message back
immediately usually if the email address is invalid. But other times I'll
get the delivery failure back several days after I've sent the email.

> Also, with IMAP's "pseudo push" mechanism (ie. the idle connection you
> mention), network time-outs (gateway, IMAP server, intermittent
> connection loss...) can delay delivery of messages significantly.

When I implemented the IMAP library 'back in the day' I found the error
checking and handling the most difficult part of the protocol. There are a
lot of different network errors that can happen and it's a balancing act
between how much of this I want to handle (and hide) down in my
implementation and how much I need to return back to the client.

For example - if a network connection times out do I immediately return an
error to the client and force them to have to deal with it. Or does my code
try and do 'the right thing' and handle the error immediately and only
return an error if it's a catastrophic failure. It's a balancing act between
how much detail/fine-control I give the client and how much of this I handle
down in my code which makes life easier for the client but hides details and
removes some of the control from the client.

One of the reasons it's was difficult handling the various error cases is
that they're generally hard to test and simulate. Something simple like
failing to connect to a server are easy:
client.Connect("no-such-server-xyz.com"...) and stuff like dealing with the
wrong user credentials is easy. But stuff like network connections timing
out, connections dropping in the middle of a mail message, etc are much more
difficult to simulate/test to make sure that the error handling is doing the
right thing.

Anyhow - here's the class interface for the POP client that I implemented
years back. The IMAP client is nearly identical except it's a super-set and
has more interface methods than this. FYI - I commented out the GUIDS for
the object IDs (xxxxxx-43EE-xxxx) because it's a unique GUI and this library
is actually out in the wild. It makes this potentially very identifiable.


// -------------------------------------------------------------
// Interfaces
// -------------------------------------------------------------
[
object,
uuid(xxxxxxxxx-43EE-4808-8848-xxxxxxxxxxxx),
dual,
nonextensible,
helpstring("IPop3Client Interface"),
pointer_default(unique)
]
interface IPop3Client : IDispatch{
[id(1), helpstring("method Connect")] HRESULT Connect([in] BSTR
i_szServer,
[in] BSTR i_szUserName,
[in] BSTR i_szPassword,
[out, retval] BOOL* o_pBool);
[id(2), helpstring("method GetError")] HRESULT GetError([out,retval] BSTR*
o_szError);
[id(3), helpstring("method AddFilter")] HRESULT AddFilter([in] BSTR
i_szName);
[id(4), helpstring("method MessageCount")] HRESULT
MessageCount([out,retval] LONG* o_cntMessages);
[id(5), helpstring("method Quit")] HRESULT Quit([out, retval] BOOL*
o_pBool);
[id(6), helpstring("method GetPopMessage")] HRESULT GetPopMessage(LONG
i_MsgIndex, [out,retval] IPop3Msg** o_pIMsg);
};


[
object,
uuid(xxxxxxxxx-48E8-437D-A5A9-xxxxxxxxxxxx),
dual,
nonextensible,
helpstring("IPop3Msg Interface"),
pointer_default(unique)
]
interface IPop3Msg : IDispatch{
[id(1), helpstring("method DeleteMessage")] HRESULT
DeleteMessage([out,retval] BOOL* o_pStatus);
[id(2), helpstring("method WasCheckedForSpam")] HRESULT
WasCheckedForSpam([out,retval] BOOL* o_pStatus);
[id(3), helpstring("method IsSpam")] HRESULT IsSpam([out,retval] BOOL*
o_pStatus);
[id(4), helpstring("method GetSpamLevel")] HRESULT
GetSpamLevel([out,retval] LONG* o_pSpamLevel);
[id(5), helpstring("method GetScore")] HRESULT GetScore([out,retval]
DOUBLE* o_pScore);
[id(6), helpstring("method GetTo")] HRESULT GetTo([out,retval] BSTR*
o_pVal);
[id(7), helpstring("method GetFrom")] HRESULT GetFrom([out,retval] BSTR*
o_pVal);
[id(8), helpstring("method GetDate")] HRESULT GetDate([out,retval] BSTR*
o_pVal);
[id(9), helpstring("method GetFromEmail")] HRESULT
GetFromEmail([out,retval] BSTR* o_pVal);
[id(10), helpstring("method GetFromName")] HRESULT
GetFromName([out,retval] BSTR* o_pVal);
[id(11), helpstring("method GetSubject")] HRESULT GetSubject([out,retval]
BSTR* o_pVal);
[id(12), helpstring("method GetUserAgent")] HRESULT
GetUserAgent([out,retval] BSTR* o_pVal);
[id(13), helpstring("method GetSpamStatus")] HRESULT
GetSpamStatus([out,retval] BSTR* o_pVal);
};

[Lloyd]

It has been fun reading all the frothing about POP and why it is
good/bad/indifferent.

But the the Windows 8 mail app not supporting POP shouldn't even be much
of a discussion. Have any of you actually seen that app? It is the
single most simplistic email app I've ever seen.

I can't actually imagine anyone using it for email at all.

Well, I guess I can imagine those that don't use email much might find
it good enough.