"Copy mail to <Sent>" with attachements
Martin T.
When Thunderbird copies a sent message to the Sent folder after
delivery (with a large attachment where this is noticeable), this
seems to take as long as sending the message did.
* So, it's copying all the data twice to the server??
If,
* Is this something about Thunderbird, my Mail-Provider or IMAP
itself?
just curious, thanks!
cheers,
Martin
Sam
> Hello.
>
> When Thunderbird copies a sent message to the Sent folder after
> delivery (with a large attachment where this is noticeable), this
> seems to take as long as sending the message did.
> * So, it's copying all the data twice to the server??
Yes.
> If,
> * Is this something about Thunderbird, my Mail-Provider or IMAP
> itself?
IMAP.
IMAP is a protocol for accessing mail from existing mailboxes. IMAP does not
include any facility for sending mail. So, when you're sending mail, your
mail client first has to transmit it via SMTP, then upload a second copy of
the same message to your mailbox's sent-messages folder.
Very wasteful.
Joel Reicher
> Martin T. writes:
>
> > When Thunderbird copies a sent message to the Sent folder after
> > delivery (with a large attachment where this is noticeable), this
> > seems to take as long as sending the message did.
> > * So, it's copying all the data twice to the server??
>
> Yes.
...providing the IMAP server and the outgoing mail (SMTP) server are
the same. They might not be.
> > If,
> > * Is this something about Thunderbird, my Mail-Provider or IMAP
> > itself?
>
> IMAP.
>
> IMAP is a protocol for accessing mail from existing mailboxes. IMAP
> does not include any facility for sending mail. So, when you're
> sending mail, your mail client first has to transmit it via SMTP, then
> upload a second copy of the same message to your mailbox's
> sent-messages folder.
>
> Very wasteful.
If the "Sent" folder is not to be local, what scheme would be better?
Cheers,
- Joel
NM Public
>>
>> IMAP is a protocol for accessing mail from existing mailboxes. IMAP
>> does not include any facility for sending mail. So, when you're
>> sending mail, your mail client first has to transmit it via SMTP, then
>> upload a second copy of the same message to your mailbox's
>> sent-messages folder.
>
The scheme that I prefer is to set up all my email clients to
auto-Bcc my secret-Bcc email address. I've written about why I
think this is better here:
Server-Side Sent Messages
<http://deflexion.com/2006/05/server-side-sent-messages>
Here's an excerpt:
"To store a copy of your sent messages on an IMAP server, you
can set up your messaging client(s) to either 1] use Fcc (folder
courtesy copy); or 2] use Bcc (blind courtesy copy). After years
of experiments, I have decided that #2, the auto-Bcc option, is
what I prefer. Here's why..."
Hope this is useful,
I'm interested in what other people think about this,
Nancy
--
Nancy McGough
Infinite Ink: <http://www.ii.com/>
Bookmarks & Blog: <http://deflexion.com/>
Martin T.
Thanks all for the explanations ... didn't think about that IMAP is
not used to send the mails.
I'll stick with the "wasteful" copy ... not too bandwidth limited at
the moment :-)
The Bcc thing seems to be a very good idea for mobile clients where
bandwidth matters.
cheers!
Martin
Joel Reicher
> Sur 2007-07-03, Joel Reicher e'crit:
> >
> > If the "Sent" folder is not to be local, what scheme would be better?
>
> The scheme that I prefer is to set up all my email clients to auto-Bcc
> my secret-Bcc email address. I've written about why I think this is
> better here:
>
> Server-Side Sent Messages
> <http://deflexion.com/2006/05/server-side-sent-messages>
I agree that a Bcc is better, *providing* that your email client
doesn't send a different copy of the email to Bcc recipients with a
mangled body (some do), and providing some kind server-side filtering
can be set up, which you discuss in your page.
Those two conditions -- particularly the latter -- can't always be
met, so as far as general purpose solutions go IMAP might still come
up "least worst".
Cheers,
- Joel
Mark Crispin
> mail client first has to transmit it via SMTP, then upload a second copy of
> the same message to your mailbox's sent-messages folder.
IMAP clients and servers that support the LEMONADE "trio" of extensions
(URLAUTH and CATENATE in IMAP, BURL in SMTP) do not have this extraneous
upload. The LEMONADE extensions are rather new, and most software does
not support them yet; but this is rapidly changing.
Another possibility, which is available now, is to bcc an address that
delivers directly to the sent-messages mailbox. Many SMTP servers provide
the "+" mechanism to allow direct delivery to a mailbox other than your
INBOX.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Sam
>> So, when you're sending mail, your
>> mail client first has to transmit it via SMTP, then upload a second copy of
>> the same message to your mailbox's sent-messages folder.
>
> IMAP clients and servers that support the LEMONADE "trio" of extensions
> (URLAUTH and CATENATE in IMAP, BURL in SMTP) do not have this extraneous
> upload. The LEMONADE extensions are rather new, and most software does
> not support them yet; but this is rapidly changing.
By "rapidly", how many decades are we talking about?
After all, today we're still waiting for most people to understand what
NAMESPACE is all about.
Mark Crispin
> By "rapidly", how many decades are we talking about?
Mobile devices are the big motivator behind the entire LEMONADE effort;
and it is safe to say that this is where most (if not all) IMAP
development effort exists.
> After all, today we're still waiting for most people to understand what
> NAMESPACE is all about.
Unlike NAMESPACE, there actually is a demand for the LEMONADE work.