Outlook Push Mail

[Jim S]

I feel sure that Outlook app for android used push mail for my IMAP
accounts, but now it seems to poll at half hour intervals. Or so it
seems.

--
Jim S

[Mayayana]

"Jim S" <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote

|
| I feel sure that Outlook app for android used push mail for my IMAP
| accounts, but now it seems to poll at half hour intervals. Or so it
| seems.
|

True "push" would mean Microsoft has inbound access
to your device, like the way remote desktop works. Why
would you want that?

Most of what's called push is
actually not. For instance, the Mozillians added push
to Firefox, but it's really just a polling function. Or rather,
one version keeps a hidden connection open with javascript
running, while another involves invisibly polling a website.
Wouldn't it be safer and more desirable to just have Outlook
poll more often? (Or if this is for a fire station that needs to
be reachable quickly, then you might want to also have a
phone number. Email was never meant to be instant messaging. :)

[Jim S]

In article <rs28f4$fe8$1...@dont-email.me>, maya...@invalid.nospam says...

What you say is true, but I see no way of changing the polling interval.

I like to have emails arrive asap from the time sent.
I have installed Edison Email which seems to do just that, but it has
other failings.

It may be hard for you to believe, but I have friends (mainly 'getting
on a bit') who are happy to use email, but balk at messaging and god-
forbid they should speak out loud about Facebook Messenger. ;-)
So, they are stuck with email and since they are probably on payg then
actually telephoning is another no, no.

--
Jim S

[Calum]

On 24/12/2020 14:26, Mayayana wrote:

> True "push" would mean Microsoft has inbound access
> to your device, like the way remote desktop works.

Very unlikely. Nearly all third-party applications use Google's Firebase
servers (and prior to that, their GCM servers) to send push
notifications, there is no direct connection to the third party's
servers required.

[VanguardLH]

Some IMAP providers support Push, some don't. You don't mention if it
is the same account that stopped using Push and now uses polling, or if
it is different IMAP providers where one support Push and the other does
not. Not many IMAP providers support Push-IMAP (P-IMAP), but more
support IMAP IDLE (RFC 2177). In fact, IMAP IDLE is required for P-IMAP
to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAP_IDLE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-IMAP

To see if an e-mail provider support IMAP IDLE or its superset of
Push-IMAP, connect to the server in a command shell.

telnet <hostname> <port>

Their site will say which port to use. Once connected, the server will
return a keyword list showing which features it supports.

For example, I used:

telnet mail.comcast.net 143

and the server returned:

* OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE IDLE
LITERAL+ STARTTLS LOGINDISABLED] Dovecot ready.

Enter the quit command to exit the telnet program. They're using the
Devot server program. "OK" is the status (i.e., you connected to their
server, and the server acknowledged). Notice "IDLE" is listed as a
supported IMAP protocol (it is listed as a capability). So, I know
their server supports IMAP IDLE, but don't know if it also supports
P-IMAP; however, I don't know if an IMAP server's keywords included more
than "IDLE" (i.e., I don't know that they identify "PIMAP" as a
keyword). What does your server report?

IMAP IDLE is not strictly a Push model as it still requires an active
IMAP connection between client and server and only then can the server
notify the client there is a newly arrived message. If the
client-server connection is lost, the server can no longer identify a
new message is available (which the client must still retrieve, so it is
still a Pull instead of a Push). Upon losing the IMAP session, it is up
to the client to reestablish an IMAP session to renew the ability to get
notified of new messages upon which the client then retrieves them.
Servers may expire inactive sessions (no transactions with client), the
server logs off the client, and so clients should expect to reestablish
the IMAP session, like after 29 minutes.

Push IMAP isn't that standardized yet. Yahoo Mail uses its own P-IMAP
scheme uses a special (custom) UDP message to trigger an e-mail sync at
the client while Apple's iCloud uses a variant of XMPP (a chat
protocol). Gmail uses Google's Cloud Messaging. What is P-IMAP is a
mess. You probably meant IMAP IDLE.

If your connection (and hence the e-mail session) between your client
and server gets interrupted, IMAP IDLE ceases to work until your client
reestablishes its next IMAP session, and that may not be until it is
scheduled to perform the next e-mail poll. If you're not getting new
messages within an expiration interval, the persistent connection is
considered abusive. You don't have any new messages to retrieve for an
excessively long time. You didn't mention your volume or reception rate
of e-mails to determine if you qualify for a persistent connection for
IDLE to work.

[VanguardLH]

Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:

> I see no way of changing the polling interval.

One of the many "advantages" of using crippled e-mail clients under
Android. They don't have a much code, and less code means less
functions, including configurability. There are a LOT of features
missing in the Android version of Outlook than in the desktop version of
Outlook. For example, you see any way to define client-side rules in
Android Outlook? You'll have to define those server-side.

Used to be programs were also called applications on desktops. Then
mobile platforms adopted the "apps" term for underwhelming applications.
So, programs are now used for applications on desktop PC while apps
means much smaller applications on mobile platforms. Now we have to use
programs for desktops and apps for mobile devices to differentiate the
robustness of features (or lack thereof).

From what I've found online, the polling interval (POP or IMAP) is
hardcoded as 30 minutes. Well, that sounds similar to the typical
29-minute persistent connection timeout mentioned in my other reply when
it has been inactive for that long. If you aren't getting new e-mails
in under 30-minute intervals, the app will reestablish an IMAP session
at its next polling interval upon which IDLE will start to work, but
until your session times out with the server again. Persistent
connections are expensive. Every server has a maximum number of
resources to allot to all users, and that includes persistent
connections for IDLE to work.

[VanguardLH]

VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

> From what I've found online, the polling interval (POP or IMAP) is
> hardcoded as 30 minutes. Well, that sounds similar to the typical
> 29-minute persistent connection timeout mentioned in my other reply when
> it has been inactive for that long. If you aren't getting new e-mails
> in under 30-minute intervals, the app will reestablish an IMAP session
> at its next polling interval upon which IDLE will start to work, but
> until your session times out with the server again. Persistent
> connections are expensive. Every server has a maximum number of
> resources to allot to all users, and that includes persistent
> connections for IDLE to work.

Oooh, oooh, oooh, I found something. Go into the Android's settings and
look at the account settings. For me, that's Settings -> General ->
Accounts. Find and click on the account, like the one for your IMAP
account. Click on Account Settings. Now you see several accounts
listed, so you have to pick your IMAP account again. There should be a
Sync Frequency setting. The choices, for me, are:

Never
Every 15 minutes
Every 30 minutes
Every hour

So, there you can configure how often an IMAP poll is performed for that
account. A shorter polling interval means your client reconnects to
establish a new mail session which will survive the inactivity timeout
during which it can use IMAP IDLE.

[Mayayana]

"Calum" <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote

|
| Very unlikely. Nearly all third-party applications use Google's Firebase
| servers

Thanks. I didn't know about that. Very creepy.

[Mayayana]

"Jim S" <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote

| It may be hard for you to believe, but I have friends (mainly 'getting
| on a bit') who are happy to use email, but balk at messaging and god-
| forbid they should speak out loud about Facebook Messenger. ;-)

:) No suprise to me. I've never used any kind of
messenger program, don't use social media, and
only have a cellphone to make occasional calls,
when necessary, away from home. I keep it in
my truck, turned off. It's a Tracphone. I buy
minutes for $20 every 3 months. I use it so seldom
that I have over 3,000 minutes saved up.

I can't imagine going for a walk and allowing myself
to be interrupted by a call or message. Once you
do that, time and space become an unaffordable
luxury. Doctors and drug dealers have to be available
24/7. I don't. So I use email and a landline phone.

[VanguardLH]

The other problem with chatting and texting is that senders devolve into
abbreviations or acronyms that they know but require deciphering by the
recipient. Even if the recipient knows the common abbreviations, they
have to decrypt and expand them during reading which slows the reading
speed. E-mail often pushes senders to be more legible in what they
write. Alas, those engrained with texting still do the same shit in the
messages they send by e-mail. You can see the difference between those
that learned to write and apply it when composing e-mail, and kiddies
that never learned to write, became accustomed to abbreviations in
texting, don't apply punctuation, and generally are very sloppy at
writing messages -- because they don't write messages, but instead puke
out blurbs. When chatting or texting, seems like most senders (to me)
have the writing skills of a 5-year old.

Maybe the old farts prefer decent structure to a message that makes it
legible not just to them but also to anyone. They speak and read. They
don't understand mush mouths or mush writers, and aren't interested in
acquiring language skills in something that isn't a language.

Besides, what cannot be written in an e-mail message that could not
encompass what is written in a text or chat window? Those venues
provide instant communication, but that impels many senders to be sloppy
just so they can reply immediately. E-mail slows them down and tends to
make them cogitate before sending. With IMAP IDLE, Exchange, or Gmail
API used in e-mail clients, communication is just as immediate but just
not quite instantaneous. Most talkers don't engage their brain before
moving their lips and tongue. Tis why many add 'ums', 'ahs', 'ands',
and other interjections while speaking, because they are adding a pause
to figure out what next to say. They don't know where they're going.

Texting destroyed the ability for many to write well, as did chatting.
Puke out something fast instead of something good. A case where
technology was detrimental.

[Jim S]

Getting back to my original theme.
I want/need to 'chat' by email and Outlook doesn't do it.

Edison Mail seems to be fairly instantaneous , but it seems to collect
the addresses of spam emails.
I have just found that Samsung Email does too, but it's a bit clunky
handling images.
A pity, because I quite like Outlook, both desktop and android.

--
Jim S

[VanguardLH]

Chat (messaging) clients and e-mail clients have different paradigms.
You'll be disappointed using the wrong one.

Did you check if your e-mail provider's IMAP server supports IDLE?

[Jim S]

In article <zvjgwf0e...@v.nguard.lh>, V...@nguard.LH says...

Thanks V
I think I'm OK now. Edison, Samsung, K9 and myMail all show promise.
I shall just play for a while :)

--
Jim S

[Bob Martin]

Google "Instant Messaging".

[Jim S]

In article <i4o6ge...@mid.individual.net>, bob.m...@excite.com
says...

That's fine, but as I said sometime back, not everybody has the app or
the ability. Most can use the built-in 'messages' app, but not how to
chat with more than one person at a time. I would like to to use
WhatsApp, but not all my friends have it installed. Many, but not all,
of my friends have Facebook Messenger. ALL of my contacts have an email
app of some sort and know how to email more than one person at a time
although I would prefer they used BCC more often.
Having said all this, it started as 'Outlook Push Mail' and I've ended
up concluding that there are 'better' clients at doing that.
However at the end of the day I will get the 'pushed' mail, but lord
knows what/when the person at the other will get my reply :)

--
Jim S