In article <shmu6l$bit$1...@dont-email.me
>, Graham J
> >> To be honest, I have a mix of POP and IMAP.
> > don't do that. you're not just asking for problems, but begging for it.
> Nonsense. There may be perfectly good reasons for using both.
nonsense right back. pop is obsolete. there is no reason to use pop
anymore, certainly not both.
> IMAP - use where you want a consistent view of emails across more than
> one client device, and the mail server has sufficient storage.
that's only partly correct.
> POP - use ONLY where you want to receive emails on just one client
> device; those emails are ephemeral or you are very diligent about their
> backup from your client, or the mail server has very limited capacity.
that's false. all of that can be done with imap, which is why your
perception of imap is only partly correct.
> An example might be the "free" email account associated with an ISP:
> they probably use it to send their bills to you, and their storage might
> be quite limited. They might also not offer IMAP.
you mean, they might not offer pop anymore and *only* offer imap.
not only that, but many email apps do not support pop anymore either.
> But clearly, if you don't understand this then stick with IMAP and learn
> how your ISP deals with an ever-filling mailbox. No amount of storage
> is sufficient for some users - the ones that never delete or archive any
> emails (which is virtually everybody I've ever met).
you clearly don't understand imap.
first of all, it takes a *lot* of email to fill what an isp offers. for
example, gmail *starts* at 15 gb, with higher amounts available for
second, just about everyone has more than one device, which means at
best, pop will be a significant hassle, but more likely, will not work
properly and mail will be lost.
third, everything pop can do can be done with imap, plus a lot more,
including local storage if someone prefers that.
pop is obsolete.