[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: rampant offtopic and offensive posts to debian-user

On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:43:08PM +0000, Tyler Smith wrote:
> On 2007-05-19, Roberto C  Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:51:51PM -0400, Amy Templeton wrote:
> >>=20
> >> If somebody's current provider provides only
> >> POP, should they be forced to switch to another provider just for
> >> the privilege of being on this list?
> >>=20
> >
> > IMAP is better by many measures.  However, if you do not require access
> > to your mail from multiple computers or multiple mail clients, then POP
> > is perfectly fine.
> I think you missed Amy's point. It's great that there are

No, you *clearly* missed my point.  I was specifically addressing the
technical aspects of IMAP vs POP from a user point of view.  That is why
I changed the subject like so:

 efficient retrieval of POP mail [WAS: Re: rampant offtopic and
 offensive posts to debian-user]

Of course, you conveniently changed it back!

The point that I was trying to make was that someone who is stuck with
(for whatever reason) a provider who provides POP and does not provide
IMAP need not despair, as there are technical solutions which allow POP
users to gain some of the same benefits which IMAP users enjoy.

I even changed the subject to line to indicate the new direction of the

> technical solutions to the OT problem. However, if we take that as
> license to continue posting messages that are far, far removed from
> the world of Debian, we are going to lose two very important groups of
> users.
Well, you seem to be the one taking my posting which was very Debian
related (i.e., suggesting a package which can improve the experience of
a user stiuck with POP mail service) and claiming that I am somehow
taking that as a license to continue posting OT.  Of course, you will
notice that the OT threads have almost completely died out now and that
I am no longer participating.


Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: