On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:40:08PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote: > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > 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: > > Then you missed the overall point, the human point, of the matter. IMAP > may be better, but for many people, they have a lot more to do than to > continually adapt their systems and deal with downloading headers > first, then deleting, or using other work arounds. The issue of IMAP > vs. POP was yours and yours alone and was a technical point that was in > response to a larger issue. > Actually, Amy Templeton asked whether someone would have to switch to IMAP in order to enjoy those same benefits. In any case, welcome to the "bash Roberto festivities." I hope you enjoy your stay. I guess now I have to start apologizing for posting *on-topic* on top of everything else? > > efficient retrieval of POP mail [WAS: Re: rampant offtopic and > > offensive posts to debian-user] > > > > Of course, you conveniently changed it back! > > No. You sidetracked the discussion then blamed him for sticking with > the original topic. I won't debate you farther on this, since that > will lead to delving into endless details that will keep it going > forever. I'm just making the original point that the discussion was on > dealing with OT posts, not on IMAP vs. POP. The one question cannot be > answered if other points not related to the direct issue keep creating > longer discussions. > Could you go back and read the thread? That is what I did. Amy asked a question. I even changed the subject to indicate that the discussion in that part of the thread was headed elsewhere!!! Are we no longer allowed to take subthreads in different directions if that is where they go? BTW, the original discussion is still going. I did not supporess it or even "sidetrack" it. > > 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. > > And some people don't have time to make all the adjustments. Some of us > have real lives to integrate in with our time doing admin work and > can't spend forever on workarounds to problems that should be handled > in other ways in the first place. > OK. So don't take my advice with regard to optimizing POP access. Feel free to continue to do things as you have in the past. I am not trying to force anyone to do things my way. I was simply offering some useful information. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature