[sylpheed:30323] Re: junk filtering not automatic

[Seth Kurtzberg]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:39:01 +0100
Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan.Eeckels at ecc.lu> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:16:07 +0100
> Colin Leroy <colin at colino.net> wrote:
> 
> > Probably about the same order of market share as Linux on the desktop,
> > in other words.
> 
> But surely not all Linux users use IMAP :) - when used simply to
> download messages it has no advantages over POP3. It's only when you
> want to leave (most of) your mail on the server that IMAP starts to
> make sense. And then it makes sense to do the SPAM filtering and virus
> checking _before_ the messages are placed on the IMAP server. 

Let me answer the first misstatement (on the first line) first, and then get to the substantive issue of IMAP.

He said absolutely _nothing_ about what fraction of linux users do, or do not, use IMAP.

His point was that claiming IMAP is insignificant is similar to claiming Linux email clients are insignificant, since the _magnitude_ of the user base is similar.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether linux users choose IMAP.

It's absolutely FALSE to say that IMAP has no advantages.  In fact, unless you receive email with ONLY one machine, ever, IMAP is essential.

Incidentally, sure it makes sense to do SPAM filtering on the server side for IMAP.  It equally makes sens to do SPAM filtering on the server side for POP.  Server side filtering is always preferable.  Many people use a mail server that they do not control, and implementing anything at all on the server side is not an option.  That's why spam filtering on the client side is needed in the first instance.

> 
> I appreciate that some providers (and Universities) don't do this, but
> then why offering IMAP? I'm really interested in understanding this.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> -- 
> Stefaan
> -- 
> As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
> and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh 
>