[sylpheed:30326] Re: junk filtering not automatic

Stefaan A Eeckels Stefaan.Eeckels at ecc.lu
Tue Oct 31 23:13:27 JST 2006

Please do not send copies to my address - I read the list, and it is
confusing (to me at least :).

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:41:47 -0500
Seth Kurtzberg <seth at cql.com> wrote:

> 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.

Of course not - that's why there was a smiley.

> 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.

I know. I also never claimed that the IMAP user base is insignificant -
it's just not big enough to register on Hiroyuki's radar, and Colin's
figures substantiate that much better than my assumptions.

> This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether linux users choose

Where did I say that? It was a quip, for crying out loud - and it even
had a smiley for the humor-challenged among us :-)

> 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.

I did not say that - I said that _if_ you use IMAP only to download
your mails to your machine, _then_ it had no advantages over POP3.
> 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.

Which is why I do just that.

> 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.

Yes - but if you're using a server that you do not control, and you
want to access it via IMAP (which has as purpose to leave the mail on
the server), server-side filtering is not optional.

Take care,

As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh 

More information about the Sylpheed mailing list