thunderbird at ~30% cpu
jessejazza3.uk at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 22:52:38 UTC 2012
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Thufir wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:45:29 +0100, James Freer wrote:
>> Just out of interest what are the pros-cons of using pop compared with
> IMAP is **much** better than POP3. Wikipedia is probably the
> authoritative source.
> Basically, POP will (and I'm sure this is a pun) will "pop" from the
> stack of e-mails on the server, and, depending on settings, are generally
> then removed from the server.
> IMAP is a synch. E-mails are stored server side and then the client
> downloads usually a portion of server side e-mails. Several clients can
> synch concurrently.
That's what i thought... i was wondering why Ric used it. Some folk like to
treat email like post through the door... which means using up some of one's
broadband allocation unnecessarily.
I'm still surprised that some providers e.g. yahoo only allow pop. I'm only a
gmail user as they seem to have setup a better provision as providers go.
More information about the ubuntu-users