4 ms·
I liked this approach. For myself I would still prefer it over everything else. However, once everyone rolled out IMAP and deprecated (explicitly or implicitly
by qwerty456127 3y ago
I liked this approach. For myself I would still prefer it over everything else.
However, once everyone rolled out IMAP and deprecated (explicitly or implicitly) POP, why didn't they also deprecate SMTP (for clients) in favour of clients just putting outgoing mail to an Outbox folder over IMAP?
- layer8 3y agoThe clients doing SMTP themselves allows them to communicate sending failures to the user. How would you do that for an email just sitting in an IMAP folder? You’d need to define and integrate some “sending” protocol into IMAP. Furthermore, there are many use cases where clients only send, like notification emails or sending reports. Those use cases would become more complicated if the clients were forced to use IMAP. For one, you wouldn’t want to give all of them access to all email in other folders — or even to emails in the outbox sent by other clients.
- qwerty456127 3y agoMakes sense, thanks. > The clients doing SMTP themselves allows them to communicate sending failures to the user. How would you do that for an email just sitting in an IMAP folder? I would introduce a folder for logs. Also make the server move messages it succesfully sent from Outbox to Sent folder. By the way, I wish the whole email system would have been extended to make it possible to attach (not in the way we attach files, not integrated in the message, only visible to the owner/admin of the mail box where the message is stored, not communicated to other servers/clients) comments to email messages so I would be able to attach my thoughts&tags to a message I received and the server could attach diagnostic data about delivery details.