[Fot] Test

[Bill Babcock]

thats interesting, but its not really the protocol that making the
difference, its the way your mail client is using it. The primary difference
between IMAP and POP3 is that POP downloads the entire message to the mail
client as soon as the server recieves it, while IMAP just sends a notification
and header. The POP3 mail can be kept on the server as well or may be deleted
as soon as it is sent.

The way IMAP is supposed to work is that your reader shows you the
notification and summary. You click on whatever you want to read, and the
reader downloads it. The IMAP protocol should actually use less bandwidth
since only email that you actually want to read is downloaded.

The bandwidth issue you are encountering stems from new features in mail
readers that consolidate individual emails into threaded conversations. The
process can be bandwidth-efficient with POP3 since the complete message is
already on your computer, but its cumbersome in IMAP since the archived mail
needs to be scanned and messages combined into threads, which then hides your
newest mail where you cant find it without paging through stuff youve
already read.

Unfortunately most of the usual configuration options to disable this
feature dont really turn it off. They are more like sport mode for ABS.
They make it seem like youre in control, while they do their stupid thing in
the background.

Add to this the wholesale replacement of text email with much larger HTML and
you have a background bandwidth hog. The benefit of substituting POP3 for IMAP
will vary greatly depending on your email reader and what kind of email you
get. If you get a lot of spam or email you dont read then IMAP will be much
more efficient IF your reader doesnt scan to consolidate threads.


On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:01 PM, MadMarx <tr4racing at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Have a look on the statistics in the left column since I did the change
> today:
>
>
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WF4kuJ4NZSs/UuVYQwuPTkI/AAAAAAAACAc/1iO_1
> MhrHAM/w379-h344-no/Aufzeichnen.JPG
>
> Hope the link works.
>
> Cheers
> Chris
>
> -----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Bill Babcock [mailto:ponobill at gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. Januar 2014 23:53
> An: John Hasty
> Cc: MadMarx; <fot at autox.team.net>
> Betreff: Re: [Fot] Test
>
> Allow me, I speak geek.
>
> He said he was experiencing an unexplained increase in internet volume and
> traced some of it to the inefficient way that some mail clients use the
IMAP
> mail protocol whereby they frequently download large volumes of archived
> mail to search for message threads that can be combined. A really stupid
> feature that makes new mail disappear from your inbox and reappear in an
> older mail string as a conversation". He switched to the older and simpler
> POP3 protocol and his volume decreased.
>
> In reality though, it probably wont change things dramatically for Chris.
> His mail client will fight him all the way, trying to make life more
> organized.  I dont know whose stupid idea this is, but they have cost
the
> entire world countless hours of productivity and endless lost mail.
> Nevermind scaling up the requirement for bandwidth.
>
> Alas, there are all kinds of tools weve come to use that gobble bandwidth.
> Location services, push notifications, cloud storage, etc. If you elect to
> use Apples cloud storage for music you can expect a huge increase since
> songs need to be downloaded and buffered over and over. If youre crazy
> enough to store video in the cloud your bandwidth requirements increase
> geometrically.
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 11:41 AM, John Hasty <jhhasty at gdhs.com> wrote:
>
>> Good grief!  What did he just say?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:03 PM, "MadMarx" <tr4racing at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I had a traffic explosion the last 4 year.
>>>
>>> I found the reason.
>>> The Outlook IMAP account did rise that traffic.
>>> Outlook is checking ALL mails stored on the webserver, which in this case
>> is
>>> 45T mails to check.
>>> Outlook is doing that in the background and consumes 60-80 MB/hour.
>>>
>>> I converted the account to a POP account which consumes 0,8MB/hour.
>>>
>>> Quite a difference :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Chris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fot at autox.team.net
>>>
>>> http://www.fot-racing.com
>>>
>>> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>>> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>>> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>>> Unsubscribe/Manage:
>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/jhhasty@gdhs.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> fot at autox.team.net
>>
>> http://www.fot-racing.com
>>
>> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/billb@bnj.com
> _______________________________________________
> fot at autox.team.net
>
> http://www.fot-racing.com
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/billb@bnj.com