[Fot] Test

[John Hasty]

Good  Lord

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 26, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Bill Babcock <ponobill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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