[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MS vs. pop and imap (alternate response)

2004-06-11 07:07:58

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Dave Crocker wrote:

TF> My annotations above apply to this scenario. In this case the client may
TF> use sieve to direct POPped messages to different mailboxes.

Sieve is used between what 2 entities?  It sounds as if it is inside
pc1, so I'm not sure how that uses a protocol standard like sieve,
unless you have the sieve result in multiple pop sessions, one for
each mailbox.

Sieve may be used by the POP client on pc1 to direct POPped messages to
different mailboxes on the PC. This is an alternative to the server-side
use of Sieve by the MDA for directing incoming (LMTP) messages to various
mailboxes in the message store for access via IMAP. In our installation
POP users can only access their inbox, so server-side filtering is not
very useful for them. Server-side Sieve does not involve interaction with
the MUA, except perhaps for changes to the script which may be made using
the MANAGESIEVE protocol (as documented in an expired Internet-Draft).

Going back to the discussion about the difference between the MTA queue
and the message store (which I believe is a useful distinction to make) I
should probably point out that there is the occasional installation that
does not make this distinction. Demon (the UK ISP) has a rather odd email
system which is designed to deliver email to customers over SMTP. Delivery
is automatically triggered when the user dials in, which is safe in this
case because each user has their own IP address. A facility for fetching
email with POP was added to this existing system, so it works by pulling
the messages out of the MTA's queue. This eccentric setup is a result of
SMTP and POP3 being alternatives, which isn't true in most places or
according to the usual Internet email architecture.

Tony Finch  <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>