[opus]

What are the actual benefits of both? As far as I can figure, if you use Pop3 and leave messages on the server, it is the same as IMAP....no?

[|MiNi0n|]

What are the actual benefits of both? As far as I can figure, if you use Pop3 and leave messages on the server, it is the same as IMAP....no?

NO! (Firstly, I apologize here for my absence from this forum lately... my damn company works me *way* too hard... ssssshhhhh bmw).

Again. NO! POP is a wickedly brutal and archaic protocol. Ditch it as fast as you can. IMAP is the way to go for *so* many reasons for which I won't get into now. Just trust that IMAP is what you want and courier-imap is the package you want to use... avoid UW like the plague.

[soup4you2]

IMAP though SSL is the way to go... POP sucks ass!

[frisco]

POP is simple enough i can remember most of the protocol, whereas IMAP is so complex i never bothered trying. But that only matters if nc is your MUA.

IMAP is a more robust protocol and much better in functionality. However, IMAP can consume more resources, so if you're planning a large installation, run tests and tweak performance.

[opus]

Guess I should have prefaced my post:

I currently use IMAP but was wonderfing why. :) My setup is like most, Postfix/Courier-IMAP. ONly reason I knew was that I could have individual folders on the IMAP server instead of on my local machine...which changes often.
Cool...that enlightens me a little bit.