Talk:Post Office Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Clean up text

Suggest changing "have been thoroughly made obsolete" to "have been made thoroughly obsolete."

What the fuck is the point with the hash string instead of a clear text value as a password in the example. It just confuse users to belive that the stupid hash string you guys have written there is needed for pop3, and as far as i know that is not the case....

[edit] Page move

For consistency with most of the other internet protocols (IMAP, SMTP, IRC, etc.) where the real article has the spelled out name and the acronym is the redirect, I propose we move this article to Post Office Protocol (now the redirect) and redirect POP3 to this article. If there's no feedback in roughly a week, I'll post to wikipedia:requested moves. -- Rick Block 23:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(from WP:RM)

[edit] POP3 → Post Office Protocol

  • No comments on week old proposal on talk:POP3. Reason to do this is consistency with other internet protocols, e.g. IMAP4, SMTP, IRC etc., where the acronym is the redirect and the spelled out name is the article. -- Rick Block 17:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If that's the standard used with such protocol acronyms, I would have no objection. —ExplorerCDT 17:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A further reason to move it is that the article encompasses protocols prior to version 3 Richard Taylor 02:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. SMTP, nntp and ftp all redirect to the full protocol name. http doesn't and smtp doesn't, but I don't think that's a reason to ignore the trend. The version number issue seals it, in my opinion.
      • http and smtp need to be fixed then ;-) Add whatever extra content is on their articles to the article with the acronym spelled out. —ExplorerCDT 07:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, particularly because versions other than POP3 are discussed. Jonathunder 17:07, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

[edit] IMAP and ISP

Why do ISP shy away from supporting IMAP? Is the reason technical or political?

Probably some combination of:
  • increased server-side storage requirements (especially for sizeable ISPs)
  • the complexity of the protocol itself, catalyzing buggy and/or incompatibly implementations
  • the complexity and sometimes poor performance of common client and server implementations, even when they do conform to the protocol
The latter two reasons are behind the creation of alternative protocols like SMAP and POP4, though they have yet to gain any significant traction. --Piet Delport 12:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other versions?

[edit] POP4?

Should someone put in a link to the Post office Protocol version 4? http://www.pop4.org/ —the preceding unsigned comment is by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs)

I think a little bit more than just a link would be appropriate. Be bold! -- Rick Block (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I added a brief summary of the additional features. It seems that not much has happened with POP4 so far, but that does not mean that the potential doesn't exist for it to become adopted. --Thoric 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POP2?

There's no mention of POP2 or 1. --WildKard84 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The overview is far to long.

I came to this page just wanting to grab a quick read on what pop3 was, not to read a essay about it. It needs to be sectioned up.

[edit] History?

I am interested in knowing about the history of how POP3 came to be. Could someone please post about that? --Gary King 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References missing

Hello. Some RFCs are mentioned which is good. I added a couple of "noreferences" tags to sections that seem to be lacking a source. It is fine with me to remove or change this tag. I am not a mail scientist, only a user, but I hope this helps. -Susanlesch 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)