[jasonjayr]

"Eudora was specifically designed with the idea that standards are a key to successful adoption. Indeed, the rapid acceptance of the Internet is largely due to the standardization process. Published standards are what allow applications from multiple sources to cooperate with each other. Without standards organizations would only be able to use their own applications together, and not those from outside. Also, by allowing diversity of implementations you achieve a much more robust software ecosystem."

- From the "Windows Eudora Architecture.pdf" in the distribution

[bdamm]

This is beautiful. One of the "so obvious it's invisible" truths of the modern age, and I nearly forgot that Eudora and other pioneers of the age were making a somewhat risky choice to only support standard protocols and eschew the proprietary mailers. Most of them are now long dead yet POP3, IMAP, SNMP chug along. At the time, though, it wasn't so clear.

[kps]

Eudora also had (has?) UUCP spool support, for those not yet connected to the Internet. I used it that way originally.

[swasheck]

Wait. SNMP or SMTP? I'm legitimately asking and not being pedantic because I'm genuinely curious.

[eitally]

SMTP.

[tinus_hn]

POP3 is horribly inefficient and SNMP is a security disaster waiting to happen. At least POP3 isn’t widely used anymore.

[wila]

Most likely the post you're replying to meant smtp instear of snmp. Makes more sense for a remark about a mail client. I see this typo more often.

[kps]

Why is POP3 horribly inefficient? Lack of an equivalent to the IMAP COMPRESS extension?

[tinus_hn]

POP3 is only efficient if you download all mail to the client and immediately remove it from the server. But nobody does that, everyone leaves their mail on the server. Then everytime you synchronize the server has to go through all the mail it has to see what you don’t have, which is very inefficient if you have 10000 mails in your inbox, like most people have these days.

It’s optimized for a usecase that doesn’t exist anymore and it will work in the usecase that does exist while wasting a lot of resources. Truly the worst you can have. It’d be better if it didn’t work at all.

[dspillett]

I don't think it is at all fair to call POP3 inefficient on this basis. It is fine if you use it in the way it is intended (and presumably optimised) for. It was designed as a delivery mechanism back when people didn't tend to have permanent connections and space on servers wasn't cheap. Users wanted mail locally for disconnected use and servers wanted rid of it once delivered onward.

Where it is not the right tool for the job, use the tool that is instead (IMAP presumably in this case).

[tinus_hn]

Sure, it’s fine if you need to do something nobody wants. Great.

[Angostura]

> But nobody does that, everyone leaves their mail on the server.

Absolutely not. I have a personal e-mail address which is IMAP and a shared mailbox with my wife which is POP (I don't want my mail read if she reads it). Mail clients are configured to leave mail on the server for 1 month. It's not complicated.

[gkya]

I for one use pop3 and am really content with it. I cannot bear the idea of keeping my personal mails on a remote server. And that of having to use a web interface to configure splitting rules via a web interface, unable to easily version control and undestructibly and easily test.

You seem to have a personal (!) problem with POP3. Why is that? Are you forbidden to use IMAP because of it? Are you forced to implement a POP3 server?

[tinus_hn]

Clearly you’ve never had to do tech support for people that inadvertently chose POP3 because in many systems it’s still the default selection, along with the default behavior of deleting mails from the server as you fetch them.

What do you mean the only copy of all my mail is in some bizarro mail client specific proprietary database? Why can’t I also read my mail on my phone? I dropped my laptop in the toilet and now my mail is gone. Isn’t it on the server? Why can’t I use folders? Don’t you have backups?

No, your mail is gone, because you used a protocol designed for the 90s. It’s a great idea if you have a mail account with 10mb quota and you download your mail to a fixed, reliable workstation and you don’t mind if you lose it all if the disk crashes, it doesn’t happen that often. Not hardly as often as laptops getting stolen, Windows breaking itself and phones going bust.

I’m not sure why I need to have personal problems with your pet protocol to have an opinion on it, especially on one that stinks as much as POP3. It’s obsolete.

[chipotle_coyote]

I have an iMac, a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and an iPhone, and I want to be able to access my email from any of them. POP3 is simply not designed to handle that situation gracefully. If a POP3 client is set to download email and delete it from the server, then the messages get "stuck" on whatever client happened to download it first; if it's set to keep copies of the emails on the server, then it pretty much becomes IMAP. Except stupider, since POP3 doesn't treat "downloaded" and "read" as separate concepts.

While I suspect I'm relatively uncommon in having four devices that I want to be in sync, wanting two or three devices -- computer, phone, and possibly work computer -- to be in sync probably isn't very uncommon at all.

[eesmith]

Whoo-hoo! I'm a nobody!

[kps]

Me too. Nobody uses it (for large values of nobody).

[throwaway76543]

It's fine if it's used to simply pull down mail to a local spool. The inefficiency complaints usually stem from attempting to maintain mail on a remote server across multiple clients. POP3 does not implement a sufficiently rich protocol to make this possible without downloading the entire spool onto each client.

For example, no searching.

[glandium]

No, it's highly inefficient in the face of latency, because there essentially is no batch fetching primitive. Fetching messages over a high latency connection (e.g. to a server on the other side of Earth) takes forever if you have a lot of messages.

[throwaway76543]

That's addressed by pipelining (rfc2449, published back in 1998). No batch primitive is necessary if the request/response sequence isn't serialized.

The lack of a remote manipulation interface has always been a problem, however.

[kome]

Tell that to Gmail people...

Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16830156

[ajross]

Not sure how message expiry is a standards compliance issue. SMTP, MIME and RFC822 et. al. don't say anything about where, how or if the message gets stored once transmitted.

[cat199]

> Not sure how message expiry is a standards compliance issue.

using market-influence to build massive scale expectation for a feature which can't actually be supported by the underlying protocol in an effort to 'embrace and extend' is exactly a standards compliance issue, and precisely what led to microsoft's internet explorer being labeled as an antitrust violation.

[behringer]

One of the commenters on that article wrote:

> Well, I think this works differently. The email just includes a link to a Google webpage with the email. It’s still just an email sitting in your inbox. It doesn’t remove itself automatically.

So it's not a standards issue at all.

[romwell]

It's an abuse of the standard.

The email standard was built so that you can check your email with a client, and view the contents offline at your convenience, archive, back up, etc.

Google's email proposal kills this functionality.

When was the last time I used this, you may ask? On Saturday. I was in one of the slot canyons in Utah with zero signal, and, while taking a break, I wrote several emails in my Opera email client, in response to some messages I've procrastinated writing a response to.

The trickery is that the sender might think they're sending a message over email to the recipient, whereas they are sending the message to Google's servers over an internal protocol, and are sending a link to the message to the recipient over email.

[torstenvl]

How do you distinguish between this and, say, e-cards? Blue Mountain has been sending e-mail links to ephemeral content since at least the early 2000s.

[behringer]

The email standard allows links in emails.

[mirimir]

And some of us don't follow them, for better security.

[ddingus]

You are missing the spirit of the comment.

This is not a matter of can it be done and be standard, but whether it should be.

That's just as important here.

[behringer]

I'm not missing anything. There's nothing wrong with placing links in emails. The link is good, presumably in and out of gmail, and is clearly a gmail feature, not an email feature. There's no problem here.