[jeff k]

I have two main hosters. I have always been pop, but wanted to test imap. One host seems to have lot issues with my client Entourage 2004. Other does not have these issues. The first host blames Entourage. yet they are a great company, so I'm puzzled as to what up with this. thanks!

[besson3c]

Thanks for what? What are you wanting from us?

If you want us to help with "these issues", you'll need to let us know what those issues are.

[jeff k]

Thanks Besson. I don't like you tone. please do not reply to any of my post again. thanks!

[besson3c]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but blunt. It is useful to understand the most effective and efficient way to ask for help, as people like myself who may be in a good position to be able to help you don't always have the time and energy to probe.

[jeff k]

Anyone out there who has a lot of experience with email- pop vs imap?
Then I'll try to re-ask.

[besson3c]

I do, that's why I was asking for more info.

[AKcrab]

Jeff, besson is probably one of THE BEST qualified to answer your question, but you really have not even begun to explain what your problem is.

[seanc]

besson3c is probably the best person to help you with this issue.
He's right on the button with his first reply: what are you asking us to help you with? You haven't told us what the differences/problems with the two different IMAP providers are.

[jeff k]

Ok, guys thanks. I don't know the differences. I did not know there could be differences. I don't know much about imap. My primary hoster has issues in which they conflict with my spam software. Sometimes folders are not synced correctly. I get error messages. They blame in on the email client, but my other hoster has none of those issues. So I'm perplexed.

[jeff k]

You can jump back in Beeson. these guys love you. But I'm just asking a general question, don't have a lot of specifics. Just wondering my one hoster, a good company, has so many issues with my email client. While another hoster does not.

[besson3c]

What are the error messages? What spam software are you running?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

You can jump back in Beeson. these guys love you.

No, we don't.

We just know he's best qualified to resolve POP/IMAP problems.

[besson3c]

IMAP is much better than POP, but it is also a little more complex. With IMAP all of your mail resides on a mail server, whereas with POP it is downloaded directly to your computer. With IMAP you can access your same mailbox from any computer, you don't have to have a backup of your mail, and a number of features are available that aren't with POP.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No, we don't.

Yes you do, you just haven't realized it yet. Your penis has, but your mind hasn't. My raw sexuality is a little bit overwhelming though.

[jeff k]

Spam Sieve. Had huge issues-- would change the folder to put the spam into on its own. email client is Entourage 2004, message #1025 unknown name space comes up a lot.
I actually had to delete the account because unchecking it -- still brought up error messages and email. Just lot's of instablility. No problem with my pop accounts at all. Just imap.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Spam Sieve. Had huge issues-- would change the folder to put the spam into on its own. email client is Entourage 2004, message #1025 unknown name space comes up a lot.
I actually had to delete the account because unchecking it -- still brought up error messages and email. Just lot's of instablility. No problem with my pop accounts at all. Just imap.

What is your IMAP Path Prefix set as? You can find this setting in the IMAP configuration Advanced Tab -> IMAP Path Prefix..

[jeff k]

Well I already deleted their account. But there was an issue, in which they fixed by putting "inbox" in the root folder field. But again the other hoster did not even have to do that.

It's just a general question I'm asking: why does one hoster have no issues, but another company who is a good company have all these imap issues?

[seanc]

Different servers or different/wrong configurations.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Well I already deleted their account. But there was an issue, in which they fixed by putting "inbox" in the root folder field. But again the other hoster did not even have to do that.

It's just a general question I'm asking: why does one hoster have no issues, but another company who is a good company have all these imap issues?

You're making an apples vs. oranges comparison if your account on the one host was POP and the other on the other host was IMAP. IMAP is far superior to POP in pretty much every way, but it is also more complex.

I would suggest getting your IMAP account working.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Thanks Besson. I don't like you tone. please do not reply to any of my post again. thanks!

You know what, Jeff, maybe one of these days you'll learn to ask questions in a way that would help people to understand what you really need. I told you this before, but you didn't want to hear it.

We can't read your mind, and if we could, we'd probably shoot ourselves.

So, please don't tell me that you don't appreciate this, because I could care less.

-t

[jeff k]

That's why I did not want to respond Besson, Turtle always comes along and criticizes and if you give any rope he does this always.
Seans, please close the thread. thanks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

That's why I did not want to respond Besson, Turtle always comes along and criticizes and if you give any rope he does this always.
Seans, please close the thread. thanks.

Turtle gets surly with people, that's just his shtick/social skills.

[ghporter]

Turtle may not have been overly polite, but his post is accurate. We have no idea what "issues" jeff k is having. Are messages not retrieved? Is outgoing mail not sent? What, specifically is "one server" doing well that the "other server" is not? We cannot answer questions or provide real help when you don't tell us what the actual problem is in the first place.

This thread will NOT be closed by the OP's request.

I have been using Google Mail via IMAP for some time, and it's been very helpful. I can monitor my mail on my iPhone, my iPad, and my desktop computer without any hassles. Google supports IMAP well, and I find it superior overall to POP. Unfortunately, that's the only IMAP service I have experience with, so I can't say this is true across the board. It is important to note that many mail providers use ports other than the standard port for incoming and outgoing mail. That could be part of the problem-if we knew what the actual problem/problems was/were.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It is important to note that many mail providers use ports other than the standard port for incoming and outgoing mail. That could be part of the problem-if we knew what the actual problem/problems was/were.

Not to contradict you, but this is actually not true. The standard IMAP ports are:

Incoming mail:

- 143 (non SSL)
- 993 (SSL)

Outgoing mail:

- 587 (TLS)
- 25 (sometimes also works, usually also via TLS auth)

I think you might be thinking of the port 587/25 thing... Port 25 is set by most clients by default because for sending mail on a local network or something 25 is probably going to be used and it is not a given that 587 will be available. However, for connecting to a remote SMTP server via an email client 587 *is* a common standard, it is just not commonly understood, but it has been in use for years and is widely prevalent.

Since both authentication and encryption is more common than not, the cliff notes is that port 993 for incoming and 587 for outgoing are your best bets for all assumptions.

[ghporter]

While alternate ports are far more common with POP3, IMAP still allows for variations. I've seen mention of some servers (not big name ones) that used nonstandard ports. One (I wish I could remember the name) used alternative ports with the express purpose of "evading mailer bots" or some such rubbish... That was a while ago, but it sure stuck in my head.

I agree with your Cliff's Notes for ports, but I strongly recommend that anyone setting up service read the ISP's setup instructions carefully. You never know when someone is going to throw a curve at you and use SSL but port "999" instead of 993, or expressly NOT use SSL at all...

And again, this is still all theoretical until jeff k tells us what his problems are.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

While alternate ports are far more common with POP3, IMAP still allows for variations. I've seen mention of some servers (not big name ones) that used nonstandard ports. One (I wish I could remember the name) used alternative ports with the express purpose of "evading mailer bots" or some such rubbish... That was a while ago, but it sure stuck in my head.

I agree with your Cliff's Notes for ports, but I strongly recommend that anyone setting up service read the ISP's setup instructions carefully. You never know when someone is going to throw a curve at you and use SSL but port "999" instead of 993, or expressly NOT use SSL at all...

And again, this is still all theoretical until jeff k tells us what his problems are.

I agree that other ports are used, I would just argue that this is uncommon, particularly not requiring some sort of encryption.

[ghporter]

Uncommon, yes. But I don't trust anyone to implement IMAP smart, since it's got plenty of looseness in the standard...see the Wiki article on IMAP for some interesting, if not confidence-building details.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Uncommon, yes. But I don't trust anyone to implement IMAP smart, since it's got plenty of looseness in the standard...see the Wiki article on IMAP for some interesting, if not confidence-building details.

It doesn't have looseness in the standard, it is vendors that make crappy IMAP clients and do funky non RFC-compliant things, OS X/iOS Mail is one of them.

[ghporter]

From the Wiki article...

Originally Posted by Wiki Article

The IMAP specification has been criticised for being insufficiently strict and allowing behaviours that effectively negate its usefulness. For instance, the specification states that each message stored on the server has a "unique id" to allow the clients to identify the messages they have already seen between sessions. However, the specification also allows these UIDs to be invalidated with no restrictions, practically defeating their purpose.

Maybe "looseness" isn't as appropriate as "insufficiently specific in some areas."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

From the Wiki article...
Maybe "looseness" isn't as appropriate as "insufficiently specific in some areas."

But the thing is, it's not up to a spec to enforce strictness, because those who don't want strictness would just ignore this part of the spec in their IMAP implementations. It is up to the clients to be compliant, the spec just outlines what should happen, but it doesn't force the matter.

[ghporter]

A strict specification gives every implementer the same conditions for implementation. A little ambiguity is OK in a limited number of details, but ambiguously handling "unique" message identifiers? The spec for IMAP4 is not as strict as what I think is needed for "compliant" clients to all behave in a predictably similar manner. It's not a big issue, just an observation that makes me feel it necessary to, as I mentioned, read the ISP's setup instructions, just to make sure they didn't slip in something their guru thought was "cool to do."

But again, this is just a nice little conversation between us, not at all addressing the OP's problems, whatever they are.

[jeff k]

Thanks guys, well if the owner cannot figure out why I'm having these issues I sure cannot. He is 100 times more techie than me. It would be very draining to outline them, although I just gave you the gist. Few annoying error messages. He put's the blame on the email client, but another hoster does not have these issues. Just curious if some hosters have a better way with imap. Imap is more complex I guess. The hoster wants me to upgrade to Outlook 2011 which I may do, but I heard that is quite buggy still. I will check out the Google imap one day-- My verizon emails are not supported by imap at all and I heard Google can handle those.

[Cold Warrior]

Outlook 2011 is very good for me. I use it with 3 imap accounts (2 google, 1 other), no issues.

[jeff k]

Cold , good to hear from you. Outlook 2011:
I hear it's still buggy even after service pack 1, not true?
I fails at a basic thing that Entourage 2004 has no problem with. I have several email accounts. When I reply to an email and switch from the drop-down, Outlook, unlike Entourage, does not switch the corresponding signature. Can you test that for me and concur on that? I'm ready to upgrade, but that drives me batty.

Also, how familiar are you with Mail? My spam software developer swears it's better than Outlook.

[Cold Warrior]

It's not buggy for me. I have sp1 installed and Outlook is very stable and quick for me. However, I have a solid state drive, which will make anything quick.

Outlook 2011 lets you set a default signature for each account. So if I click Reply from Account A, it uses account A's signature. Clicking Reply to a message in Account B, it uses B's signature according to my settings.

Office 2011 (which includes Outlook) has a free trial. Microsoft Office for Mac | Office For Mac

If Outlook 2011 doesn't help, at least you can tell your imap host that their advice is incorrect.

You could try Mail. It's free and included with OS X.

[jeff k]

Cold,
What happens when you receive an email in/from account A. Then you decide you want to reply with account B.
You change to account B via the dropdown above.
Does the signature change to B's signature?

Entourage 2004 will do that -- change the signature to B's. Outlook 2011 does not seem to. I have to delete the A signature and manually insert B's.
What do you find?

I have 2011, I bought it, don't use it yet for aforementioned reason and I heard it buggy. But I hope to dive in at some point.

Also, Outlook, with imap, you cannot drag in folders, only emails. I have hundreds of folders from pop days. I've heard Mail imap can accept/ can drag in the folders.
Your opinion on Mail vs Outlook for imap? thanks!

[Cold Warrior]

No, it doesn't auto-change like that.

I can't speak very much to Mail. It always interacted funny with imap: lots of connections, sync problems, connectivity problems. Besson and I share that opinion, I think.

[jeff k]

thanks Cold,
Do you have Entrouage 2004? Why don't you think Outlook will auto change?
I have to delete the old sig, and manually insert new one, annoying no?

I would think Outlook is better too, but the developer of my spam software, tech genius guy, says he thinks Mail is better for imap.

Mail wont even import folders or accounts properly, I've test. But he says it will allow copies of folders to imap accounts which is nice.

[Cold Warrior]

I had entourage '04 years ago, not anymore. For Outlook, I tested it liked you asked, so I know it won't auto-change the signatures.

[jeff k]

Cold,
you most me. Entourage 2004 does do the change do you see that, while Outlook 2011 still does not do it, i.e. if you change your account with drop down.
You are not that familiar with Mail?

[Spheric Harlot]

At least Mail will auto-switch signatures based upon the account you send from.

[jeff k]

S, have you tested Outlook 2011 for this issue, want to know it's not just my account.

[Waragainstsleep]

I've been using Mail for years now. There was a period where it tended to get really annoying by failing dismally to try and send the password properly and kept rejecting legitimate passwords but it seems to have finally gotten over that now. Mail under Snow Leopard is great. I find it very robust and on the few occasions I have had any issue, its much easier to troubleshoot or fiddle with. I used to spend inordinate amounts of time supporting versions of Entourage and it just drove me nuts.

I will also chime in that IMAP is almost infinitely superior to POP3. In this day and age, everyone should be using IMAP, the only reason they don't is because ISPs don't want to look after your mail for you taking up room on their servers.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

S, have you tested Outlook 2011 for this issue, want to know it's not just my account.

I no longer use Office, so I'm afraid I'm of no help, there.

[jeff k]

W,
thanks!
What is/ was better about Mail than Entourage? You have not tested Outlook 2011 have you?

I'm leaning towards going to Outlook 2011 which I already own, but I could go to mail. My spam software developer says it's better.
But Mail wont import my hundreds of email folders -- it just chokes. It also wont import my accounts, I have 25 or so.

My hoster says they have 5000 clients on imap with no issues, so maybe it is fault of Entourage? But I have another hoster with imap wil few issues with Entourage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

W,
thanks!
What is/ was better about Mail than Entourage? You have not tested Outlook 2011 have you?

I'm leaning towards going to Outlook 2011 which I already own, but I could go to mail. My spam software developer says it's better.
But Mail wont import my hundreds of email folders -- it just chokes. It also wont import my accounts, I have 25 or so.

My hoster says they have 5000 clients on imap with no issues, so maybe it is fault of Entourage? But I have another hoster with imap wil few issues with Entourage.

Instead of importing your POP messages into Mail/Outlook/whatever, why not just setup Entourage to access your IMAP account and simply drag over the messages you want to copy to your IMAP account into appropriate folders?

Once the messages reside on the server, you never have to worry about importing or migrating email clients again, you just point your email client at the mail server and call it a day. The exception is your address book if you don't want to recreate it. If you don't, you might have to look at a converter for that...

The mail client I use is Postbox, it might be worth looking at too.

[jeff k]

Yes, Entourage does not allow drag in of folders. emails only.
Not sure about Outlook 2011, but I guess same.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Yes, Entourage does not allow drag in of folders. emails only.
Not sure about Outlook 2011, but I guess same.

All IMAP clients support drag of drop of messages into folders.

[Waragainstsleep]

I just always found entourage to be a pain the butt. It has a habit of doing things slightly differently which you only discover when you delve into its inner workings to fix an issue. Never known it to struggle with IMAP though. Must be something to do with their mailserver software that it just doesn't get on with.
Worst thing about older versions of Entourage is the single database for mail. It stores all your mail in a single file which can easily grow to stupid proportions. If it gets over 2GB or so it will often give you all manner of trouble. I'm guessing yours is this size if you are managing to choke Mail with an import. (Incidentally you shouldn't need to import IMAP to mail, it should download everything from the server again). I have seen them get over 10GB before. This file is also infamous for screwing up Time Machine as TM will make another copy of your huge db every time you get or send another message between backups. This will quickly eat up your backup drives available space.

[jeff k]

B,
I mean folder, Entourage does not allow you to drag in the folders into imap accounts.

W,
thanks I heard Outlook 2011 does not use database.

Here is the deal. In my main Pop account I have a couple of hundred folders and sub-folders.
These import to Outlook 2011 Pop perfectly.

Mail chokes, they wont import into mail.

And like I just s aid to B, folder (not email), but the critials folders, of which I have 100-200 do not drag into imap accounts.