Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)

Mark Crispin <> Mon, 19 September 1994 23:10 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09864; 19 Sep 94 19:10 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09859; 19 Sep 94 19:10 EDT
Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20355; 19 Sep 94 19:10 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) id TAA21542; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 19:04:41 -0400
Received: via switchmail for; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 19:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from via qmail ID </afs/>; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 19:03:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA16797 for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 19:03:45 -0400
Received: from UW-Gateway.Panda.COM by Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (NX5.67e/UW-NDC Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA09986; Mon, 19 Sep 94 16:03:37 -0700
Received: from localhost by Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (NX5.67e/UW-NDC/Panda Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA19665; Mon, 19 Sep 94 16:03:27 -0700
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 15:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Mark Crispin <>
X-Orig-Sender: Mark Crispin <>
Subject: Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)
To: Steve Dorner <>
Cc: Cam Clarke <>,
In-Reply-To: <aaa346f759021101a322@[]>
Message-Id: <MailManager.780015512.17052.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0

It should also be pointed out that this sort of facility is provided in IMAP4,
which is presently at Proposed Standard status.  The primary advantage of POP3
over IMAP4 is that it is a (much) simpler protocol.  If creeping featurism was
allowed in POP3, pretty soon you would have a protocol as complex as IMAP4 but
without IMAP4's advantage of being designed with this in mind from the start.

You can find the IMAP4 document on any internet-drafts server, or you can read
RFC1176 for a description of the earlier IMAP2 protocol.