Talk:Post Office Protocol

message: 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)
thread_title: Page move

message: * 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)
thread_title: [[POP3]] &#8594; [[Post Office Protocol]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  IMAP and ISP 

message: === 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)
thread_title:  Other versions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POP4? 

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

message: What 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.... 5 January 2007‎ 
:Answer: if you tried reading the rfc1939 instead of displaying your linguistic skills...  you would see that the APOP protocol does indeed use hashes.  However, it is also true that many older email servers such as sendmail did NOT properly support the APOP protocol, with the result that many/most? email clients are still configured to use the older plain text USER/PASS protocol which is covered in example two of this article.  These days, most email servers do provide decent support for APOP but the transition took years and is still in progress.  One does not easily or quickly make changes to such fundamental and dispersed infrastructure.   Speaking as a programmer who has created an email server from scratch, I can vouch for the technical accuracy of everything that I read here on 2008-08-22   ErikFP (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hash string instead of a clear text value

message: 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)
thread_title:  History? 

message: 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)
thread_title: References missing

message: Does it make sense to use APOP and SSL/TLS, together? Or is APOP obsolete with TLS? I wish the article would answer this question. --W-sky (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info about APOP vs. TLS 

message: The last sentence of the intro currently reads
"Like IMAP, POP3 is supported by most webmail services such as Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo! Mail."
However neither hotmail nor yahoo supports IMAP, I believe. Should it perhaps simply read
"POP3 is supported by most webmail services such as Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo! Mail."?   Khhlevir (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad formulation in intro 

message: Probably not anymore, but I am not an expert. If this is no longer the case, please consider removing or revising. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fewer Internet Service Providers support IMAP? 

message: KPOP isn't really notable enough for its own article, and the stub is pretty much useless Felixphew (Talk | Contribs) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Kerberized Post Office Protocol]]