Talk:Push email

message: I've finally added a section on "true" push (see a number of comments below). This was removed because it's "biased and non-sourced". Please explain why this is biased and non-sourced.
I guess when you say I'm "biased" you mean that I say BlackBerry support "true" push. Well this is a fact, not a bias. RIM has patents on this, and they also have special deals with carriers.
Or maybe you think I'm biased against the Comet-style push (lists the disadvantages of this technique). If you don't agree with these disadvantages, then maybe you can explain why a lot of users are complaining about battery drainage and high bills. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6772596&tstart=0 http://forum.xda-developers.com/archive/index.php/t-274695.html http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=260813 People are entitled to know what they're getting into with Comet-style push. If you don't agree, then I guess it's you that is biased.
As for sources, I did put a link to the Comet page. I should add more references, that's true. But I don't think you should throw the baby out with the bath water.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed "True" push 

message: I must say, I came here looking for more technical (protocol) information (and comparisons) on how different types of push email technology work. I've read some information on this discussion page, for example the HTTP keepalive notion, and the article has a tiny bit of information on IMAP IDLE. If someone has the information, could we please post more about different technical implementations (via proxies, etc.) of push technologies and maybe sort them based on notification based "push" (funambol) and TRUE push (blackberry) types of technologies and how the protocols work? I will attempt to dig up some of this information myself and update the article, however i'm not an expert in this.
gekkonaut
:Welcome. Please do contribute to the article. No need to be an expert -- just cite reliable sources. TimidGuy 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Information (request) 

message: I've pulled out all the stuff about IMAP and so on as it seemed a bit off-topic, and tried to explain how push works a bit more clearly by contrasting it with pull. Hopefully the talk of MUA and MDA isn't confusing, I think it's needed for precision.
Biglig 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of IMAP Information 

message: Relate, yes, and I did that. But the place for the sor tof discussion of POP and IMAP you've added is on their respective pages, not here. POP and IMAP are just not push technologies. Although, don't move what you wrote there, becuase it's not very accurate. ;-)
OK, I've reverted back to before your changes, and expanded the article. Hopefully this will address some of your issues.
Biglig 16:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have to disagree 

message: I think we have unintentionally defined pull e-mail in this article when we intended to talk about traditional services. IMO pull email does not exist. So we should only talk about push vs. traditional services which also can include IMAP.
I disagree that original mail services were push based. I have never heard that this has been true any time in the past. I will revise my opinion if anyone points me to an article that describes that. Although MDA and MUA were running on the same Computer, at least since UNIX exists. 
: In unix-land, stuff got delivered to your mailbox by push, if the MTA was set up to receive mail this way. This is SMTP obviously, I don't know how VaxMail or IBM's mail stuff worked. You can turn a linux laptop into a push mail client today by running a local MDA on it, then using some dynamic DNS service to change its IP Address as it roams. It is/was only POP/IMAP that polled. If you just fed the contents of /usr/mail/root to the console then you were definitely in push mode. 77.101.36.156 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pull e-mail?? 

message: I think it needs to be clarified that the MSFP version of "push" is not actually push technology per se but more or less pull. The point is that only a message notification is delivered to the handheld using the http-keepalive channel. The actual mail delivery is done by the device "pulling" the e-mail off the server as opposed to the blackberry solution where e-mail is indeed pushed by the server to the handheld. To the user this appears to have the same result but in a technical since this is very different with many implications on performace and security. It certainly deserves a mention in the article as it's in fact more of a "hybrid" than pure push technology. Sweboi 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's been confusing me. I kept reading that a feature of Exchange 2007 and WM 6 was push, yet it says here that push had already been available. Would be great if you could go ahead and fix this. Or maybe I'll fiddle with it and you can correct. TimidGuy 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather confusing to be honest. Also the Exchange 2007 "push" engine is exactly the same as the one in Exchange 2003. Slight differences in feature set but the same mechanism is used. I've heard this being described as "Indirect Push" in the past. Basically the only part that is pushed is the notification of a new message whereas the message is subsequently pulled. Very much identical to the delivery of MMS messages to a mobile phone. I am quite happy to update the article to reflect this, if you feel that it has a place in the article? Sweboi 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Please do. TimidGuy 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True push vs. "Push Experience" 

message: You can't just pop in any SIM card that is GPRS capable into your BB and have it work automatically.  A tunnel needs to be established on the carrier's back end to RIM's servers and both the carrier itself and the account associated with the SIM card have to be BB enabled; simple data access is insufficient.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.213.244.187 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the current Blackberry section, most non-corporate pre Blackberry 10 users weren't using BES, they were using BIS. It's BIS that has been phased out, not BES. BES remains available to corporate customers like it always has. -- Charlesb95 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackberry 

message: Template is still there, but there appears to be headings. Can I get rid of the template? Dragon909 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile Devices 

message: The "emoze" paragraph looks like an ad. Editor wanna take a look?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.61.1 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: emoze

message: The article doesn't make clear the advantages and disadvantages of notification over polling.  Perhaps they are obvious but they should be stated. pgr94 (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages/disadvantages over polling 

message: On 18:45, 18 January 2009, someone from 24.218.139.95 made this edit claiming "Additionally, a free, open-source, executable has been developed to take advantage of the IMAP-IDLE command." Excuse me, but this does beg the question: "Where can I find this mysterious executable?" Until this detail is clarified, this blurb is meaningless fluff at best and misinformation at worst. PacoBell (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open-source Windows Mobile IMAP IDLE app?

message: Hi, I proposed that mobile e-mail be merged into this article, along with the previously proposed wireless e-mail merge. What do the other editors think? --Karl.brown (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing of substance that needed merging but I have set them up as redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: The main article lacks any reference to years and dates and places behind the rise of "push em-mail" as opposed to the many kinds of non-internet email in existence in the 1980s.    216.99.201.156 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking History 

message: Could i send mail with or without attachments through any mobile having push mail technology.
if anyone has idea about this, please let me know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.149.142 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  send mail through phone? 

message: In my opinion this article seems to be mainly about IMAP Idle, with a list of clients that support it - there are however quite a few push email services/clients that use proprietry protocols and methods - I.E SMS or WAP Push messages that triger a mailbox poll (RIM, Yahoo, and Mail on 3, all seem to use this technique and there are referencable sources, although Mail on 3 is mostly from a load of forum posts made by people who have put their sim cards in phones without Mail on 3 and wonder why they're getting strange messages.
If people want, I could write a section on these other, assiseted Push methods?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.185.255 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAP Idle vs. Poprietry protocols 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Push email. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080430233528/http://www.heliocity.net:80/2008/gmail-gets-push-support-in-ultimate-inbox/ to http://www.heliocity.net/2008/gmail-gets-push-support-in-ultimate-inbox
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified