ot: data consumption IMAP vs POP

[Steffen Kaiser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Charles Marcus wrote:

> On 1/27/2016 1:30 AM, Steffen Kaiser <skdovecot at smail.inf.fh-brs.de> wrote:
>> Sending bandwitdh can be reduced by using BCC instead of the IMAP append
>> to the sent mailbox.
>
> Can you elaborate on this?
>
> I would have thought that the IMAP Append command would *save* bandwidth
> (as opposed to having the client save a copy to the Sent folder, thereby
> uploading the full message a second time).

This is exactly, what IMAP APPEND does: The client uploads the message via 
SMTP first and via IMAP a second time.

If you add a BCC recipient to each message, that is placed by SMTP into 
the Sent Folder, and disable the IMAP save, you upload the message just 
once. How you can do this, depends on your SMTP framework. Many people use 
subaddressing or detail:

address+detail at example.org

===

BTW: There is another annoyance with a limited bandwidth, when you compose 
a message, MUAs autosave the message into Draft in regular intervals.

- -- 
Steffen Kaiser
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEVAwUBVqjVFXz1H7kL/d9rAQKC1AgAyDcpgCmX4YeupnRBQg36OLpqMt3s3cyX
Xxg4ZTAyRxs6g7Z0TdlKfXayoqbKAvTeSuVN20pSTn7N/sAs4j/tSSYFJuFXlqUF
I0TRbZObOKZrT9/1cbEqQxHzvsMs2UARUMTJbLZSfI/r9jQcrlE2ppUkQx4cOpIf
hnKtBT1WwtYpBbEhHTG5ZfZgmVmpPdZdUBGVSTu/xZfmqgKYoCpaTCbuBfZw6cBr
SsGcPSnw+Lr8b1pe2PumeHGv42jpfML9C1q5S7G40PLcGjdbhp0ysShxJr5eu68T
toS7tVoIW2P1oQ2OTkwtdHabMWMhEMqGJ7MaHEHiYek7JavcQlVnyg==
=t48V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----