On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Matt Emson <memsom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Riku Voipio wrote: >> >> Mark wrote: >> >>> >>> Your setup may be able to handle IMAP just fine, but it could at least >>> as easily handle POP3. If you're running it on an ARM system you >>> clearly are not leaving messages (especially with large attachments) >>> on the server indefinitely (there's no ARM system I know of that has >>> the storage for that), so you're really using it as if it were a POP3 >>> system anyway... >>> >> >> There is literally hundreds of different ARM systems available >> with IDE/SATA/USB ports that can scale to pretty much >> unlimited quantities of storage. You can walk down to your >> nearest well equipped computer store and by ARM system >> with a terabyte of storage[1]. >> > > The first ARM processors were used in Acorn Archimedes computers. If I was > to buy an ethernet podule for my old A7000, it would certainly be capable of > doing all of the above, and so I would have to agree that the statement was > extremely sweping and most definitely inaccurate! :-) It only has a ~1GB > drive at the moment (IIRC), but I certainly could add in a larger one if I > needed to. > > M > You are so incredibly wrong. My point was that yes, an ARM system is definitely capable of running either an IMAP or a POP3 server, and that storage and network bandwidth would be much more of a factor than the system processor. Clearly, the ARM systems you're referring to are NOT general-purpose computing devices, but special-purpose imbedded devices. The only modern consumer devices that are advertised to have ARM processors are hand-held mobile devices, which never have more than a few Gb of storage, and seldom have more than a few Mb. Sure, just like certain Wi-Fi routers, you can get pretty much any device that has an OS that is upgradeable or replaceable to do pretty much anything you want, and if the device in question is designed from the ground up to be a server of any kind you're comparing apples to oranges, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that ultimately, IMAP 1) ALWAYS uses more storage than POP3, and 2) Ultimately doesn't save any network bandwidth over POP3. Any assertions to the contrary *deliberately* ignore the overall picture. Mark _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
