Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 545805
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Nelson on Wed 19th Dec 2012 01:44
in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
If you still, after numerous comments, do not understand, or refuse to understand the point I am making then I am not one to hold your hand and make you do it.
POP is not "flaky" by any means, it is just discouraged, and in the future may not exist. That' because the modern web has moved beyond POP and uses EAS.
Regardless, your argument about IMAP is intellectually dishonest and your refusal to admit it shows that you're not arguing in good faith.
RE[13]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by tylerdurden on Wed 19th Dec 2012 01:56
in reply to "RE[12]: Comment by lucas_maximus"




Member since:
2009-03-17
From the outlook.com terms:
That seems pretty flaky to me. In any case, whatever your personal opinion of POP may be is irrelevant. I was just providing a counter example to your original point regarding the supposed better "user experience" of outlook.com, by illustrating how said service can only interoperate with a much smaller fraction of protocols than google services currently do.
And yes by dropping ActiveSync google is reducing significantly the functionality of their services. But that does not mean microsoft is any less "political" since they are yet to support seriously anything other than their own proprietary protocols.
Perhaps you are projecting your own insecurity regarding your argument's strength? You're now playing semantic games after trying to pass vapor announcements as fact/features.
Edited 2012-12-19 01:37 UTC