Comments on: HTTP vs. POP vs. IMAP vs. Exchange

By: Owen Chastain

Owen Chastain — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:59:30 +0000

The last comment is pure nonsense.

By: Mike Fain

Mike Fain — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:48:50 +0000

I’m confused by your labeling of Exchange as the “most robust” of these. Do you mean average uptime and mean time between failures? Then, like the first poster, I’d have to agree that this is an apples/oranges comparison, where you’re comparing an implementation (Exchange) with abstract protocols (POP and IMAP). This comparison would only make sense if you’re comparing exchange against specific implementations of those protocols. From my experience, Exchange would suffer in such a comparison, as though it’s come a long way in the last few years and, indeed is quite usable now compared to earlier versions, I wouldn’t exactly call it “robust.”

By: marcio biaso

marcio biaso — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:16:39 +0000

hi there! terrific article!
i’m using exchane account on my iphone and i use the apple mail in my macboom at home.
the emails i send or delete from my iphone doesn’t appear in my sent or trash folders in apple mail, why is that?
thanks!
m.

By: agus

agus — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:19:08 +0000

My company is using MS Exchange but I don’t have MS Outlook in my Laptop, and I don’t like to use OWA through web browser either. Fortunately, after searching, I found Davmail, an open source gateway which enable us to access OWA on any email clients. One thing I’m still not sure is the security, since Davmail is sitting between Exchange server and my email client. I hope you write about Davmail or similar program for access Exchange from non Outlook client.

By: Fabian Garofalo

Fabian Garofalo — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:23:24 +0000

Terrific article! I like your website, and Please update it even more often.

By: Jeff C

Jeff C — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:39:35 +0000

This is a very easy to follow article. I like that it is short and informative. A chart of the features may be a bit faster to review in some cases, but what you have is done well. Thank you for your work.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:19:27 +0000

You know what, for all of the hair splitters that chose to comment on the technical inaccuracies of the first post… this was actually a very good concise break down. I am not a technophobe but I can attest to the fact that sometimes when trying to get simple information on the internet a lot of techies sure spend a lot of time proving how smart and up-to-speed they are… Oh, for more of the “KISS” principle like the short blurb above!!

Thanks Mr. Aggarwal

By: pay per install affiliate

pay per install affiliate — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:09:07 +0000

Good work, keep us posting, you are very good writer.

By: Ashok Aggarwal

Ashok Aggarwal — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:17:09 +0000

Thanks for your comments.

“You have compared the features of an email server product to three protocols.”

In fact, this is a comparison of the options that people have when they go out in search of personal and/or business email.

For the next two paragraphs, I decided to leave out details like these which I think can confuse the reader and won’t effect their decision.

As for the drawbacks you outline, 1) yes, Exchange is the most expensive (but becoming more affordable) and 2) if someone doesn’t want Outlook (most people do), then Outlook Web Access (OWA) is more than sufficient to check, send, and receive email along with managing collaboration features like meetings, notes, tasks, public folders, etc.

Note: I wrote this up as I have been helping a business user who was accustomed to a highly sophisticated Exchange and Blackberry set-up that was moving to a personal solution and having trouble figuring out how to accomplish his needs in an affordable manner.

By: Ghodmode

Ghodmode — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:08:03 +0000

You have compared the features of an email server product to three protocols. Perhaps a better comparison could have been HTTP (Webmail) vs. POP vs. IMAP vs. Exchange’s email protocol. If this were the comparison made, though, the issue of client support would need to be addressed.

Microsoft Exchange Server can be POP and/or IMAP and/or HTTP depending on its configuration. Perhaps a better comparison could have been Exchange vs. Sendmail vs. Postfix vs. Eudora (yep… they have a server product, too ). If this were the comparison made, though, the issue of cost would need to be addressed.

As a protocol on it’s own, Exchange lacks support by most email clients. However, Exchange cannot be considered as a protocol on its own. As a server product, Exchange stands far above its competitors in terms of features.

There are a couple of drawbacks of Exchange that might hold more weight with Small-to-Medium Business owners and users than any of the features…

First, the cost of the product: currently $699 plus $67 per client (ref: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/howtobuy/default.mspx#E3D). This, in itself, would eliminate Exchange as an option for many small businesses.

Second, use of Microsoft Exchange Server nearly eliminates any choice of email client other than Microsoft Outlook. This, by itself, is important enough that I would not consider using the product for myself or recommending it to others.

– Ghodmode