Talk:Push e-mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fixed "True" push

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)

[edit] Technical Information (request)

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)

[edit] Removal of IMAP Information

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)

[edit] Save power on mobile devices?

I've heard one of the big advantages for push email on mobile devices is that it allowed the device to turn off the CPU, leaving only the baseband receiver on, which then receives notification of new mail, thus saving lots of battery power. Is this true? If so, it should definitely be added to this article. Cheesy

[edit] Push vs. IMAP POP

One cannot describe Push without relating it to current technologies. MUA and MDA did not contribute precision just confusion :-(

[edit] Have to disagree

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)---


81.26.253.124 writes that there is nothing "pull" about IMAP. I guess you have a point, since it is more a "remote view" type of deal. And I guess I have a point, since it is the client that initiates the connection. I fixed the grammar that got broke when you pulled IMAP out, perhaps you'd like to add a section discussing IMAP as a "neither-pull-nor-push" protocol, like webmail. Biglig 12:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pull e-mail??

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. [1]

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)

[edit] IMAP and push

I've plonked something in about IMAP, and whether it's push or pull or banana.

A lot of the problem here is that push e-mail is basically a marketing term which is struggling to apply itself to internet mail as a technical term - IMAP includes, and has always included, support for pushing notifications out at any time, but it does not, and has never, included the facility to push message data. So you could easily argue that the user experience touted by push email is easily achievable with a halfway decent IMAP setup, and I frequently do, but equally you could argue that it's not pushing the actual email. But then, that's arguably a good thing...

Secondly, I've referenced, and created a new article on, the IETF Lemonade effort, which supercedes P-IMAP, and rather notably doesn't bother with push e-mail over and above the base specification of IMAP and IDLE, which suggests that in the eyes of many experts in the field, we've had push email as much as is practically needed for some years.

[edit] True push vs. "Push Experience"

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)

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)
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)
Thanks, Please do. TimidGuy 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider that the phrase "pushed email" or "email push" also is used to describe the practice of merchants or social organization sending summaries of Web site content to individual members or subscribers. If you dont approve you might disavow it. christianwill75.33.103.154 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blackberry

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)

[edit] Mobile Devices

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)