"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Anyway read what you have quoted "very corporate" ,"no pop clients", "can't
have that".
Well Outlook is a POP client and guess what its a M$ corporate product.
What I said was true and relevant even if you didn't get it.
I guess you had better stop reading what i write as you never appear to
understand even the simple things.


Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

Most of them will IME. Hence they can gateway from external mail stores.
(files local to the server that is)

So not local files then.


It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Exchange server sucks email from other servers, stores
it locally in its DB, and then hands it out to its clients on demand. Not
rocket science is it?

So now you want to believe local files and databases are actually the same
thing and have the meaning TNP implied..