Talk:Push email

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)

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)

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)

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

Push vs. IMAP POP

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Regarding the current Blackberry section, most non-corporate pre Blackberry 10 users weren't using BES, they were using BIS. It's BIS that has been phased out, not BES. BES remains available to corporate customers like it always has. -- Charlesb95 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

emoze

The "emoze" paragraph looks like an ad. Editor wanna take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.61.1 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Polling email

I updated this section mainly to get rid all the "now specific" language and uses of words like "traditional" that will not make sense in a few years time. I also took the opportunity to get rid of the term "Pull" as what is being discussed here is "polling". It is a mistake to negate "Push" into "Pull". Although "Push" is the marketing geeks word of choice here, nothing was marketed as "Pull email" when only one mechanism existed.

Advantages/disadvantages over polling

The article doesn't make clear the advantages and disadvantages of notification over polling. Perhaps they are obvious but they should be stated. pgr94 (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Open-source Windows Mobile IMAP IDLE app?

On 18:45, 18 January 2009, someone from 24.218.139.95 made this edit claiming "Additionally, a free, open-source, executable has been developed to take advantage of the IMAP-IDLE command." Excuse me, but this does beg the question: "Where can I find this mysterious executable?" Until this detail is clarified, this blurb is meaningless fluff at best and misinformation at worst. PacoBell (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Hi, I proposed that mobile e-mail be merged into this article, along with the previously proposed wireless e-mail merge. What do the other editors think? --Karl.brown (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done There was nothing of substance that needed merging but I have set them up as redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lacking History

The main article lacks any reference to years and dates and places behind the rise of "push em-mail" as opposed to the many kinds of non-internet email in existence in the 1980s. 216.99.201.156 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

send mail through phone?

Could i send mail with or without attachments through any mobile having push mail technology. if anyone has idea about this, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.149.142 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello I need Nokia sirocco restarts after password W.nalin (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

IMAP Idle vs. Poprietry protocols

In my opinion this article seems to be mainly about IMAP Idle, with a list of clients that support it - there are however quite a few push email services/clients that use proprietry protocols and methods - I.E SMS or WAP Push messages that triger a mailbox poll (RIM, Yahoo, and Mail on 3, all seem to use this technique and there are referencable sources, although Mail on 3 is mostly from a load of forum posts made by people who have put their sim cards in phones without Mail on 3 and wonder why they're getting strange messages.

If people want, I could write a section on these other, assiseted Push methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.185.255 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Push email. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080430233528/http://www.heliocity.net:80/2008/gmail-gets-push-support-in-ultimate-inbox/ to http://www.heliocity.net/2008/gmail-gets-push-support-in-ultimate-inbox

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)