` Comment on an Icetips Article
Icetips - Templates, Tools & Utilities for Clarion Developers

Templates, Tools and Utilities
for Clarion Developers

Add a comment to an Icetips Article

Please add your comments to this article. Please note that you must provide both a name and a valid email address in order for us to publish your comment. Comments are moderated and are not visible until they have been approved. Spam is never approved!

Your Name:  
Email:  
Header text/Subject:  

Please enter your comment in the box below:

Back to article list   Search Articles     Add Comment     Printer friendly     Direct link  

Email, FTP etc.: MAPI compared to SMTP
2003-08-08 -- Gus M. Creces
 
Newsgroups: TopSpeed.Topic.Third_Party Here's my experience - from the perspective of someone who uses both MAPI and SMTP. Each has a place and a reason for being. MAPI has been around for quite some time. It's mainly a MS standard which MS themselves don't always follow. The idea of MAPI is that your application can control the MAPI-compliant email client on your computer in order to send and receive emails. There is a standardized set of (M)API calls that allow you to do this. 4-5 years ago when our toolkit introduced MAPI classes and templates we did an extensive survey to ascertain MAPI compliancy for various email clients out there. We found various levels of compliancy, with only the MS products Outlook and Outlook Express working 100 percent reliably and storing registry values in a consistent way so that it was easy to determine which client was installed, etc. etc. Since MS has gone on it's security-above-all kick they've basically made Outlook (I don't mean Outlook Express) totally useless as a MAPI client. It still works but is a pain in the butt to use because of the nags that come up and can't easily be made to go away. While Outlook used to work really well via MAPI, I've been telling our users for over a year now to avoid it like the plague if they possibly can. Outlook Express, on the other hand, is - an continues to be - a marvellous MAPI client and you can make it jump through hoops. Now to all those MAPI nay sayers let's use a little imagination. So you don't use OE and nor do your customers, you say. Ergo you're MAPI dead in the water, you say. Consider that Outlook Express these days is really part of the operating system. Just like Internet Explorer is part of the operating system. Despite what the US Justice Department would have you believe. You have to work hard NOT to get it installed with your XP or Win2K installations. Since it's almost defacto nowadays, it's there whether you or your clients use it or not. And it can be utilized by your applications for sending and receiving purposes. Despite what you've been told, a MAPI email client is no harder (or no easier) to configure than an SMTP client. In fact, the information required to make either one work is identical - SMTP server and local email address (for outgoing), POP server (if you want incoming) and Email account name, and email account password (again to satisfy incoming mail requirements). If OE already has one or more email accounts set up, your MAPI program can present a list of them to the user and ask which should be used, or it can simply be made to use the default account. That being the case, your user needs to do nothing to make your email work application work. If OE does not have any accounts set up you have to provide instructions on how to configure one or more OE accounts or you can simply pop up a Clarion dialog window the way you would have to anyway for an SMTP configuration, and collect the necessary email account information, drop it in the registry for OE to use and you're off to the races. OE does not have to be your default email client. It's easy enough to determine the default email client when your app does its thing, swap it out for OE, do your thing with OE, and swap it back. All of this could be done even with an existing default email client running in the foreground or background. So, to review, since O.E. is essentially a part of the operating system, you can rely on it to be there, and warn if it isn't. You can configure it, and use it in the background (or foreground) the way you use other operating system features, DLLs and API's. It can send and receive and redirect as necessary. It logs all incoming and outgoing mail for you at no extra programming cost to you. (unlike SMTP) We've even figured out how to make it into an email scrubber and how to make bulk mailings (where we don't necessarily want every outgoing mail item logged into your outbox) go away. Because it's also a NNTP newsgroup client you can treat newgroup messages just as if they were mail, vetting, scrubbing, massaging them into standard data bases. All this power comes built-in. The CHT toolkit also has an SMTP implementation. SMTP has some advantages when it comes to transport-style email and structured, HTML-style mail. But configuration wise, it's no easier to get up and running than MAPI. In fact, where we're presenting an SMTP configuation dialog, we generally look at the Registry to see if Outlook or OE don't already have an account set up that lists the SMTP server and local email address and we present that as a starting point. Which methodology you use is really tied the intended outcome required by your application. Sometimes it's just a matter of personal preference. I use both depending on intended use. Cheers... -- Gus M. Creces The Clarion Handy Tools Page http://www.cwhandy.ca http://news.cwhandy.ca gcreces@sympatico.ca "Jono Woodhouse" wrote in message news:3f2944de@news.softvelocity.com... Hi I'm wanting to add something about the Pros and Cons of MAPI and SMTP into one of our FAQs. So I thought it would be good to open this up for public discussion, comments, and improvements. As you can see I've got more of a bend towards SMTP than MAPI, so I'm looking for some more thoughts on MAPI in particular. Thanks Jono ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Question: What's the difference between SMTP and MAPI Email Sending? Which one is better? Answer: The answer to this question really lies in what you are trying to do. Below is a list of Pros and Cons for each, which should help you make a good decision. MAPI Pros: a.. Can interface directly into the users Inbox and Outbox. MAPI Cons: a.. Not all email clients support MAPI. (For example some of the earlier versions of Outlook Express didn't support it). Does anyone know if Netscape Mail, Eudora, Pegasus support MAPI. b.. Outlook Express 5.0 and younger require you to turn on MAPI in their settings. c.. Different versions of Windows support different versions of MAPI. d.. You may have no control as to what email client your customers are going to be running. e.. If your application gets run on a server, there is no guarantee that a email client is installed on the server machine. f.. If Betty in the office decides she's going to change her email client to Eudora v2.07, your application will not be able to detect this? g.. What happens if Tom decides to re-install Windows and suddenly your application stops sending email. h.. If you are writing a multi-user application (i.e. server and EXE sit in one place, many workstations run the application), you could end up with a situation where some workstations can send emails and others can't. i.. Some people don't like emails being added to their outbox. (Specially if it's a bulk email application that sends out 500MB of emails) j.. Some folk don't want an application changing the emails in your Inbox, marking messages as read, deleting messages etc. (For example: My PDA can talk with MAPI software on my PC. If I look at a message in my PDA it marks the message as read in my Inbox (plus there is no way in my PDA to mark it unread again). Further more it will delete the message in my Inbox if I delete the email in my PDA. I get tons of emails, but only want a few in my PDA.) MAPI Solutions: a.. SMTP Pros: a.. Completely independent of the user's email client. (You can of course send emails that can read be read in email clients and receive emails that were written in an email client). b.. Sends email directly to or from an SMTP Server. c.. In a multi-user environment, you only have to setup your email settings once on the server, and then no matter how many changes there are to the workstations email clients, windows versions your application keeps working. SMTP Cons: a.. You application has to send email to an SMTP Server, this can be achieved easily if: - your clients run an email server - your application dials in to their ISP - or you install the CapeSoft Email Server or the royalty free Developer Edition (which means your app doesn't have to handle Dial-Up and can send at any time of day or night). This is not as bad as it sounds as everyone who runs email has to be sending/receiving email from an email server somehow, so it's just a matter of getting your application to connect to the Email Server. b.. You need to tell your application the address of the Email Server (We should be adding a control template sometime that makes a Email Settings Wizard in your application). SMTP Solutions: a.. NetTalk supports SMTP, so it's easy to add sending & receiving to your application. b.. Plus you can use CapeSoft's Email Server or the royalty free Developer Edition to stay completely independent of your client's system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----


Excellent article!
2003-08-11 � Arnor Baldvinsson
This is an excellent article on on the pros and cons of the SMTP and MAPI mail
protocols.

Arnor

Today is November 21, 2024, 6:57 am
This article has been viewed 35501 times.
Google search has resulted in 1407 hits on this article since January 25, 2004.



Back to article list   Search Articles   Add Comment   Printer friendly

Login

User Name:

Password: