The following is made from a thread on, Topspeed.Topic.Third_Party group entitled
"SMTP or MAPI – Pros and Cons", started by Jono Woodhouse on 31 July 2003

Horizontal rule

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.

bullet small MAPI Pros:

bullet small MAPI Cons:

bullet smallMAPI Solutions:

bullet smallSMTP Pros:

bullet smallSMTP Cons:

bullet smallSMTP Solutions:

bullet smallSMTP Tips:

horizontal rule

Some General comments from Users :

bullet small Gus M. Creces - The Clarion Handy Tools Page

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 marvelous 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 newsgroup 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 configuration 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.

bullet smallFrom Bruce Johnson - CapeSoft

Apparently more recent Windows releases are better, but in the "old days" (win 95, 98, me) MAPI was an optional component. Some machines didn't have MAPI. And it seems to vary a lot from one email client to the other.

In my situation I can afford to document, and get the user to set up (once) the correct SMTP settings. What I can't afford is to have to revist the client every time they do a mail-client, or windows re-install (or upgrade).

If MAPI was 100% "just works" on every machine then I think it would be an ideal solution.

bullet small From Darron Pitman

The program I use it in mainly is used by Joe Public on personal home PC or small businesses/police forces - they, I am happy to report have no
problems - if I used SMTP they would and I would be receiving a lot of calls..... about how to set it up.....

The main used function in this app is email to multiple recipients using BCC - no problems reported with that either........

Now if SMTP could be installed transparently and used transparently I would have no problem switching - but then again - I think they also like the sent
box to hold a history.....

A small app I sell on the side is neighborhood watch usually run by elderly people....

Ask them to enter pop3 or relay account details and I think their eyes might glaze over - equally in Local Authorities - end users wouldn't have a clue
what you were talking about. In UK in corporates IT depts are so bad - they are a last recourse......

bullet smallFrom Benjamin Krajmalnik

I run an application written in Clarion as our core business application. Up until Office 2K, everything worked fine. As of Office 2002 things went

The problem is that MAPI is not always implemented the same. If the MAPI client is Outlook 2002 (not Outlook Express) there are issues. I cannot
recall right now if it had problems with multiple recipients or multiple CC's, but there was definitely a problem. The code was based on the simple
MAPI code available as one of the examples in one of the kb's.

OTOH, SMTP is rock solid - much more so than MAPI. Also, the issue of connectivity is becoming less of an issue as broadband is
adopted. The way around this is simple, even for a small network. You run an internal SMTP server - that way you never loose your e-mail. The SMTP
server will in turn make the required connection.

As for having a copy of the e-mails, well, this is definitely an issue in some cases. The solution isn't one or the other, but rather what the
end-user requirements are.

horizontal rule

Disclaimer : This article is the opinion of the author/s, and is not necessarily the opinion of any other person or company.
Specifically it may not be the opinion of the owners, or host, of this site.