System.Net.Mail versa System.Web.Mail

Hi,
I am hoping to find out the differences between the
System.Net.Mail and System.Web.Mail.
Can some nice folks post the differences; or some urls which show the
differences?
Great Thanks
FrankHello,
in .NET 1.1, only the System.Web.Mail was available. This implemenation had
fundamental flaws. For example, attachment could only be added from files,
not from Streams.
The .NET 2.0 implementation is System.Net.Mail and is much more flexible and
has a richer featureset.
Best regards,
Henning Krause
"Frank" <frk.won@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175024784.230868.75240@.n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am hoping to find out the differences between the
> System.Net.Mail and System.Web.Mail.
> Can some nice folks post the differences; or some urls which show the
> differences?
> Great Thanks
> Frank
>
On Mar 27, 3:59 pm, "Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange]"
<newsgroups_rem...@.this.infinitec.de> wrote:
> Hello,
> in .NET 1.1, only the System.Web.Mail was available. This implemenation ha
d
> fundamental flaws. For example, attachment could only be added from files,
> not from Streams.
> The .NET 2.0 implementation is System.Net.Mail and is much more flexible a
nd
> has a richer featureset.
> Best regards,
> Henning Krause
> "Frank" <frk...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175024784.230868.75240@.n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Mr. Krause,
many thxs
http://www.systemwebmail.com/
http://www.systemnetmail.com/

> On Mar 27, 3:59 pm, "Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange]"
> <newsgroups_rem...@.this.infinitec.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Mr. Krause,
> many thxs
>
On Mar 27, 8:33 pm, Jay Parzych <jimp...@.cox.net> wrote:
> http://www.systemwebmail.com/
> http://www.systemnetmail.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
great thxs!
Actually System.Net.Mail replaces System.Web.Mail, which is now marked
as obsolete.
Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
> Hello,
> in .NET 1.1, only the System.Web.Mail was available. This implemenation
> had fundamental flaws. For example, attachment could only be added from
> files, not from Streams.
> The .NET 2.0 implementation is System.Net.Mail and is much more flexible
> and has a richer featureset.
> Best regards,
> Henning Krause
>
> "Frank" <frk.won@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175024784.230868.75240@.n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
Gran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com
re:
> Actually System.Net.Mail replaces System.Web.Mail, which is now marked as obsolete

It's only "obsolete" for the .Net Framework 2.0.
It's still supported in the .Net Framework 1.0 and 1.1.
The correct term when a class works in previous
versions, but not in a later one, is "deprecated".
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en espaol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Gran Andersson" <guffa@.guffa.com> wrote in message news:%23tPjOQWcHHA.4308@.TK2MSFTNGP02.p
hx.gbl...
> Actually System.Net.Mail replaces System.Web.Mail, which is now marked as
obsolete.
> Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
> --
> Gran Andersson
> _____
> http://www.guffa.com
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
> re:
> It's only "obsolete" for the .Net Framework 2.0.
> It's still supported in the .Net Framework 1.0 and 1.1.
Obviously, as System.Net.Mail doesn't exist in framework 1.x.

> The correct term when a class works in previous
> versions, but not in a later one, is "deprecated".
The class is marked as obsolete using the Obsolete attribute. The
correct term for a class marked as obsolete is obsolete. You can also
call it "deprecated" as some other systems use that term for the same thing.
An obsolete class is still working, it's only recommended that it's not
used. As the framework is supposed to be able to run code compiled for
previos versions, classes can't just stop working, at least not until
they have been obsolete for some version updates.

> Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
> asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
> foros de asp.net, en espaol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
> ===================================
> "Gran Andersson" <guffa@.guffa.com> wrote in message news:%23tPjOQWcHHA.43
08@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
Gran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com
re:
> The class is marked as obsolete using the Obsolete attribute.
There's conflicting info on that.
See :
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/li...system.web.mail(VS.80).aspx
That page says that the classes in the System.Web.Mail namespace have been d
eprecated,
but all its classes have been marked as obsolete.
The namespace is not obsolete. It's deprecated.
That's because it doesn't work in the current version but works in the previ
ous ones.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecated
"The deprecated feature still works in the current version of the software,
but it may raise error messages or warnings recommending an alternative prac
tice."
and
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970917/convent.html
"A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by newer co
nstructs."
System.Web.Mail can be thought of as "obsolescent", but not "obsolete", sinc
e it still works.
Ymmv, of course.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en espaol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Gran Andersson" <guffa@.guffa.com> wrote in message news:eUecQUYcHHA.4820@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx
.gbl...
> Juan T. Llibre wrote:
> Obviously, as System.Net.Mail doesn't exist in framework 1.x.
>
> The class is marked as obsolete using the Obsolete attribute. The correct
term for a class marked
> as obsolete is obsolete. You can also call it "deprecated" as some other s
ystems use that term for
> the same thing.
> An obsolete class is still working, it's only recommended that it's not us
ed. As the framework is
> supposed to be able to run code compiled for previos versions, classes can
't just stop working, at
> least not until they have been obsolete for some version updates.
>
>
> --
> Gran Andersson
> _____
> http://www.guffa.com
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
> re:
> There's conflicting info on that.
Not at all. It's very simple. There is an Obsolete attribute. There is
no Deprecated attribute. You can mark a class as obsolete, but you can't
mark it as deprecated.

> See :
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/li...system.web.mail(VS.80).aspx
> That page says that the classes in the System.Web.Mail namespace have been
deprecated,
> but all its classes have been marked as obsolete.
> The namespace is not obsolete. It's deprecated.
> That's because it doesn't work in the current version but works in the previous on
es.
That is not correct. The classes still work in the current version.

> See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecated
> "The deprecated feature still works in the current version of the software
,
> but it may raise error messages or warnings recommending an alternative pr
actice."
> and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970917/convent.html
> "A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by newer
constructs."
> System.Web.Mail can be thought of as "obsolescent", but not "obsolete", since it s
till works.
I think that you are confusing this with something else. Just because
something is obsolete doesn't in any way imply that it would not work
any more.

> Ymmv, of course.
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
> asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
> foros de asp.net, en espaol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
> ===================================
> "Gran Andersson" <guffa@.guffa.com> wrote in message news:eUecQUYcHHA.4820
@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
Gran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com