By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
426,179 Members | 2,192 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 426,179 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

System.Net.Mail versa System.Web.Mail

P: n/a
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

Mar 27 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.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
Mar 27 '07 #2

P: n/a
On Mar 27, 3:59 pm, "Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange]"
<newsgroups_rem...@this.infinitec.dewrote:
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....@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hi Mr. Krause,

many thxs

Mar 27 '07 #3

P: n/a
http://www.systemwebmail.com/
http://www.systemnetmail.com/
On Mar 27, 3:59 pm, "Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange]"
<newsgroups_rem...@this.infinitec.dewrote:
>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....@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Mr. Krause,

many thxs

Mar 28 '07 #4

P: n/a
On Mar 27, 8:33 pm, Jay Parzych <jimp...@cox.netwrote:
http://www.systemwebmail.com/

http://www.systemnetmail.com/
On Mar 27, 3:59 pm, "Henning Krause [MVP - Exchange]"
<newsgroups_rem...@this.infinitec.dewrote:
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....@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Mr. Krause,
many thxs- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
great thxs!

Mar 28 '07 #5

P: n/a
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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.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
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com
Mar 28 '07 #6

P: n/a
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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.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

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

Mar 28 '07 #7

P: n/a
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
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.
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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googleg roups.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
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com


--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com
Mar 28 '07 #8

P: n/a
re:
The class is marked as obsolete using the Obsolete attribute.
There's conflicting info on that.

See :
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...il(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 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 practice."

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 still works.

Ymmv, of course.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message news:eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
>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.

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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.google groups.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
>
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com



--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

Mar 29 '07 #9

P: n/a
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
>The class is marked as obsolete using the Obsolete attribute.

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/lib...il(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 ones.
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 practice."

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 still 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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message news:eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>Juan T. Llibre wrote:
>>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.
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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl.. .
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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.googl egroups.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
>>
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com


--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com
Mar 29 '07 #10

P: n/a
I think we mostly have a semantic difference.
In practice, "obsolete" and "deprecated" are semantic synonyms.

re:
The classes still work in the current version.
You're right about that.

re:
>System.Web.Mail can be thought of as "obsolescent", but not "obsolete", since it still works.
I think that you are confusing this with something else.
I don't think so.

"obsolete" and "deprecated", in the sense they are used in CS,
means that they still work...but are on the way to not working.

At some point in the near ( maybe not so near ) future,
they will cease to work in the newest version.

Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message news:Ob**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
>re:
>>The class is marked as obsolete using the Obsolete attribute.

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/lib...il(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 ones.

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 practice."

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 still 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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message
news:eU**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>Juan T. Llibre wrote:
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.
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 espańol : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl. ..
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" <fr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:11*********************@n59g2000hsh.goog legroups.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
>>>
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com



--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

Mar 29 '07 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.