Talk:Internet Messaging Program

Computing: Software Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merging into Horde

I don't think merging this to the main Horde framework is such a good idea. IMP has been the original software that Chuck established. It was rather successful and got installed on thousands of servers many of which still use it today. As a webmailer it really has its own profile and competes with alternatives such as Squirrelmail and Roundcube. Horde on the other hand is a web application framework and delivers a well known groupware. While both are linked they have their own characteristics that do not fit that well together on a single page.I will remove the merge suggestion. Gunnar Wrobel (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and third party sources

It seems that the topic is sourced from "horde" and its developers. Without some useful WP:RS in particular sources which are demonstrably third-party and knowledgeable about the topic area, there's not much for the reader here TEDickey (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I removed that note too early. I added two additional external links for now but I planned on expanding the article anyway and will request removal of the note once it has a bit more meat. Gunnar Wrobel (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phpmagazine link is an example of a random comment by an anonymous person (not a good source). The techworld link has the appearance of a press release. Given the claims in change commentary, there should be better sources than these. If I'm reading a "review", I'm looking for someone who gives the reader the impression that they've looked at something critically, not merely echoing what the vendor has to say about their product TEDickey (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]