In article <t0e1hj$7ns$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> a. Google hates VPN
> >
> > so much so, that they offer their own vpn.
>
> Are you intimating that Google won't make your life miserable if you log
> into your Google account to access your mail while you're using any of six
> thousand rotating random VPN server IP addresses as I do?

whoosh

On 2022-03-10, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> In message <QPFUkj3QZVKiFwQ4@a.a> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> It's not the 90s.

No, it's not - I still read email the same way I did in the 1980s, using
a text-based program run in a Unix shell. I don't use POP or IMAP, my
email is delivered via procmail into mbox format "folders".

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2022-03-10 23:41, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 03/10/2022 01:59 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <QPFUkj3QZVKiFwQ4@a.a> J. P. Gilliver (John)
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> I repeat my earlier observation: it seems to really bug IMAP supporters
>>> that people use POP, but not vice versa.
>>
>> POP users are constantly going on about how it's "more secure" or
>> "safer". Conspiracy nutters, flat earthers, and other jackasses love POP.
>
> Or people who used POP since 1995 (long before cellphones were common)
> and have developed a complex filtering structure.  The idea of having to
> do this all over again is genuinely unpleasant, especially since it
> offers ME no benefit over POP.  YMMV, of course;   not everyone uses the
> internet in the same way.

I have accounts that started maybe on 1995, pop3 only, with a filtering
structure that became complex over the years; when I migrated to imap I
did not have to do anything to my filtering.

> I use each device in a different way and do NOT want to have all email
> accessible on all devices.  If I eventually have to do this it will be a
> monumental nuisance and annoyance.

It is with pop3, yes.

>
> Some people are incapable of complex configuration;  I can understand
> why they would prefer a system that offers simplicity.
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

nospam wrote:

>>>> a. Google hates VPN
>>>
>>> so much so, that they offer their own vpn.
>>
>> Are you intimating that Google won't make your life miserable if you log
>> into your Google account to access your mail while you're using any of six
>> thousand rotating random VPN server IP addresses as I do?
>
> whoosh

You're the one who whooshed when I said Google doesn't like when we log in
using a different IP address with each log in to our Google accounts.

If you don't even know that, which I would think _everyone_ should know
already, then it just means you're unfathomably ignorant nospam.

It doesn't matter what services Google offers (hell, they off a cloud
service too, and an advertising service, and a map service, etc.).

You are completely ignorant of what Google does when you log in using VPN.

J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

> I repeat my earlier observation: it seems to really bug IMAP supporters
> that people use POP, but not vice versa.

Odd one out: It really bugs me [1] that I use IMAP! :-)

But other than that:

+<very_large_number>

[1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:04:30 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>In message <t0anl1$f3b$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> But he is right. Zero privacy and I reject all mails from Gmail-senders
>
>Ahahahahah. Yeah, sure you do. 1.5 billion people, at least, use gmail.

Including several of my relatives and my closest friend. As much as I
would like to block all Gmail users, I don't.

>If you reject gmail users you are cutting off a significant percentage
>of the wordl.

Yes.

>But maybe if you have no friends this is fine.
>
>> on my regular mail-accounts. I do not want Google to collect information
>> about me indirectly.
>
>Then you best disconnect for the Internet. You know Google is archiving
>your posts here, right?
>
>> I use my Google-account only to get all the stupid technical mails who
>> logged into my Google-account and whether it was me and which device
>> from where. Utter busllshit and only useable for mentally handicapped
>> people. Google has no access to anything else.

--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer

In article <t0fla9$1sf8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >>>> a. Google hates VPN
> >>>
> >>> so much so, that they offer their own vpn.
> >>
> >> Are you intimating that Google won't make your life miserable if you log
> >> into your Google account to access your mail while you're using any of six
> >> thousand rotating random VPN server IP addresses as I do?
> >
> > whoosh
>
> You're the one who whooshed when I said Google doesn't like when we log in
> using a different IP address with each log in to our Google accounts.
>

you said google hates vpn, which is still quoted above.

google offers their own vpn service, thus they cannot hate vpn. in
fact, they quite like it.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t0fla9$1sf8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >>>> a. Google hates VPN
>> >>>
>> >>> so much so, that they offer their own vpn.
>> >>
>> >> Are you intimating that Google won't make your life miserable if you log
>> >> into your Google account to access your mail while you're using any of six
>> >> thousand rotating random VPN server IP addresses as I do?
>> >
>> > whoosh
>>
>> You're the one who whooshed when I said Google doesn't like when we log in
>> using a different IP address with each log in to our Google accounts.
>>
>
> you said google hates vpn, which is still quoted above.
>
> google offers their own vpn service, thus they cannot hate vpn. in
> fact, they quite like it.

The fact they like to provide others the service of a VPN (so they
can look in the traffic to see what they visit) does not mean that
they like their own service users using VPN (and hiding their originating
place and address)!

nospam wrote:

> you said google hates vpn, which is still quoted above.
>
> google offers their own vpn service, thus they cannot hate vpn. in
> fact, they quite like it.

Whoosh.

Rob wrote:

>> you said google hates vpn, which is still quoted above.
>>
>> google offers their own vpn service, thus they cannot hate vpn. in
>> fact, they quite like it.
>
> The fact they like to provide others the service of a VPN (so they
> can look in the traffic to see what they visit) does not mean that
> they like their own service users using VPN (and hiding their originating
> place and address)!

Thank you for explaining it to the low-IQ ignorant iKook nospam.

Sometimes he says stuff and I have to shake my head in wonderment:
a. Is he really _that_ stupid?
b. Or is he just always pulling out leg with childish denials.

Over time, I've come to realize, the iKooks really _are_ that stupid.
They're no different from the Dunning-Kruger quartile 1 bank robber.
--
I don't care that iKooks are child-like with a low-IQ & no education & low
self esteem; but due to that, they're so confident in being so very wrong.

In message <t0duqv$hjj$1@dont-email.me> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2022 01:59 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <QPFUkj3QZVKiFwQ4@a.a> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> I repeat my earlier observation: it seems to really bug IMAP supporters
>>> that people use POP, but not vice versa.
>>
>> POP users are constantly going on about how it's "more secure" or
>> "safer". Conspiracy nutters, flat earthers, and other jackasses love POP.

> Or people who used POP since 1995 (long before cellphones were common)
> and have developed a complex filtering structure.

I've had an email address since email addresses contained ! (a bang
path, it was called). I remember when '@' was the newfangled thing. That
doesn't make POP better. And it is much simpler and more efficient to
filter mail in IMAP because with a decent host, you have access to sieve
and server-side filtering.

> do this all over again is genuinely unpleasant, especially since it
> offers ME no benefit over POP

If you NEVER need to access your email except from ONE computer, then it
offers fewer advantages, but not none. Howwever, the vast majority of
people do sometimes need to access their email from somewhere else than
their home desktop.

POP stores all the mail in a single text file. This was fine when you
got a few KB of email. It is not great when emails are often in the
15-20MB range. An IMAP account has no issues with large mailboxes, and I
have accounts that have 5GB of mail. I just moved a client to a new
mailhost and her email archive was 3.7GB, but it was in thousands of
files, not one single file.

I stopped supporting POP on my own mailserver when a user had a 1.4GB
mailbox and his checking mail brought the server to it's knees because
every time he checked mail it had to parse that file. This was in 2000
or 2001.

> YMMV, of course; not everyone uses the internet in the same way.

But you can't leave the house without leaving your email behind. You
can't go to work and access your email. Or on vacation. Or anywhere.

> I use each device in a different way and do NOT want to have all email
> accessible on all devices.

Then you have a very limited use of email to start with. No boarding
passes. No login confirmations. And you must never be away from your
'email machine' which certainly would lead one to guess you are quite
elderly to be able to get away with that.

> If I eventually have to do this it will be a monumental nuisance and
> annoyance.

And you say this based on a good foundation on what using IMAP is like
from your many years of never having used it?

> Some people are incapable of complex configuration

There is nothing complex about IMAP. It is MUCH simpler to setup than
POP.

> I can understand why they would prefer a system that offers
> simplicity.

Exactly. That's why IMAP is better in every way.

You're arguing about how bad starter motors are and that you really
think the hand crank is much simpler.

--
Ziggy plays guitar

On 03/11/2022 11:29 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <t0duqv$hjj$1@dont-email.me> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/10/2022 01:59 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <QPFUkj3QZVKiFwQ4@a.a> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> I repeat my earlier observation: it seems to really bug IMAP supporters
>>>> that people use POP, but not vice versa.
>>>
>>> POP users are constantly going on about how it's "more secure" or
>>> "safer". Conspiracy nutters, flat earthers, and other jackasses love POP.
>
>> Or people who used POP since 1995 (long before cellphones were common)
>> and have developed a complex filtering structure.
>
> I've had an email address since email addresses contained ! (a bang
> path, it was called). I remember when '@' was the newfangled thing. That
> doesn't make POP better. And it is much simpler and more efficient to
> filter mail in IMAP because with a decent host, you have access to sieve
> and server-side filtering.

Imap sets up a new mail hierarchy. Right now, in my TB account, I have
25 years of Bob's email, 15 years of Barbara's... I also have a number
of 'folders' that mail gets sorted into automatically as soon as I get
it. Every once in a while I go through and move mail from my inbox to
Bob, Barbara, etc. Now, with IMAP, I will have an entirely new
hierarchy to deal with. AND I will have TWO files for each of the
'folders' I had before. I don't like this.

>> do this all over again is genuinely unpleasant, especially since it
>> offers ME no benefit over POP
>
> If you NEVER need to access your email except from ONE computer, then it
> offers fewer advantages, but not none. Howwever, the vast majority of
> people do sometimes need to access their email from somewhere else than
> their home desktop.

I do, but rarely and only the stuff that needs attention NOW. My phone
is NOT my primary communication device, just the thing I use when I'm
away from home -- a decreasing number of days per year, unfortunately.

> POP stores all the mail in a single text file.

I realize that. The headers take up more space than the message itself,
especially when the messages are in html, most of which don't need to
be. Thunderbird manages to deal with this problem nicely.

> This was fine when you
> got a few KB of email. It is not great when emails are often in the
> 15-20MB range. An IMAP account has no issues with large mailboxes, and I
> have accounts that have 5GB of mail. I just moved a client to a new
> mailhost and her email archive was 3.7GB, but it was in thousands of
> files, not one single file.

Size is immaterial. HD space is dirt cheap and I've got scads of it to
spare. I don't store much at all on my phone, and certainly not email.

> I stopped supporting POP on my own mailserver when a user had a 1.4GB
> mailbox and his checking mail brought the server to it's knees because
> every time he checked mail it had to parse that file. This was in 2000
> or 2001.

Why should I be inconvenienced because YOU had a lazy user?

>> YMMV, of course; not everyone uses the internet in the same way.
>
> But you can't leave the house without leaving your email behind. You
> can't go to work and access your email. Or on vacation. Or anywhere.

Happy to do that. One of the good things about being in the car used to
be that nobody could get at you then. Cellphones wiped that out, of course.

>> I use each device in a different way and do NOT want to have all email
>> accessible on all devices.
>
> Then you have a very limited use of email to start with. No boarding
> passes.

I last flew in 2008. All my friends/relatives are in driving distance
and I like to drive. There's just nowhere I want to fly to any more.

> No login confirmations.

I assume you mean the requirement to respond to an email before an
account is established. I approve of those. More entities should use
them. I'm really fed up with subscriptions to stuff that idiots used MY
email address for. I'm unlikely to want to subscribe to something when
I only have my phone, and if I did I would receive the email on my phone
just like I would on my computer.

> And you must never be away from your
> 'email machine' which certainly would lead one to guess you are quite
> elderly to be able to get away with that.

Shit on elderly, I'm old. I run linux, ski, play tennis and leg-pressed
480 pounds (the machine's max) a dozen times at the gym before The
Plague shut it down. I'll never get that again, but you're making a
mistake if you assume I'm bordering on senility.

>> If I eventually have to do this it will be a monumental nuisance and
>> annoyance.
>
> And you say this based on a good foundation on what using IMAP is like
> from your many years of never having used it?

I changed two accounts to IMAP a few years ago. I don't like the
structure that resulted and I don't like having to go to the gmail
website in order to deal with certain aspects.

>> Some people are incapable of complex configuration
>
> There is nothing complex about IMAP. It is MUCH simpler to setup than
> POP.

That was my point :-)

>> I can understand why they would prefer a system that offers
>> simplicity.
>
> Exactly. That's why IMAP is better in every way.

Whoosh.

> You're arguing about how bad starter motors are and that you really
> think the hand crank is much simpler.

Not relevant. Being able to push a button is a lot easier than
hand-cranking, although I've never done that. I'm also a dirt-rider,
though, and the push-button starter on my roadbike is a lot easier than
the crank on my dirtbike. BUT I had to replace the return spring on the
push-button with a pencil eraser (McGyver lives!); the foot-crank on
the KDX has always worked flawlessly.

--
Cheers, Bev
A spokesperson for 60s band 'the animals' has today made a
public apology saying they were mistaken and there isn't a
house in New Orleans after all.

In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
....
> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.

Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC. I do use IMAP if I
need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.
--
Sheesh. Hibernated from <9 PM - <5 AM with 3/4 wake ups. Didn't get to finish my yesterday's tasks and now somewhat behind. Stop changing the times and fighting please. :( MLB is back again so "let's play balls!".
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

In article <ecmdnQ04SadNbLb_nZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant
<ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>
> I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC.

imap can do that.

> I do use IMAP if I
> need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.

then might as well use imap everywhere. save the email on the one pc.

In message <ecmdnQ04SadNbLb_nZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.

> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC.

Which you can do with IMAP.

Again, for those not paying attention.

There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.

> I do use IMAP if I need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at
> home to use my home PC.

Then you should know how to use IMAP.

For example, I have an account where old mail (anything over 6 months)
is moved to an archive mailbox. this archive is a mailbox that is on my
desktop machine. This means the archive mail doesn't show up on my
laptop, iPhone, or iPad. This is fine, I rarely need to look at those
archived mails, but I do want to keep them, and my desktop is backed up
to Backblaze, a local NAS, a remote NAS, and Time Machine.

--
The "H" in Jesus H Christ comes from "Harold be Thy name" in the
Lord's Prayer.

On 2022-03-12 13:35, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ecmdnQ04SadNbLb_nZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
>
>> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC.
>
> Which you can do with IMAP.
>
> Again, for those not paying attention.
>
> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.

Absolutely.

Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.

>
>> I do use IMAP if I need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at
>> home to use my home PC.
>
> Then you should know how to use IMAP.
>
> For example, I have an account where old mail (anything over 6 months)
> is moved to an archive mailbox. this archive is a mailbox that is on my
> desktop machine. This means the archive mail doesn't show up on my
> laptop, iPhone, or iPad. This is fine, I rarely need to look at those
> archived mails, but I do want to keep them, and my desktop is backed up
> to Backblaze, a local NAS, a remote NAS, and Time Machine.
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-12 05:12:40 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:

>> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
>> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
>
> Absolutely.

Why?

What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 14:12:40, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
>simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
>their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.
[]
I'm quite willing to believe you, but isn't that the foundation of what
seems to be the main advantage touted for IMAP - in other words, if you
keep all your mail on one local PC (and _not_ on the server) under IMAP,
doesn't that dismiss that main advantage?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... unlike other legal systems the common law is permissive. We can do what we
like, unless it is specifically prohibited by law. We are not as rule-bound
and codified as other legal systems. - Helena Kennedy QC (Radio Times 14-20
July 2012).

In article <t0ibv7$1jl$1@dont-email.me>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> >> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
> >> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Why?
>
> What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?

because it was designed to go beyond the limitations of pop.

In article <zo6sdgOrqMLiFwvK@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >Nothing in IMAP forces people to keep email on the server. Wrong. It
> >simply _allows_ users to keep mail on the servers if they want, or on
> >their machines if they want. The choice is on the user.
> []
> I'm quite willing to believe you,

you should, because it's true.

> but isn't that the foundation of what
> seems to be the main advantage touted for IMAP - in other words, if you
> keep all your mail on one local PC (and _not_ on the server) under IMAP,
> doesn't that dismiss that main advantage?

it's one of numerous additional features and functionality that imap
offers. whether a user utilizes any of that is their choice, rather
than being forced to do something a particular way due to limitations
in the protocol.

nospam wrote:

>> What's the reason imap can do what pop can't do?
>
> because it was designed to go beyond the limitations of pop.

Much like Android is designed to go beyond the limitations of iOS.

There are zero app functionalities on iOS not already on Android.
There are plenty of app functionalities on Android not on iOS.

The reasons are the same.
It's not the hardware.

It's the enormous restrictions Apple places on what apps can do.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> There is NOTHING POP can do that IMAP cannot do. There are many things
>> that IMAP can do that POP cannot do.
>
> Absolutely.

If you don't understand the _why_, you basically don't understand anything.

Just saying "IMAP is newer" doesn't mean you understand _why_ it may be more
functional in all ways than is POP.

It's like saying the iPhone 15 is newer than a an old Android phone, and
that alone gives it the functionality no iPhone will ever have over Android.
--
If you don't understand _why_, then you understand nothing.

In article <t0ipic$1bs0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Much like Android is designed to go beyond the limitations of iOS.

hah, no.

> There are zero app functionalities on iOS not already on Android.

repeating that lie doesn't change the fact that it's a lie, trollboi.

Am 12.03.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ant:
> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
>
> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC. I do use IMAP if I
> need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.

Once more you prove that you neither understand POP nor IMAP.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 19:52:22, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>Am 12.03.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ant:
>> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>> [1] FTR, I'm not a POP 'supporter', I'm a POP user.
>>
>> Ditto. I prefer to keep my e-mails on a single PC. I do use IMAP if I
>> need to keep e-mails on servers when I am not at home to use my home PC.
>
>Once more you prove that you neither understand POP nor IMAP.
>
If Frank and Ant have something that works for them, why does it really
bug you so? How is it inconveniencing _you_?

Most POP users I know (including me) are _not_ bothered when they find
someone is using IMAP; as far as I'm concerned, if it works fine for
you, I have no intention of trying to change you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August