The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2022 12:14 AM, Chris wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The available instructions about what changes to our desktop
>>>>> browsers/email programs are both lacking and contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> Try here
>>>> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/thunderbird-and-gmail
>>>
>>> Easy-peasy, right? The nastiest problem is having to install a new
>>> version of TB. BTW, TB38 doesn't support OAuth2, although the above
>>> says that V31 and older do not.
>>
>> Er. Isn't v38 *newer* than v31?
>
> It is indeed, but it does NOT offer OAuth2 for smtp or POP3 servers. It
> would be nice if a REAL programmer would develop an extension to solve
> the problem for us dinosaurs.

Real developers don't support deprecated software. Especially when that
feature is already available in a newer version of the application.

>>> I will NOT write over my current
>>> version of TB, but will run the new version completely separately after
>>> having copied over my profile to the new profile. Not sure if that will
>>> cause damage, but right now using newer TB facilities for importing
>>> current settings, passwords, addressbook etc. do NOT work reliably.
>>> Moreover, the newer addressbook displays are hopelessly ugly and
>>> wasteful of space.
>>>
>>> Still, maybe it will indeed be easy. We'll see.
>>
>> Your choice. Your consequences. You've got backups, right?
>
> Multiple. I also intend to keep my entire TB installation and profile
> after The Changeover.
>
>> I moved to the new Thunderbird a couple of years ago and from memory it
>> went smoothly.
>
> You must not have done much personalization, then. And you probably
> like hierarchical menus rather than a lot of buttons, each of which
> accomplishes a function you frequently use.

I didn't say I preferred the new thunderbird over the old one...

> Is your TB possibly still
> set at what must be the default -- REPLY ALL? I ask because
> non-configurers frequently blast out their replies to the sender to the
> entire maillist.

I don't really use it for mail. Mostly usenet.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2022 03:21 AM, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> posted
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just being unable to use TB38 is entirely sufficient for me to wish a
>>>> painful death upon the appropriate google personnel.
>>>
>>> How many gmail users are there? 1.8 billion apparently
>>>
>>> 3/4 of them use gmail via the phone app
>>>
>>> I'd guess 2/3 of what's left use the web interface
>>>
>>> So maybe 10% using IMAP or POP
>>>
>>> How many of those using thunderbird
>>>
>>> How many of those under Linux?
>>>
>>> How many of those sticking with an old TB version?
>>>
>>> And you wonder why they haven't written a guide that's directly
>>> applicable to you?
>>
>> Why not? It's effectively what you have done on this and similar threads
>> (free of charge too - thanks)! And anyway this change in Gmail is aimed
>> *only* at people who use "old less secure mail clients". The other 95
>> per cent are totally unaffected. The guide *only* needs to be addressed
>> to us recalcitrants. It doesn't need to be specific to any particular
>> e-mail client or operating system.
>>
>> How many thousands of man-hours has Google spent on this change? Surely
>> they could have devoted one man-day to writing a simple instruction
>> sheet for us, essentially:
>>
>> [begin]
>> Do you have a fully updated e-mail client?
>> [yes] You're OK. Don't change anything. [exit]
>> [else]
>> Does your e-mail client support oAuth2 with either IMAP or POP?
>> [yes] Log into your gmail account and set it up to use IMAP or POP with
>> oAUth2 and follow the instructions. This will work after the login
>> routine changes on 30 May [exit]
>> [else] Log in to your gmail account and set up 2FA. Follow the
>> instructions for setting an app password for your mail account. When you
>> have it, enter it as the new login password for your mail account. This
>> will work after the login routine changes on 30 May.
>> [exit]
>>
>> It might need to be a bit more detailed than that but surely not much
>> more.
>
> Somebody said you also need to delete the uname+pwd for the account. If
> that's necessary then SURELY the googledroids should mention it. If
> true, that's the stumbling block that caused my test to fail.

It's not true.

>>> If you creep onto such a specific limb, surely you have have to develop
>>> your own "knack" of knowing what applies, what doesn't and what you
>>> have to test for yourself because you're essentially unique?
>>
>> There are probably several million of us.
>
> I used to get notifications from a linux organization about the number
> of registered linux users from each country. I should hunt that down...

Me too. The site died several years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Counter

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Chris,
>
>>>> I prefer to use a password manager that is under my control (i.e. not
>>>> the
>>>> browser one)
>>>
>>> Can you tell why that that is ? I mean, what does a browser (not) do
>>> that
>>> you dislike it.
>>
>> They weren't terribly secure last I looked - admittedly a long time ago -
>
> Hmmm... I'm not at all sure what kind of security where looking at there.

Like I said, it was a long time ago and I'm not seeing any benefit over my
current password manager. I see only negatives.

>> and aren't useful for places other than websites.
>
> True.
>
>> There's less control over your passwords.
>
> Hmmm... Even my (rather old) FF allows me to edit the name and password
> for a website, as well as in- and export them (just checked to be sure).

I mean I can store my password database where I want and how I want. It is
not dependent on having an internet connection either.

>> Nope. There's more redundancy with a password manager IMO. Several things
>> would have to go wrong for me to lose access everywhere.
>
> If you are referring to backups (of the master passsword, the password list
> as well as the program), those work for in-browser password managers too.

I'm not referring to backups.

> Thanks for they reply.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
>

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2022 12:31 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Bev,
>>
>>> "Let's just remove all the warning labels and see what happens..."
>>
>> Going from a shitload of warnings to none ? That's like like going "cold
>> turkey" on a drugs habbit - the immediate effects will be ... less than
>> pleasurable.
>
> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
> bathtub..."

And callous as hell. Civilisation has developed as society improved in
caring after others.

>>> One of my favorites is our very own -- "This product is known to the State
>>> of California to cause cancer..." or the "This location is known..."
>>> Pompous as well as useless.
>>
>> I'm from Europe, and the plethora of warnings that /have/ to be put on about
>> everything is a source of a number of jokes.
>
> We'd make them too but they've become invisible.

Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.

>> Over here anyone who tries to sue a company because they killed their cat in
>> one of their magnetrons because previously drying the beast in an oven
>> worked fine would be "laughed", possibly literally, outof court. Our legal
>> system (still) doesn't reward stupidity like that.
>
> Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.

Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in their
behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee on *your*
lap is not reasonable behaviour.

We do have stronger statutory consumer protections here as well.

It's funny how US culture puts personal responsibility above everything
else, but as soon as there's an opportunity to sue someone for something
that you did personal responsibility goes out the window.

If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.

The Real Bev wrote:

> Chris wrote:
>
>> Isn't v38 *newer* than v31?
>
> It is indeed, but it does NOT offer OAuth2 for smtp or POP3 servers.  It would
> be nice if a REAL programmer would develop an extension to solve the problem for
> us dinosaurs.

Not a TB extension, but how about an email proxy that does support oAuth which
you point at gmail, and then you point TB at that proxy, instead of at gmail?

<https://github.com/simonrob/email-oauth2-proxy>

I've never used it ...

The Real Bev wrote:

> Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> https://oauth2-proxy.github.io/oauth2-proxy/
>
> Not all that informative.

I think that supports oAuth for https, not for imap/pop.

Andy Burns wrote:

> <https://github.com/simonrob/email-oauth2-proxy>

Ahh, looks like it handles IMAP and SMTP, but not POP, presumably wouldn't be
that hard to extend?

Bev,

> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
> bathtub..."

:-) You mean the /remainder/ of that civilization.

On the other hand, the average IQ would probably go up by a few points. On
the /other/ hand, I've read enough stories about highly-educated people who
couldn't figure out why their unplugged computer wouldn't work anymore.

> We'd make them too but they've become invisible.

Yep. Put enough iterations of something somewhere and ultimatily the brain
blanks them out, causing a reverse effect - besides the problem that having
a lot of them drowns the actually important ones out.

> Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.

Possibly. Time will tell. Heck, maybe the movie "idiocracy" is an actual
depiction of the future.

>> But AFAIK it resulted inthe company adding a warning that pets should not
>> be put inside their magnetrons.
>
> See?

:-) That was what the /American/ company did for its /American/ customers.

> I once sprayed dryer spray (remember that?) in my eye because I was
> careless in aiming.

Can't say I remember it. I'm not even sure what "dryer spray" is ...

But yes, I've been careless too, and only escaped injury by the skin of my
teeth. On the positive side, I still remember it and won't /ever/ repeat
it.

> The initial pain might have been a clue.

And thats the whole "lets be slow-and-cautious about it" initial "what does
a flame feel like" experiment. Only after having experienced that pain you
could start to think about if speed would perhaps be a good idea so you
won't get hurt again.

> I used a chunk of it to verify some statement that 2-column text crammed
> in more words than 1-column text of the same dimensions.

I never used it myself, but I remember it for being absolute gibberish.
Comparing someones work with it isn't a good sign ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Chris,

> Civilisation has developed as society improved in
> caring after others.

I disagree. America sets a /very/ bad example in the way where a simple
accident needing hospital time can throw the person into poverty.

As for my country (where the most expensive thing in regard to a multi-hour
operation is probably the cab-fare to- and from the hospital) ? We have
offloaded all kinds of "care" to professionals. The changes in "social
wellfare" (money handed out by the gouverment so you don't die while looking
for another job) have caused people not needing to depend on one another,
causing people to alienate. IOW, we /lost/ the (need for) caring of
others.

> Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in
> their behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee
> on *your* lap is not reasonable behaviour.

Ofcourse it is. After all, *they* made that coffee that hot. :-)

> If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.

Than you would need to lobotimize everyone, because greed is universal. It
just is played out differently under the different countries laws. Just ask
yourself why you have a locks on the outside doors of your home and/or car.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t6kq86$k7p$2@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in
> > their behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee
> > on *your* lap is not reasonable behaviour.
>
> Ofcourse it is. After all, *they* made that coffee that hot. :-)

your smiley indicates you know nothing about the case (which most
people do not).

mcdonald's, by their own admission, knowingly sold coffee that was too
hot for human consumption (about 20-30 degrees hotter than other
restaurants), which caused more than 700 burn incidents in the previous
ten years, about one incident every five days, and refused to do
anything to reduce that number.

the court found that they had a reckless disregard for the safety of
their patrons. more details in another post.

In article <t6kl25$uhf$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Over here anyone who tries to sue a company because they killed their cat
> >> in
> >> one of their magnetrons because previously drying the beast in an oven
> >> worked fine would be "laughed", possibly literally, outof court. Our legal
> >> system (still) doesn't reward stupidity like that.
> >
> > Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.
>
> Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in their
> behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee on *your*
> lap is not reasonable behaviour.

it is when mcdonald's, by their own admission, knowingly served food
that was unfit for human consumption, in particular, coffee that was
about 20-30 degrees hotter than other restaurants and could cause
severe burns within seconds, without any warning of the danger.

mcdonald's stated the high temperature created an aroma that increased
sales.

there were more than 700 burns in the previous ten years (that's about
one *every* *five* days*), including children and instances where
mcdonald's staff spilled it, and did nothing to reduce that number.

ms. liebeck initially asked that mcdonald's pay her medical expenses,
which mcdonald's had done in previous cases, in this case, about $20k.

mcdonald's said no, offering only $800.

ms. liebeck sued, ultimately going to trial after attempts to settle
out of court failed.

mcdonald's was found to have a 'willful, reckless, malicious or wanton
disregard' for the safety of its patrons (and not just ms. liebeck).

ms liebeck was awarded $200k in compensatory damages, reduced by 20%
because she was found to be partly at fault (despite that she was the
*passenger* in a *parked* vehicle), and an additional $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which was roughly two days of coffee sales, reduced
on appeal and ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum.

<https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-
cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html>
<https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts>
<https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/>

tl;dr - mcdonald's fucked up. big time.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
>threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.

Wow

You're not afraid of Americans or anything, and you never spout off
hateful rhetoric nor chew scenery 'cuz you want attention but can't
actually make a legitimate argument.

You'd never behave in an utterly immature manner on Usenet to prove how
justified you are in looking down on everybody else. Right?

We should all love and worship people who are practically perfect in every way.

Adam,

>>Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
>>threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.
>
> Wow
>
> You're not afraid of Americans or anything, and you never spout off
> hateful rhetoric nor chew scenery 'cuz you want attention but can't
> actually make a legitimate argument.

Really ?

Here in my nick of the (European) woods the Americans are well-known for
their sue-happyness. And there is no other country that I know of where
ambulance-chasing by lawfirm employees (so they are the first to offer their
"sue them for all they are worth!" services to a victim) is a thing.

And pardon me, but other than a mouthfull of accusations I do not see you
support anything. IOW, you've not got anything like an "legitimate
argument" either. hypocrisy much ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 25 May 2022 at 4:36:06 PM, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> Here in my nick of the (European) woods the Americans are well-known for
> their sue-happyness.

Your statements reek of a racist's level of knowledge and of a racist's
narrow untoward extremely biased narrow minded attitude.

I'm an American and I've never sued anyone, nor have I ever been sued.

What you racists don't understand is some people sue and some don't just
like some people commit crimes and some don't.

It has nothing to do with being an American or not but racists can't see
things for what they are.

Racists see things they way they want to see them.

Cheers, Rob

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:

>Adam,

>>>Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
>>>threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.

>>Wow

>>You're not afraid of Americans or anything, and you never spout off
>>hateful rhetoric nor chew scenery 'cuz you want attention but can't
>>actually make a legitimate argument.

>Really ?

>Here in my nick of the (European) woods the Americans are well-known for
>their sue-happyness. And there is no other country that I know of where
>ambulance-chasing by lawfirm employees (so they are the first to offer their
>"sue them for all they are worth!" services to a victim) is a thing.

>And pardon me, but other than a mouthfull of accusations I do not see you
>support anything. IOW, you've not got anything like an "legitimate
>argument" either. hypocrisy much ?

I made an observation about his character based on what he'd written.
Golly, it's shocking that you would jump to his defense and make a
similar over-the-top comment, 'cuz you know, you got jealous that
another fool attempted to hog your spotlight, challenging you for the
top spot.

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Bev,
>
>> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
>> bathtub..."
>
> :-) You mean the /remainder/ of that civilization.
>
> On the other hand, the average IQ would probably go up by a few points.

Oh FFS! No it wouldn't #facepalm

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t6kl25$uhf$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Over here anyone who tries to sue a company because they killed their cat
>>>> in
>>>> one of their magnetrons because previously drying the beast in an oven
>>>> worked fine would be "laughed", possibly literally, outof court. Our legal
>>>> system (still) doesn't reward stupidity like that.
>>>
>>> Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.
>>
>> Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in their
>> behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee on *your*
>> lap is not reasonable behaviour.
>
> it is when mcdonald's, by their own admission, knowingly served food
> that was unfit for human consumption, in particular, coffee that was
> about 20-30 degrees hotter than other restaurants and could cause
> severe burns within seconds, without any warning of the danger.

So just because other restaurants serve cold coffee, they should do the
same? lol

> mcdonald stated the high temperature created an aroma that increased
> sales.
>
> there were more than 700 burns in the previous ten years (that's about
> one *every* *five* days*), including children and instances where
> mcdonald's staff spilled it, and did nothing to reduce that number.

In a population of 300m, that's tiny. I mean how many billions of coffees
do they sell in 10 years?

5bn apparently
https://www.shopfood.com/restaurants/mcdonalds-coffee/

> ms. liebeck initially asked that mcdonald's pay her medical expenses,
> which mcdonald's had done in previous cases, in this case, about $20k.
>
> mcdonald's said no, offering only $800.
>
> ms. liebeck sued, ultimately going to trial after attempts to settle
> out of court failed.
>
> mcdonald's was found to have a 'willful, reckless, malicious or wanton
> disregard' for the safety of its patrons (and not just ms. liebeck).

By serving hot drinks? Sure. It may be the ruling but it's still dumb. The
law often gets things wrong.

Why not sue the car manufacturer for not providing cup holders?

> ms liebeck was awarded $200k in compensatory damages, reduced by 20%
> because she was found to be partly at fault

Entirely at fault. In related news knives are sharp, flames burn and ice is
slippy.

> (despite that she was the
> *passenger* in a *parked* vehicle), and an additional $2.7 million in
> punitive damages,

This is what doesn't exist here. You can only sue for real or actual harm
or losses. The US punitive payouts are often ridiculous.

> which was roughly two days of coffee sales, reduced
> on appeal and ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum.
>
> <https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-
> cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html>
> <https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts>
> <https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/>
>
> tl;dr - mcdonald's fucked up. big time.

Nope.

Yet companies genuinely having wanton and malicious disregard for the harm
of their products which are killing tens of thousands americans every year
are free to do so. With no risk to their business.

Sure. Hot coffee is the real problem.

Adam,

> I made an observation about his character based on what he'd written.

Not about about what he wrote in the post you responded to, thats much is
sure.

> Golly, it's shocking that you would jump to his defense and make a
> similar over-the-top comment,

You're seeming ly randomly attacking someone and you find it strange that
I'm saying something about that ? Really ?

> 'cuz you know, you got jealous that another fool attempted to hog
> your spotlight, challenging you for the top spot.

:-D is /that/ all you are trying to do ? Trying to force your way into the
spotlight ? Heck, I did not even know there was one.

But in that case, by all means, be my guest. If its that important to you
that you have no problem making a fool of yourself I'm not going to stop
you.

.... one thing though, I'm not going to stay and watch your show. Enjoy
your spotlight though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:

>Adam,

>>I made an observation about his character based on what he'd written.

>Not about about what he wrote in the post you responded to, thats much is
>sure.

Congratulations on confusing yourself, having cut all the context out.

Rudy, I have no need to read any more of your foolish followup. I can
conclude from having read these several followups that you are the
bigger clown than the O.P.

Rudy, you are the winner! Let the celebration begin!

>>. . .

On 05/25/2022 12:35 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't v38 *newer* than v31?
>>
>> It is indeed, but it does NOT offer OAuth2 for smtp or POP3 servers. It would
>> be nice if a REAL programmer would develop an extension to solve the problem for
>> us dinosaurs.
>
> Not a TB extension, but how about an email proxy that does support oAuth which
> you point at gmail, and then you point TB at that proxy, instead of at gmail?
>
> <https://github.com/simonrob/email-oauth2-proxy>
>
> I've never used it ...

That looks a lot more user-friendly than the github link I posted
earlier. Later...

--
Cheers, Bev
Will give investment advice for food.

On 05/24/2022 11:27 PM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/24/2022 12:02 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/23/2022 01:57 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just being unable to use TB38 is entirely sufficient for me to wish a painful
>>>>>> death upon the appropriate google personnel.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many gmail users are there? 1.8 billion apparently
>>>>>
>>>>> 3/4 of them use gmail via the phone app
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd guess 2/3 of what's left use the web interface
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe 10% using IMAP or POP
>>>>>
>>>>> How many of those using thunderbird
>>>>>
>>>>> How many of those under Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many of those sticking with an old TB version?
>>>>>
>>>>> And you wonder why they haven't written a guide that's directly applicable to
>>>>> you? If you creep onto such a specific limb, surely you have have to develop
>>>>> your own "knack" of knowing what applies, what doesn't and what you have to test
>>>>> for yourself because you're essentially unique?
>>>>
>>>> I am VERY unique!
>>>>
>>>> I feel sorry for all those people who are using suboptimal facilities.
>>>
>>> What's less optimal than running the risk of losing access to all your
>>> emails?
>>
>> Isn't that more likely to happen if I trust to their continued existence
>> in the cloud rather than on my own computer?
>
> You'll lose access to any new email if you don't change to use an
> alternative method to connect to gmail.
>
> But if the cloud is your issue why are you using gmail at all? Just get a
> traditional email server.

If I use ONLY IMAP, all my email is in the cloud. Once lightning-strike
and we have a problem... It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own
stuff within reach. So 'traditional' email servers don't use the net?
Cool...

>>>> They're probably the people who don't know what options or preferences
>>>> are and wouldn't know what to do with them if they did.
>>>
>>> Or they understand the consequences of an immovable object meeting an
>>> unstoppable force.
>>
>> This is very close to a religious question -- what you believe affects
>> what you do/don't do/fear.
>
> Email isn't belief system...

No, but how you use it is. I trust gmail to send messages between
people, storing them for as long as the users want them to, but perhaps
much longer unbeknownst to them. If you believe that nothing can go
worng then you trust the cloud. If not, not.

--
Cheers, Bev
Will give investment advice for food.

On 05/24/2022 11:31 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Luckily I don't care all that much about email on a phone (too small of a
> screen for my tastes, and typing with fingers isn't my style either);

Likewise. Fortunately my favored keyboard (AI Type, maybe ALL of them)
offers really good voice-to-text composition. Probably not good to use
that in a crowded room, but we rarely have to do that.

Aside: Google's song-recognition extends to classical music. It may
not always be 100% correct, though; it recognized Oistrakh's Symphonie
Espagnole, but it was really done by a Chinese guy. I'm sure KUSC
wouldn't lie to me. Still, it got the piece right.

> but I
> am in the market for a decent replacement for K-9 Mail that will do OAuth
> too.

I have no idea whether or not Bluemail does OAuth or not. I don't
remember doing any setup at all, although I must have...

--
Cheers, Bev
Will give investment advice for food.

On 05/24/2022 11:35 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>>>> -- essential, since I almost
>>>> NEVER want to get my email on my phone.
>>>
>>> then why did you use an email app on a phone?
>>
>> What part of 'almost' was not clear?
>
> Hi The Real Bev,
> I'm like you in that I "almost" never care about having email on my phone
> _except_ when I do, which is rare, but it does happen every once in a
> while.
>
> The reasons are myriad, where I accept that others may care more greatly
> than I do if they get/send more emails than I do, but I send an email once
> a year or so from a phone, and I receive it on the phone perhaps a couple
> times a year.
>
> So it's nice to have on the phone when I need it, but I'll download it
> _only_ when I need it, which I suspect is your use model also.

Affirmative.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin

On 05/24/2022 11:54 PM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/24/2022 03:21 AM, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> posted
>>>
>>>> If you creep onto such a specific limb, surely you have have to develop
>>>> your own "knack" of knowing what applies, what doesn't and what you
>>>> have to test for yourself because you're essentially unique?
>>>
>>> There are probably several million of us.
>>
>> I used to get notifications from a linux organization about the number
>> of registered linux users from each country. I should hunt that down...
>
> Me too. The site died several years ago.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Counter

Bummer.

"At the end of 2020 Benjamin Marwell contacted Christin Löhner and asked
to revive the project. They both decided to create a completely new
application in VueJS. Since 1st of january 2021, they both work together
on github for a new linuxcounter/unixcounter project."

Knock wood.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin

In article <t6mbes$9f0$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If I use ONLY IMAP, all my email is in the cloud.

false. it's wherever you want it to be, which can be in what you call
the cloud, local or a combination of both.

> Once lightning-strike
> and we have a problem...

how often does that happen?

lightning could also strike your house, resulting in a fire, where
everything is lost.

for lightning to take out 'the cloud', it would need to hit multiple
data centers across the planet, all at the same time, and even then,
there are offline backups.

> It's ALL cloud,

except when it isn't.

> I just want to keep my own
> stuff within reach.

it can be, but it's nowhere near as reliable.

> So 'traditional' email servers don't use the net?

they do.