Am 09.03.22 um 17:58 schrieb Ken Blake:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 08:39:25 -0600, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to have an Email account with
>> Google.
>
>
>
> "Stupid enough"? That's a very brash statement which is undoubtedly
> insulting to many people, including me.

But he is right. Zero privacy and I reject all mails from Gmail-senders
on my regular mail-accounts. I do not want Google to collect information
about me indirectly.

> I have a Gmail account. It's not my main e-mail account, and I use it
> only to receive unimportant advertising mail. I never use it to send
> mail, but it's also there as backup to my main e-mail account, just in
> case it goes down for some reason.

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.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 09.03.22 um 17:53 schrieb Ken Blake:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:30:40 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
>> professionally managed server.
>
>
> I disagree. It depends on who owns that "professionally managed
> server." It may be very safe on many of them, maybe even most of them,
> but not all of them.

I have serious doubts that you are in teh position to judge that. I talk
about companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or others.

> Another very safe place (safer, in at least some cases) is on multiple
> generations of backup media in a bank's safe deposit box.

That is a solution from the last century ...
I have better things to do with my money and my time.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> I do not want Google to collect information
> about me indirectly.

Given Apple requires you to maintain an iCloud account if you ever want to
make your iPhone useful, and given Apple certainly collects reams upon reams
of data about you every single day, why do you use an iPhone then?

*I asked Apple for all my data. Here's what was sent back*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-request/>

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Am 09.03.22 um 14:36 schrieb Mayayana:
>> IMAP is designed for webmail. POP3 is designed for
>> reading email in client software. Each defaults to being
>> what makes most sense for those uses.
>
> What?
> You have absolutely no clue about both protocols.

When you have people like Jeorg proving Mayayana wrong, that's
Mayayana === Moron

nospam wrote:

>> IMAP is designed for webmail.
>
> imap began life in the 1980s, long before webmail was even an idea, let
> alone an actual thing, designed to go beyond the limitations of pop.

Mayayana pulled the racist moves he _always_ pulls...
(If one black guy is a criminal, to Mayayana, _all_ black people are.)

In this case, he uses IMAP. And he uses Webmail.
That's all Mayayana needs to form his very strongly held baseless opinions.

To low IQ people like Mayayana clearly is...
IMAP === webmail

Lewis wrote:

> In message <t0aaif$u46$1@dont-email.me> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> IMAP is designed for webmail.
>
> Absolutely redicullous, IMAP has been around far longer than the web.

When you have the lowest-IQ morons of all showing Mayayana wrong...
That's ironic.

We proved long ago Mayayana has the classic racists' inabilities.
*If one black man is a criminal, to Mayayana, all are.*

To low-IQ racists like Mayayana, all he needed was a single association.
webmail
IMAP

Hence, to low-IQ uneducated morons like Mayayana, they're the same thing!
Mayayana === Moron

On 9 Mar 2022 at 4:42:40 PM, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> E-Mail is the wrong way for confidential communication. Full Stop and
> nothing to add.

Didn't the CIA Director General Petraeus get caught by using GMAIL even when
he didn't send any emails?
--
Cheers, Rob

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t0anga.15hc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
> Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
> > > professionally managed server.
> >
> > True, but not all email (and others) servers are professionally
> > managed
>
> just about all of them are.
>
> > and even if they are, you still need to have local copies of
> > your email/data if you need access to them when there's no network
> > available or feasible.
>
> only to read/reply offline. if that's not important, then there is no
> need for a local copy, although most email apps cache, so you get that
> anyway.

You're still <whoosh!>-ing. At least Joerg *did* get it. You know,
Joerg, the one whose attribution you snipped.

Read the first two lines you quoted above and try again.

[More similar misinterpretations kept for reference:]

> > And you need backup of your email/data, because relying on just a
> > single copy of your email/data is foolish.
>
> the email provider backs it up extensively than anything an end user
> can possibly do, including multiple redundant drives and geographically
> distributed locations.
>
> > So you *still* need to secure and backup the email/data on the
> > laptop/server(s), so, whether you use IMAP or POP, those problems
> > remain.
>
> more copies is always a good thing, but it's not as important as you
> make it out to be, especially given that it's backed up by the email
> provider.

On 2022-03-09 18:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 09.03.22 um 17:53 schrieb Ken Blake:
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:30:40 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
>>> professionally managed server.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. It depends on who owns that "professionally managed
>> server." It may be very safe on many of them, maybe even most of them,
>> but not all of them.
>
> I have serious doubts that you are in teh position to judge that. I talk
> about companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or others.

Google does things I do not consider professional.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-09 14:36, Mayayana wrote:
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>
> | > imap can easily download email to your computer.
> |
> | Can it? How do you configure it to do that? I thought that if you received
> | your email by IMAP it never left the server, apart from when the client
> | downloads a transient copy of it to read, which was erased when you closed
> | the mail app.
> |
> | What is the big advantage of IMAP over POP?
> |
>
> IMAP is designed for webmail. POP3 is designed for
> reading email in client software.

Wow. No.

IMAP was invented on 1985, way before webmail appeared.

In fact, the inventor of IMAP also created a mail client that runs in
plain text mode, which can use both POP3 or IMAP (Alpine).

IMAP was indeed invented to be used on client software. On multiple
client software.

One of the very early uses of POP3 included 4 different applications:

one to download mail
one to sort mail in local folders
one to view email.
another to send email produced by the previous step

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-09 16:45, Heron wrote:
> On 3/9/2022 2:50 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Besides, what app actually requires the contacts to be uploaded anyway?
>>
>> I live in Europe. The data protection laws here prohibit that, so it
>> is not happening.
>
> Are you sure of that?
> I thought Google syncs updated contacts across all devices.

Yes, YOUR devices. That is not publishing or distributing. Does not go
further.

Any enterprise mail suite does that too, by the way.

> How do you have contacts in Europe without that?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 09.03.22 um 20:51 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2022-03-09 18:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 09.03.22 um 17:53 schrieb Ken Blake:
>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:30:40 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
>>>> professionally managed server.
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. It depends on who owns that "professionally managed
>>> server." It may be very safe on many of them, maybe even most of them,
>>> but not all of them.
>>
>> I have serious doubts that you are in teh position to judge that. I talk
>> about companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or others.
>
> Google does things I do not consider professional.

Because you do not like it it is unprofessional?
Are you trying to troll here?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <t0b3m1.18h0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > > > There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
> > > > professionally managed server.
> > >
> > > True, but not all email (and others) servers are professionally
> > > managed
> >
> > just about all of them are.
> >
> > > and even if they are, you still need to have local copies of
> > > your email/data if you need access to them when there's no network
> > > available or feasible.
> >
> > only to read/reply offline. if that's not important, then there is no
> > need for a local copy, although most email apps cache, so you get that
> > anyway.
>
> You're still <whoosh!>-ing. At least Joerg *did* get it. You know,
> Joerg, the one whose attribution you snipped.

i was responding to you, not him.

what he and others wrote is for context.

> Read the first two lines you quoted above and try again.

and? i agree with it.

now who were you saying whooshed?

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> IMAP is designed for webmail. POP3 is designed for
>> reading email in client software.
>
> Wow. No.
>
> IMAP was invented on 1985, way before webmail appeared.

The funny thing is something like almost a half dozen people directly told
"Mayayana === Moron" the fact that IMAP isn't webmail (nor vice versa).

Since I've studied "Mayayana === Moron", I will predict, years in advance,
that "Mayayana === Moron" will _again_ tout that very same belief system.

People who own imaginary belief systems don't change them based on facts.

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>> Google does things I do not consider professional.
>
> Because you do not like it it is unprofessional?
> Are you trying to troll here?

Actually Google does do some things I would consider sophomoric.

For example, if you use VPN they will lock you out, even if you never once
spammed anyone - which is simply sophomoric coding in my assessment.

Like racists claiming all Mexicans are criminals, you have to actually be a
criminal in order to be considered a criminal, not have just a trait.

I've even documented a case where google allowed my computer to contact a
local mailing list which I _often_ communicate with, and yet when I tried
using my iPad from the local library IP address, it failed every time.

That's not necessarily "unprofessional" so much as sophomoric coding.

They should have noticed it was me, and it was to the same mailing list, and
even if they cared about the IP, it was geolocated to the same town, etc.

But they blocked every single one during a crisis (which is why it mattered)
as the roads were blocked so I couldn't get home for days (neither could
others).

That Google did this is an example of sophomoric coding, which some could
call it unprofessional because it casts too wide of a net unnecessarily so.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 17:11:38, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>POP3 is designed for reading mail on a single device. It was suitable for
>a system where you logged in to a specific computer and read mil there.

I don't read email on the remote computer; I download it and read it
locally.

I know at least one person who uses POP on multiple devices.
>
>IMAP is designed for reading email on multiple devices and being able to
>keep that email in sync. It has many advantages of POP3 and POP3 has NO
>advatanges over IMAP because IMAP can be used in a way that replicates
>POP exactly, while the same cannot be said of POP3.
>
POP has the "advantage" that it will run on clients that don't support
IMAP. That may sound very niche, but some people may have decades of
email in such a client.

(I think POP is probably significantly simpler to implement than IMAP,
though I doubt that has any relevance these days.)
>
>> Each defaults to being what makes most sense for those uses.
>
>Ther is absolutely no reason for anyone to be using POP3. It offers zero
>advantages over IMAP and zero features over IMAP.

I once read that people who have tattoos have no problem with people who
don't have tattoos. (I don't have any tattoos, but I've always thought
it a thoughtful observation [because a lot of people who _don't_ have
tattoos seem to have a problem with those who do].) Whatever the pros
and cons of the two systems, I _have_ noticed that IMAP enthusiasts seem
_offended_ by people who use POP, whereas POP enthusiasts couldn't care
(except where IMAP ones get evangelical).
>
>> Originally all email was downloaded to a client and then deleted from
>> the server. People were not allowed to have much space on the server.

The limited server space certainly _was_ the case (though now server
space is sufficient that people rarely hit any limit - though it does
happen).

Deleting from the server on download is still AFAIK the default setting
in most POP-capable email clients, but can be turned off on most of
them.
[]
>Of course it matters. If you have multiple devices, POP is a fucking
>nightmare.

(I don't use a POP client - or any other software - for fucking.)

> I routinely read my mail on 4 different computers: a desktop,
>a laptop, a tablet, and a phone. Managing that with POP is so close to
>impossible as makes no difference.

My friend doesn't find any problem.
>
>I often start a reply to an email on my phone, realize I have more to
>type than I thought, and finish the mail on my laptop or desktop. This is
>impossible with POP.

A valid point.
>
>Again, there is *nothing* that POP3 ofers that cannot be done with IMAP
>and there are many things that can be done in IMAP that cannot be
>replicated in POP3. Ergo, no reason to ever use POP3.
>
Other than (at least) the bother of changing, if none of the IMAP
"advantages" are anything you want. There may be other reasons I don't
know of.

I repeat my earlier observation: it seems to really bug IMAP supporters
that people use POP, but not vice versa.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Well I wish you'd just tell me, rather than trying to engage my enthusiasm,
because I haven't got one. (Marvin; first series, fit the fifth.)

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>>> Google does things I do not consider professional.
>>
>> Because you do not like it it is unprofessional?
>> Are you trying to troll here?
>
> Actually Google does do some things I would consider sophomoric.
>
> For example, if you use VPN they will lock you out, even if you
> never once
> spammed anyone - which is simply sophomoric coding in my assessment.
>
> Like racists claiming all Mexicans are criminals, you have to
> actually be a
> criminal in order to be considered a criminal, not have just a trait.
>
> I've even documented a case where google allowed my computer to
> contact a
> local mailing list which I _often_ communicate with, and yet when I
> tried
> using my iPad from the local library IP address, it failed every time.
>
> That's not necessarily "unprofessional" so much as sophomoric coding.
>
> They should have noticed it was me, and it was to the same mailing
> list, and
> even if they cared about the IP, it was geolocated to the same
> town, etc.
>
> But they blocked every single one during a crisis (which is why it
> mattered)
> as the roads were blocked so I couldn't get home for days (neither
> could
> others).
>
> That Google did this is an example of sophomoric coding, which some
> could
> call it unprofessional because it casts too wide of a net
> unnecessarily so.

Did you file a complaint about this? You should send a copy to the
FCC too.

I think they are picking on you, and you should raise hell.

In article <QPFUkj3QZVKiFwQ4@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >IMAP is designed for reading email on multiple devices and being able to
> >keep that email in sync. It has many advantages of POP3 and POP3 has NO
> >advatanges over IMAP because IMAP can be used in a way that replicates
> >POP exactly, while the same cannot be said of POP3.
> >
> POP has the "advantage" that it will run on clients that don't support
> IMAP.

one would need to go back a couple of decades to find a computer that
is limited to email apps that can't do anything other than pop. that's
quite a stretch to justify it.

> That may sound very niche, but some people may have decades of
> email in such a client.

very few might, but that isn't an obstacle.

they can switch to a newer email client and then import all of their
old email, giving them a single mailstore spanning many decades, with
all of the benefits of imap, even for the old email.

or if they prefer, they can archive it and access it as needed, which
is likely a better choice, since the need to access email that old is
almost certainly a very rare occurrence.

> Whatever the pros
> and cons of the two systems, I _have_ noticed that IMAP enthusiasts seem
> _offended_ by people who use POP, whereas POP enthusiasts couldn't care
> (except where IMAP ones get evangelical).

more accurately, those who insist on pop refuse to learn about the
numerous advantages of imap, and why switching will provide for
features they didn't think was possible and also make their lives much,
much easier.

using an outdated protocol is not productive. computers are there to do
work *for* you.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 01:32:56 +0000, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> That Google did this is an example of sophomoric coding, which some could
> call it unprofessional because it casts too wide of a net unnecessarily so.

Not sure you can apply that property to 'coding' rather than to
behaviour. The result may have properties or features that you don't
like but they are probably not there just to annoy you, or rather
they are there as a result of poor development/release processes, or
are there because markets want them.

On 2022-03-09 22:11, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 09.03.22 um 20:51 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2022-03-09 18:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 09.03.22 um 17:53 schrieb Ken Blake:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:30:40 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
>>>>> professionally managed server.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. It depends on who owns that "professionally managed
>>>> server." It may be very safe on many of them, maybe even most of them,
>>>> but not all of them.
>>>
>>> I have serious doubts that you are in teh position to judge that. I talk
>>> about companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or others.
>>
>> Google does things I do not consider professional.
>
> Because you do not like it it is unprofessional?
> Are you trying to troll here?

Do you have to insult and call me troll instead of asking why? That
means that you have no argumentation.

Google redefines protocols and standards to their liking, for example in
their implementation of imap. Instead, mail programs had to be adapted
to cope with gmail idiosyncrasies.

Google refuses to use existing safe technologies for identification,
such as server and clients certificates.

Gmail deletes what they consider duplicate email, without asking. For
example, assume you are subscribed to a mail list. You send an email to
said list. Said list sends that email to everybody in the list,
including you. But gmail automatically deletes that email to you,
because it has the same message-id as the one in the sent folder, but
has slightly different content, and thus users get no confirmation that
their email was posted and may repost again.

Google doesn't provide a help desk, which would be expected of a
professional mail provider. You can not ask a person about your issue.

What about what they do with what they call google groups, which
communicates with Usenet, yet they refuse to provide an nntp server?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Gmail deletes what they consider duplicate email, without asking. For
> example, assume you are subscribed to a mail list. You send an email to
> said list. Said list sends that email to everybody in the list,
> including you. But gmail automatically deletes that email to you,
> because it has the same message-id as the one in the sent folder, but
> has slightly different content, and thus users get no confirmation that
> their email was posted and may repost again.

I consider mailing lists that send a copy of a forwarded message to
the original submitter extremely broken, especially when they do so
with the sender address as a From address.

Who would, in their right mind, accept an incoming message from an
outside source claiming to be sent by someone on the inside?
That is opening your system up to all kinds of fraud!

And who would want mail claiming to be from their address to be forwarded
by some random system? That breaks any trust in the authenticity of mail.

These mailing lists should really be repaired.

On 2022-03-10 02:26, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>>>    IMAP is designed for webmail. POP3 is designed for
>>> reading email in client software.
>>
>> Wow. No.
>>
>> IMAP was invented on 1985, way before webmail appeared.
>
> The funny thing is something like almost a half dozen people directly told
> "Mayayana === Moron" the fact that IMAP isn't webmail (nor vice versa).
>
> Since I've studied "Mayayana === Moron", I will predict, years in advance,
> that "Mayayana === Moron" will _again_ tout that very same belief system.
>
> People who own imaginary belief systems don't change them based on facts.

Arlen, you are insulting people. I refuse to do that.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-10 02:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 17:11:38, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me>
> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> POP3 is designed for reading mail on a single device. It was suitable for
>> a system where you logged in to a specific computer and read mil there.
>
> I don't read email on the remote computer; I download it and read it
> locally.
>
> I know at least one person who uses POP on multiple devices.
>>
>> IMAP is designed for reading email on multiple devices and being able to
>> keep that email in sync. It has many advantages of POP3 and POP3 has NO
>> advatanges over IMAP because IMAP can be used in a way that replicates
>> POP exactly, while the same cannot be said of POP3.
>>
> POP has the "advantage" that it will run on clients that don't support
> IMAP. That may sound very niche, but some people may have decades of
> email in such a client.
>
> (I think POP is probably significantly simpler to implement than IMAP,
> though I doubt that has any relevance these days.)
>>
>>> Each defaults to being what makes most sense for those uses.
>>
>> Ther is absolutely no reason for anyone to be using POP3. It offers zero
>> advantages over IMAP and zero features over IMAP.
>
> I once read that people who have tattoos have no problem with people who
> don't have tattoos. (I don't have any tattoos, but I've always thought
> it a thoughtful observation [because a lot of people who _don't_ have
> tattoos seem to have a problem with those who do].) Whatever the pros
> and cons of the two systems, I _have_ noticed that IMAP enthusiasts seem
> _offended_ by people who use POP, whereas POP enthusiasts couldn't care
> (except where IMAP ones get evangelical).
>>
>>> Originally all email was downloaded to a client and then deleted from
>>> the server. People were not allowed to have much space on the server.
>
> The limited server space certainly _was_ the case (though now server
> space is sufficient that people rarely hit any limit - though it does
> happen).
>
> Deleting from the server on download is still AFAIK the default setting
> in most POP-capable email clients, but can be turned off on most of them.
> []
>> Of course it matters. If you have multiple devices, POP is a fucking
>> nightmare.
>
> (I don't use a POP client - or any other software - for fucking.)
>
>> I routinely read my mail on 4 different computers: a desktop,
>> a laptop, a tablet, and a phone. Managing that with POP is so close to
>> impossible as makes no difference.
>
> My friend doesn't find any problem.

This is not true. He had to adapt to POP3 limitations in order to read
all email in several devices, and then he "sees no problems". Rather, he
worked around the problems and forgot.

>>
>> I often start a reply to an email on my phone, realize I have more to
>> type than I thought, and finish the mail on my laptop or desktop. This is
>> impossible with POP.
>
> A valid point.
>>
>> Again, there is *nothing* that POP3 ofers that cannot be done with IMAP
>> and there are many things that can be done in IMAP that cannot be
>> replicated in POP3. Ergo, no reason to ever use POP3.
>>
> Other than (at least) the bother of changing, if none of the IMAP
> "advantages" are anything you want. There may be other reasons I don't
> know of.
>
> I repeat my earlier observation: it seems to really bug IMAP supporters
> that people use POP, but not vice versa.

Not really. I don't care what people use, but that doesn't mean I can
accept saying that pop3 is as good or better than imap. Not the same thing.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/9/2022 5:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<snip>

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

It does. People that use POP3 are standing in the way of human progress.

Am 10.03.22 um 13:19 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2022-03-09 22:11, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 09.03.22 um 20:51 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2022-03-09 18:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 09.03.22 um 17:53 schrieb Ken Blake:
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:30:40 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no safer place for emails and personal data than on a
>>>>>> professionally managed server.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. It depends on who owns that "professionally managed
>>>>> server." It may be very safe on many of them, maybe even most of them,
>>>>> but not all of them.
>>>>
>>>> I have serious doubts that you are in teh position to judge that. I talk
>>>> about companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or others.
>>>
>>> Google does things I do not consider professional.
>>
>> Because you do not like it it is unprofessional?
>> Are you trying to troll here?
>
> Do you have to insult and call me troll instead of asking why? That
> means that you have no argumentation

Usenet is not a pony barn.
And you are rude, impolite and arrogant most of the time.

> Google redefines protocols and standards to their liking, for example in
> their implementation of imap. Instead, mail programs had to be adapted
> to cope with gmail idiosyncrasies.

As I said: You do not like it and that means it is unprofessional.
Google simply does not adhere to standards. In this area Microsoft is
even worse. The big boys are arrogant and try to set standards. It
hardly ever works. At least in the long run.
> Google refuses to use existing safe technologies for identification,
> such as server and clients certificates.

That is their right concerning their products and services and has
nothing to do with professionalism. Nobody told you or anybody to use
these non-standard procedures and products. I don't under any circumstances.

BTW: We are discussing the professional management of mail-servers in
this (sub)thread with focus on POP and IMAP.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum