On 2022-03-06 02:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 21:49:43, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> What is the big advantage of IMAP over POP?
>
> Oh, you'll start religion-type wars with that question (-:!
>
> IMAP is more modern and more complicated, "and therefore better". It
> allows you to set up folder structure, filtering rules, etc., that
> synchronise across multiple devices; if you're the sort of person who
> does that (or would like to), then it's for you. It has intrinsically a
> _sort of_ backup - equally, there's the danger that deleting an email
> accidentally on one machine will eventually (possibly immediately,
> depending on how you configure things) cause it to be deleted on all
> your devices. In its purest form, it requires an always-on connection,
> but several IMAP clients _do_ enable some local offline storage.
>
> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
> available.)

Imap means having more resources on the server compared to pop3 -
because it has to store more email, and because it has many connections
that stay open for hours, or days (pop3 connections are brief).

On the other hand, most servers have webmail access, and this often uses
imap itself, so they have to implement imap first. Some servers time ago
did this, but then closed the external access to imap.

Then pop3 has problems keeping track of what messages have been already
downloaded (unless deleted upstream). It is the client which has to keep
track of this, often maintaining a database of indexes. And many other
small problems for coders and maintainers of pop3 clients. Imap solved
many of them, being more modern.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-05 23:12, nospam wrote:
> In article <t00lv9$tdr$2@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I much prefer a mail client which transfers the messages to my PC (using
>>>> POP) so I can read them offline and so I can be responsible for backing
>>>> them
>>>> up (and retrieving a message that I have accidentally deleted), rather
>>>> than
>>>> webmail or IMAP where the messages remain on the server and you have to
>>>> be
>>>> online whenever you want to read them.
>>>
>>> imap can easily download email to your computer.
>>
>> Can it?
>
> absolutely.
>
>> How do you configure it to do that?
>
> by creating filters to automatically move messages to one or more local
> mailboxes, manually move them if you prefer, or a mix of both.
>
> the filters can help sort email into different mailboxes based on
> whatever criteria you want, such as who the sender is, keywords in the
> subject, etc.
>
>> I thought that if you received
>> your email by IMAP it never left the server,
>
> that's how it's commonly used because it's the most flexible, but it's
> not the only way.
>
>> apart from when the client
>> downloads a transient copy of it to read, which was erased when you closed
>> the mail app.
>
> email apps keep a local copy of what's on the server and can be used
> offline, including after being closed and re-opened.
>
>> What is the big advantage of IMAP over POP?
>
> that it does everything pop can do and quite a bit more as well as not
> being obsolete.
>
> some mail providers and email clients no longer support pop at all.

All correct, saves me typing :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 06/03/2022 06:03, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 05:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>  In its purest form, it requires an always-on connection,
>> but several IMAP clients _do_ enable some local offline storage.
>
> That in itself is frightening.  My email is, in effect, a record of my
> life. It's MINE.
>
> If I switch my gmail accounts to IMAP, will I no longer have my incoming
> mail stored by Thunderbird on my own computer?

I'm pretty sure that Thunderbird stores a local cache of your IMAP mail
for offline access. So if the server were to disappear permanently you
still have your mail.

The big advantage of IMAP is that all your mail is available from any
client. There are also tools for moving mail from IMAP provider to
another should you move away from gmail.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/2022 06:03, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 05:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>>  In its purest form, it requires an always-on connection,
>>> but several IMAP clients _do_ enable some local offline storage.
>>
>> That in itself is frightening.  My email is, in effect, a record of my
>> life. It's MINE.
>>
>> If I switch my gmail accounts to IMAP, will I no longer have my incoming
>> mail stored by Thunderbird on my own computer?
>
> I'm pretty sure that Thunderbird stores a local cache of your IMAP mail
> for offline access. So if the server were to disappear permanently you
> still have your mail.

Thunderbird by default stores IMAP mail the same way as POP3 mail.
I.e. the risk that you lose it because your own computer crashes is
the same.
However, the mail is ALSO on the IMAP server, so when that happens
you can just download it again. POP3 servers typically do not keep
all your mail.

> The big advantage of IMAP is that all your mail is available from any
> client. There are also tools for moving mail from IMAP provider to
> another should you move away from gmail.

Also, when you access the same mail account both from your PC and from
another device (phone, tablet etc) you see the same mail folders on
all devices. So when you send a mail from the PC, you can later see
it in the Sent folder on your phone. And vice-versa.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 21:49:43 -0000, NY 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.

Take a look at MailStore, and consider using a local archive of all
email items, both in and out. Obv only realistic on a real computer,
not so much on an iphone.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:

> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
>> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
>> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
>> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
>> available.)
>
> it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
> and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.

Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 12:23:32, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
>>> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
>>> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
>>> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
>>> available.)
>>
>> it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
>> and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.

OK, I was using shorthand for "There may be some OSs [and thus devices]
for which only IMAP clients are available."
>
>Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!

Probably true of both IMAP and POP clients. (Sometimes called POP3; I
wonder - idly, I'm not going to look! - how it differs from POP2 and
POP1, and POP0 if there was one.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

did you hear about the guy who was frozen to absolute zero? He was 0K ...
- Jason in alt.windows7.general (and three other 'groups), 2018-5-1

In article <z1486siqpKJiFw+b@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>
> Probably true of both IMAP and POP clients.

quality varies. some email clients are very good, some not so much.

> (Sometimes called POP3; I
> wonder - idly, I'm not going to look! - how it differs from POP2 and
> POP1, and POP0 if there was one.)

pop
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc918>
pop2
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc937>
pop3
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1081>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1939>

there is/was also a pop4, not that anyone cares:
<http://pop4.org>

mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
> > In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> > <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
> >> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
> >> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
> >> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
> >> available.)
> >
> > it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
> > and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.
>
> Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!

Indeed. For example in Thunderbird you cannot have a 'Global Inbox',
i.e. one Inbox for all mail from several IMAP accounts.

If you have only one e-mail account, IMAP is fine and probably
preferred (over POP) for the reasons given.

But if you have several or even many e-mail accounts, using IMAP
becomes quite messy and the 'cure' might be worse than the presumed
'disease'.

Moral: Use what serves *your* needs best.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> NY wrote:
>
> >
> > What POP email clients are there which will support the new authentication
> > which Gmail will introduce?
>
> Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth

Thunderbird indeed supports OAuth2 for IMAP accounts. But does it as
well for POP accounts? That was not the case on older versions (and my
version is old (60.9.0), because I don't want to update).

> WLM ... no idea if it supports oAuth, but even after "less secure apps" goes
> away, if you have 2FA enabled on your google account you should be able to
> create an "app specific password" for any IMAP/POP client.

The Google blurb in the OP doesn't say whether or not (Google) App
Passwords are going away. If they are going away, the OP's concern might
be real. If not, it's a non-issue.

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth
>
> Thunderbird indeed supports OAuth2 for IMAP accounts. But does it as
> well for POP accounts?

yes it does, I'm using it with TB v91, I have no idea how old a version you have
to go back to where POP doesn't support oAuth

> That was not the case on older versions (and my
> version is old (60.9.0), because I don't want to update).

Those who don't update are just storing-up future pain :-P

In article <t02okt.u9o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
> > >> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
> > >> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
> > >> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
> > >> available.)
> > >
> > > it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
> > > and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.
> >
> > Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>
> Indeed. For example in Thunderbird you cannot have a 'Global Inbox',
> i.e. one Inbox for all mail from several IMAP accounts.

that is a limitation of thunderbird and yet another reason to not use
it.

global inbox is not an issue with imap and widely supported by many
email clients. if that's an important feature, switch to one that
offers it.

> If you have only one e-mail account, IMAP is fine and probably
> preferred (over POP) for the reasons given.

the number of email accounts does not matter.

> But if you have several or even many e-mail accounts, using IMAP
> becomes quite messy and the 'cure' might be worse than the presumed
> 'disease'.

that is very much false.

there is no issue with imap and multiple email accounts, and in fact,
multiple accounts is much easier with imap.

don't blame imap for problems in thunderbird (of which there are many).

> Moral: Use what serves *your* needs best.

always.

the problem is that some people do not evaluate all options and often
base their decision on incomplete or incorrect information.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 13:05:06 +0100, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

>Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/03/2022 06:03, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2022 05:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>>  In its purest form, it requires an always-on connection,
>>>> but several IMAP clients _do_ enable some local offline storage.
>>>
>>> That in itself is frightening.  My email is, in effect, a record of my
>>> life. It's MINE.
>>>
>>> If I switch my gmail accounts to IMAP, will I no longer have my incoming
>>> mail stored by Thunderbird on my own computer?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that Thunderbird stores a local cache of your IMAP mail
>> for offline access. So if the server were to disappear permanently you
>> still have your mail.
>
>Thunderbird by default stores IMAP mail the same way as POP3 mail.
>I.e. the risk that you lose it because your own computer crashes is
>the same.
>However, the mail is ALSO on the IMAP server, so when that happens
>you can just download it again.

Regardless of whether you use IMAP or POP3, if you do regular backups,
it is ALSO on the backup media. If you don't do regular backups to
eternal media, you're playing with fire, and not just for that reason.

So as far as I'm concerned, that's not a big advantage of IMAP.

I use IMAP, but to me there's no real advantage to using it.

>POP3 servers typically do not keep
>all your mail.
>
>> The big advantage of IMAP is that all your mail is available from any
>> client. There are also tools for moving mail from IMAP provider to
>> another should you move away from gmail.
>
>Also, when you access the same mail account both from your PC and from
>another device (phone, tablet etc) you see the same mail folders on
>all devices. So when you send a mail from the PC, you can later see
>it in the Sent folder on your phone. And vice-versa.

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

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 12:34:50 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 12:23:32, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
>>>> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
>>>> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
>>>> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
>>>> available.)
>>>
>>> it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
>>> and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.
>
>OK, I was using shorthand for "There may be some OSs [and thus devices]
>for which only IMAP clients are available."
>>
>>Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>
>Probably true of both IMAP and POP clients. (Sometimes called POP3; I
>wonder - idly, I'm not going to look! - how it differs from POP2 and
>POP1, and POP0 if there was one.)

I don't know either, but I do know how it differs from PO0P

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

On 6 Mar 2022 15:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>> > In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>> > <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Each protocol suits some people better. Service providers seem to prefer
>> >> IMAP - at least, use it by default, and assume you're using it. (I'm not
>> >> sure if there are some providers who _only_ do IMAP; I wouldn't be at
>> >> all surprised if someone found a _device_ [OS] for which only IMAP is
>> >> available.)
>> >
>> > it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
>> > and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.
>>
>> Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>
> Indeed. For example in Thunderbird you cannot have a 'Global Inbox',
>i.e. one Inbox for all mail from several IMAP accounts.

Alas yes.

> If you have only one e-mail account, IMAP is fine and probably
>preferred (over POP) for the reasons given.

I have only two (actually four or five, but I only use two of them),
my regular one and Gmail.

I rarely use the Gmail account and it gets little besides spam, so I
don't care a whole lot about not having a 'Global Inbox,' although it
would be a minor convenience to have it.

> But if you have several or even many e-mail accounts, using IMAP
>becomes quite messy and the 'cure' might be worse than the presumed
>'disease'.

I use IMAP because that's what my e-mail provider provides, but as I
just said in another message, to me it has no real advantage over
POP3.

> Moral: Use what serves *your* needs best.

Yes. An excellent moral.

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

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> >> Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth
> >
> > Thunderbird indeed supports OAuth2 for IMAP accounts. But does it as
> > well for POP accounts?
>
> yes it does, I'm using it with TB v91, I have no idea how old a
> version you have to go back to where POP doesn't support oAuth

Thanks for the confirmation. (Not that I need or want OAuth2.)

> > That was not the case on older versions (and my
> > version is old (60.9.0), because I don't want to update).
>
> Those who don't update are just storing-up future pain :-P

Sofar, not updating caused me *less* pain. *If* I need new
*functionality*, I'll have another look. But I can well do without TB's
slew of gratuitous UI changes and other (non-)'improvements'. YMMV/YMWV.

On 2022-03-06 16:48, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> NY wrote:

>> WLM ... no idea if it supports oAuth, but even after "less secure apps" goes
>> away, if you have 2FA enabled on your google account you should be able to
>> create an "app specific password" for any IMAP/POP client.
>
> The Google blurb in the OP doesn't say whether or not (Google) App
> Passwords are going away. If they are going away, the OP's concern might
> be real. If not, it's a non-issue.

Not quite.

For example, I have received that blurb only on one gmail account, the
one that is not associated to any android tablet or phone: thus 2FA can
not be activated, and thus there are no App Passwords.

A solution for me would be to make this the second account on my phone.
I don't know.

The other accounts I have that have not received the blurb are: one that
has 2FA enabled, and two accounts that are associated to organizations
(thus not @gmail.com). Apparently they have different rules defined by
each organization and their contracts with Google.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-06 17:20, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 13:05:06 +0100, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2022 06:03, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/2022 05:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

....

>> Thunderbird by default stores IMAP mail the same way as POP3 mail.
>> I.e. the risk that you lose it because your own computer crashes is
>> the same.
>> However, the mail is ALSO on the IMAP server, so when that happens
>> you can just download it again.
>
> Regardless of whether you use IMAP or POP3, if you do regular backups,
> it is ALSO on the backup media. If you don't do regular backups to
> eternal media, you're playing with fire, and not just for that reason.
>
> So as far as I'm concerned, that's not a big advantage of IMAP.
>
> I use IMAP, but to me there's no real advantage to using it.

I would love to buy eternal media like you have ;-)

(SCNR)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-06 17:31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth
>>>
>>> Thunderbird indeed supports OAuth2 for IMAP accounts. But does it as
>>> well for POP accounts?
>>
>> yes it does, I'm using it with TB v91, I have no idea how old a
>> version you have to go back to where POP doesn't support oAuth
>
> Thanks for the confirmation. (Not that I need or want OAuth2.)

You do, if you want to use normal gmail accounts without Google App
Passwords.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-06 16:05, nospam wrote:
> In article <z1486siqpKJiFw+b@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>>
>> Probably true of both IMAP and POP clients.
>
> quality varies. some email clients are very good, some not so much.
>
>> (Sometimes called POP3; I
>> wonder - idly, I'm not going to look! - how it differs from POP2 and
>> POP1, and POP0 if there was one.)
>
> pop
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc918>
> pop2
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc937>
> pop3
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1081>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1939>
>
> there is/was also a pop4, not that anyone cares:
> <http://pop4.org>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Protocol

POP4

POP4 exists only as an informal proposal adding basic folder management,
multipart message support, as well as message flag management to compete
with IMAP; however, its development has not progressed since 2003.[4]

4 "POP4 specification although pop is used to receive mail after system
is not online"
(http://www.pop4.org/pop4/pop4spec.html)." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20171021231958/http://www.pop4.org/pop4/pop4spec.html).
2003. Archived from the original
(http://www.pop4.org/pop4/pop4spec.html) on 2017-10-21. Retrieved
2011-10-17.

The article also compares pop vs imap:

Comparison with IMAP

The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) is an alternative and more
recent mailbox access protocol. The highlights of differences are:

* POP is a simpler protocol, making implementation easier.
* POP moves the message from the email server to the local computer,
although there is usually an option to leave the messages on the email
server as well.
* IMAP defaults to leaving the message on the email server, simply
downloading a local copy.
* POP treats the mailbox as a single store, and has no concept of
folders
* An IMAP client performs complex queries, asking the server for
headers, or the bodies of specified messages, or to search for messages
meeting certain criteria. Messages in the mail repository can be marked
with various status flags (e.g. "deleted" or "answered") and they stay
in the repository until explicitly removed by the user—which may not be
until a later session. In short: IMAP is designed to permit manipulation
of remote mailboxes as if they were local. Depending on the IMAP client
implementation and the mail architecture desired by the system manager,
the user may save messages directly on the client machine, or save them
on the server, or be given the choice of doing either.
* The POP protocol requires the currently connected client to be the
only client connected to the mailbox. In contrast, the IMAP protocol
specifically allows simultaneous access by multiple clients and provides
mechanisms for clients to detect changes made to the mailbox by other,
concurrently connected, clients. See for example RFC3501 section 5.2
which specifically cites "simultaneous access to the same mailbox by
multiple agents" as an example.
* When POP retrieves a message, it receives all parts of it, whereas
the IMAP4 protocol allows clients to retrieve any of the individual MIME
parts separately – for example, retrieving the plain text without
retrieving attached files.
* IMAP supports flags on the server to keep track of message state:
for example, whether or not the message has been read, replied to,
forwarded, or deleted.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-06 17:27, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2022 15:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>

>>>> it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
>>>> and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>>
>> Indeed. For example in Thunderbird you cannot have a 'Global Inbox',
>> i.e. one Inbox for all mail from several IMAP accounts.
>
>
>
> Alas yes.

You can switch to "Unified" folder view, in which all input folders are
shown grouped and is easier to see which has new email.

I certainly do not want a "Global Inbox". I have separate accounts for a
reason.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-03-06 17:31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andy Burns wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth
> >>>
> >>> Thunderbird indeed supports OAuth2 for IMAP accounts. But does it as
> >>> well for POP accounts?
> >>
> >> yes it does, I'm using it with TB v91, I have no idea how old a
> >> version you have to go back to where POP doesn't support oAuth
> >
> > Thanks for the confirmation. (Not that I need or want OAuth2.)
>
> You do, if you want to use normal gmail accounts without Google App
> Passwords.

Indeed, *if*! :-)

On 03/06/2022 08:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> > Andy Burns wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth
>> >
>> > Thunderbird indeed supports OAuth2 for IMAP accounts. But does it as
>> > well for POP accounts?
>>
>> yes it does, I'm using it with TB v91, I have no idea how old a
>> version you have to go back to where POP doesn't support oAuth
>
> Thanks for the confirmation. (Not that I need or want OAuth2.)
>
>> > That was not the case on older versions (and my
>> > version is old (60.9.0), because I don't want to update).
>>
>> Those who don't update are just storing-up future pain :-P
>
> Sofar, not updating caused me *less* pain. *If* I need new
> *functionality*, I'll have another look. But I can well do without TB's
> slew of gratuitous UI changes and other (non-)'improvements'. YMMV/YMWV.

I did regular updates until I got tired of losing extensions and
capabilities that were valuable to me. Like decluttering, you cry at
first and then forget -- the only one that I really remember and which
really hurt was losing the ability to show a .jpg as the background of
the message pane (I had a texture rather than an actual photo), which
made the text stand out more clearly than a plain solid background.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

The Real Bev wrote:

> I did regular updates until I got tired of losing extensions and capabilities
> that were valuable to me.

I think I've now found replacement add-ons for all the ones that got ditched? I
suppose I do still miss Mnhenhy for the ROT13 function ..

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 17:49:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2022-03-06 17:27, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2022 15:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>>> it's not the device or os that limits it, but rather the email client
>>>>> and/or email provider, some of which are only imap.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!
>>>
>>> Indeed. For example in Thunderbird you cannot have a 'Global Inbox',
>>> i.e. one Inbox for all mail from several IMAP accounts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alas yes.
>
>You can switch to "Unified" folder view, in which all input folders are
>shown grouped and is easier to see which has new email.

Thanks. I just did. I'll try it for a while, but I'm not sure it has
nay significant advantage for me.

>
>I certainly do not want a "Global Inbox".

That's fine. We're all different.

>I have separate accounts for a
>reason.

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