Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

IIRC, you can have 2-Step Verification with some kind of series of
one-time codes.

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

Indeed, you can associate any phone number to this account and
multiple accounts to a single phone number. And an account does not have
to be associated with any particular device.

IOW, I don't see a problem.

> 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.

FWIW, I've not received the blurb for any of my (three) accounts.

On 2022-03-06 18:07, Andy Burns wrote:
> 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 ..

I miss one that allowed activating/disabling word wrap per message:
Toggle Word Wrap. I just tried to "Find alternatives", it finds none,
but there was one; but it wanted too many permissions and requirements
for my liking. Ah, found it again:

https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/toggle-line-wrap/?src=search

About this Add-on

Toggle wrapping of long lines in the message composition window when
writing plaintext messages. Wrapping can be controlled via a toolbar
button and a keyboard shortcut (CTRL-SHIFT-W by default). The current
state is visualized in the toolbar button. The shortcut can be adjusted
via the Add-on Manager (click on the gear).

On order to use the add-on, turn off HTML composition (per account
setting, Composition & Addressing → Composition → Compose messages in
HTML format) and also make sure that "mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed" is
disabled in the configuration (about:config). Furthermore,
mailnews.wraplength needs to be non-zero, or the add-on will be
deactivated (toolbar button grayed out).

Note that this add-on requires an WebExtension Experiment API, thus will
requests "full access" on installation.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-06 19:09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> IIRC, you can have 2-Step Verification with some kind of series of
> one-time codes.

Do you have a link?

>
>> A solution for me would be to make this the second account on my phone.
>> I don't know.
>
> Indeed, you can associate any phone number to this account and
> multiple accounts to a single phone number. And an account does not have
> to be associated with any particular device.
>
> IOW, I don't see a problem.

That I do not want to have that account associated to a phone number.

>
>> 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.
>
> FWIW, I've not received the blurb for any of my (three) accounts.

Search for:

Subject: You may lose access to some of your third-party apps
From: Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that was another reason to stop updating and probably the major
one.

Because I don't update anymore, I forgot all about that major
showstopper. Thanks for refreshing my aging memory.

> 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.

On 3/6/2022 11:22 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> 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 original POP was just POP, because nobody expects their
clever creation to need adjustments.

Just because an RFC existed, does not mean that it became popular.
RFC stands for Request For Comments.

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

It's not a surprise to me, that there is only POP and POP3.
And POP3 dates from 1988. The successful ones, are the versions
everybody supports.

Paul

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Indeed, you can associate any phone number to this account and
> multiple accounts to a single phone number. And an account does not have
> to be associated with any particular device.
>
> IOW, I don't see a problem.

If you've got contacts, calendar entries, etc in both accounts, I might be a
little cautious about what it's going to do ...

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-03-06 19:09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > IIRC, you can have 2-Step Verification with some kind of series of
> > one-time codes.
>
> Do you have a link?

It's one of the options for 2-Step Verification.

Anyway, I just searched the 'Google Account Help' and found this page
which explains things:

'Sign in with backup codes'
<https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1187538?hl=en>

FWIW, I indeed use it as my *backup* method, in case the normal method
fails for some reason.

BTW, on the issue of App Passwords, adding insult to injury, when I
got to the 'Sign in with backup codes' page, it showed a header saying:

"It looks like you're using App Passwords to give third-party apps
access to your account, [deleted]. To make your account more secure,
disable App Passwords and use "Sign in with Google" to connect apps to
your Google Account."

They are *really* trying to get us to use "Sign in with Google",
aren't they!? :-(

[...]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>>> 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*! :-)

Regarding *How to recover from Google dropping password support on 5/30?*

The summary of the final resolution appears to be (AFAICT), either
a. Set up OAuth2 in your MUA, or,
b. Set up 2FA/2SV & then "app passwords" in Google & in the MUA.

Are there any other solutions that we have available to us after May 30th?

BTW, I don't want to want to use the phone to authorize anything (whether
that's by 2-step verification or by 2-factor authentication), so I it's my
understanding as a result I _must_ use OAuth2 with Thunderbird on Windows.
<https://i.postimg.cc/MGfN2Z7r/gmailpasswd01.jpg> Google May 30 nastigram
<https://i.postimg.cc/2yBvxJhJ/gmailpasswd02.jpg> Due to K9-Mail password
<https://i.postimg.cc/432zCNgx/gmailpasswd03.jpg> Win TB is set to OAuth2
<https://i.postimg.cc/MGs3HSyn/gmailpasswd04.jpg> As are some Android MUAs
<https://i.postimg.cc/cL9r9qFW/gmailpasswd05.jpg> Less secure app access on
<https://i.postimg.cc/RhHkj4gJ/gmailpasswd06.jpg> TB imap & oauth settings

Dunno if Frank saw this from Andy explaining what's terrible about OAuth2.
<https://hustoknow.blogspot.com/2012/12/oauth2-road-to-hell.html>
--
Usenet is a team sport where each of us pitches in to help all the others.

Andy Burns 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 ..

As with The Real Bev, I almost never update an app unless I'm forced to.

In addition, I strive to never add any add-ons (plugins, extensions,
whatever) to any browser or MUA (although I add them to photo editors and
image viewers as needed, or en masse).

The typical add-ons and extensions seem to be more 'stable' on the photo
viewers than they are on the web browsers and mail clients, aren't they?

I'm not sure why I do just fine _without_ those add-ons and additions
though, but maybe someone here can tell us why _they_ use them first.
--
The value of the information in a Usenet post isn't in the headers.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Toggle wrapping of long lines in the message composition window

Funny you mention this add-on to Thunderbird, as I, at first, struggled with
what I consider a horrific HTML user interface, so I opted to go plain text.

But, I don't like the Thunderbird mail editor line wrap of the plain text
any more than the lack of linewrap in the Thunderbird HTML editor. Sigh. :(

If a linewrap extension works with the plan text editor, that might be
useful!
--
I substitute at the local schools and they teach us to teach the kids that
their past is water under the bridge so that they can improve their future.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> The summary of the final resolution appears to be (AFAICT), either
> a. Set up OAuth2 in your MUA, or,
> b. Set up 2FA/2SV & then "app passwords" in Google & in the MUA.

Frank just posted this link which shows a third method, but it also seems to
require the phone as the authentication mechanism (which I just don't want).
**
<https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1187538>

Sign in with backup codes
If you lose your phone or otherwise can't get codes by text, call, or Google
Authenticator, you can use backup codes to sign in to your Google Account.

Important:

Once you use a backup code to sign in, that code becomes inactive.
You can get a new set of 10 backup codes whenever you want. When you create
a new set of codes, the old set automatically becomes inactive.
To use backup codes, 2-Step Verification must be on.

Create & find a set of backup codes
To store your backup codes somewhere safe, you can print a copy of your
backup codes.

*On your Android phone or tablet*,
Open the Settings app.
Tap Google and then Manage your Google Account.
At the top, tap Security.
Under "Signing in to Google," tap 2-Step Verification.
You may need to sign in.
Under "Backup codes," tap Continue .
From here, you can:
Get backup codes: To add backup codes, tap Get backup codes.
Create a new set of backup codes and inactivate old ones:
To create new codes, tap Refresh .
Delete your backup codes:
To delete and automatically inactivate your backup codes,
tap Delete Delete.
Download your backup codes: Tap Download Codes .
Print your backup codes: Tap Print .

*On your iPhone or iPad*
Open the Gmail app .
Tap Menu Menu and then Settings and then your account name
and then Manage your Google Account.
If you don't use Gmail, go to myaccount.google.com.
At the top, tap Security.
Under "Signing in to Google," tap 2-Step Verification.
You may need to sign in.
Under "Backup codes," tap Continue .
From here you can:
Get backup codes:
To add backup codes, tap Get backup codes.
Create a new set of backup codes and inactivate old ones:
To create new codes, tap Refresh .
Delete your backup codes:
To delete and automatically inactivate your backup codes,
tap Delete Delete.
Download your backup codes: Tap Download Codes .
Print your backup codes: Tap Print .

*On your Computer*
Go to your Google Account.
On the left, click Security.
Under "Signing in to Google," click 2-Step Verification.
You may need to sign in.
Under "Backup codes," click Continue .
From here you can:
Get backup codes:
To add backup codes, click Get backup codes.
Create a new set of backup codes and inactivate old ones:
To create new codes, click Refresh .
Delete your backup codes:
To delete and automatically inactivate your backup codes,
click Delete Delete .
Download your backup codes: Click Download Codes .
Print your backup codes: Click Print .
--
Usenet isn't for amusement; it's for learning from and teaching each other.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Yeah, me too!

nospam wrote:

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

That's all well and good but then you need a better MUA replacement if
you're going to make claims like that (which are patently unhelpful).

For example, I used Claws before I switched to Thunderbird on Windows.
(Although I didn't check if Claws supports OAuth2 at the time.)

What better free OAuth2 Windows MUA is it that you suggest, nospam?
--
Usenet should consist of courteous kind-hearted people helping each other.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 20:33:34 +0100, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 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 ;-)
>
>Yeah, me too!

Oops. I didn't even notice my typo when Carlos replied.

Yeah, me too

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

On 2022-03-06 19:46, Andy Burns wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>    Indeed, you can associate any phone number to this account and
>> multiple accounts to a single phone number. And an account does not have
>> to be associated with any particular device.
>>
>>    IOW, I don't see a problem.
>
> If you've got contacts, calendar entries, etc in both accounts, I might
> be a little cautious about what it's going to do ...

Ouch. You are right.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-06 19:58, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-06 19:09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> IIRC, you can have 2-Step Verification with some kind of series of
>>> one-time codes.
>>
>> Do you have a link?
>
> It's one of the options for 2-Step Verification.
>
> Anyway, I just searched the 'Google Account Help' and found this page
> which explains things:
>
> 'Sign in with backup codes'
> <https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1187538?hl=en>
>
> FWIW, I indeed use it as my *backup* method, in case the normal method
> fails for some reason.
>
> BTW, on the issue of App Passwords, adding insult to injury, when I
> got to the 'Sign in with backup codes' page, it showed a header saying:
>
> "It looks like you're using App Passwords to give third-party apps
> access to your account, [deleted]. To make your account more secure,
> disable App Passwords and use "Sign in with Google" to connect apps to
> your Google Account."

:-/

>
> They are *really* trying to get us to use "Sign in with Google",
> aren't they!? :-(

Indeed :-/

>
> [...]

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>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.
>
Which provider is it that only provides IMAP?
>
>> Moral: Use what serves *your* needs best.
>
>
>
>Yes. An excellent moral.
>
Agreed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can a blue man sing the whites?

Am 06.03.22 um 21:55 schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> 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.
>>
> Which provider is it that only provides IMAP?

Very many. It is too expensive to maintain such an outdated
infrastructure and support the users.

IMAP can do everything POP can and a lot more!

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 22:12:36, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>Am 06.03.22 um 21:55 schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> []
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Which provider is it that only provides IMAP?
>
>Very many. It is too expensive to maintain such an outdated
>infrastructure and support the users.

The majority of ones I've looked at do still do so. (I suspect the cost
is fairly minimal.) Sure, they give you the IMAP settings first, may
even not mention the POP option when setting things up by default.
>
>IMAP can do everything POP can and a lot more!
>
Just out of curiosity: if someone - for whatever reason, even if only
perversity - decides he only wants POP functionality, but only has
access to an IMAP service: _can_ it be constrained to provide POP-like
functionality, or does it _always_ provide more?
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can a blue man sing the whites?

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:55:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>[]
>>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.
>>
>Which provider is it that only provides IMAP?

Godaddy. I *think* it only provides IMAP but it was long ago enough
that I might be misremembering.

By the way, lest you think I meant my ISP, they're my e-mail provider,
not an ISP.

>>
>>> Moral: Use what serves *your* needs best.
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes. An excellent moral.
>>
>Agreed.

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

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 21:24:26 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 22:12:36, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote (my
>responses usually FOLLOW):
>>Am 06.03.22 um 21:55 schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> []
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Which provider is it that only provides IMAP?
>>
>>Very many. It is too expensive to maintain such an outdated
>>infrastructure and support the users.
>
>The majority of ones I've looked at do still do so. (I suspect the cost
>is fairly minimal.) Sure, they give you the IMAP settings first, may
>even not mention the POP option when setting things up by default.

That could be the case. As I said, perhaps I don't remember.

>>
>>IMAP can do everything POP can and a lot more!
>>
>Just out of curiosity: if someone - for whatever reason, even if only
>perversity - decides he only wants POP functionality, but only has
>access to an IMAP service: _can_ it be constrained to provide POP-like
>functionality, or does it _always_ provide more?
>>

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

On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 10:11:52 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>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.

It's only been a few hours, but yes I like it and I think I'll stay
with it. Thanks again.

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

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> If you've got contacts, calendar entries, etc in both accounts, I might
>> be a little cautious about what it's going to do ...
>
> Ouch. You are right.

There is never a need to upload your contacts to any Internet server (IMHO).
In fact (see below), I believe it's your moral duty to _not_ upload them.
a. Because they contain private information of _other_ people
b. And you never received permission to put their information on the net
c. Which, let's be honest, will be hacked

As a somewhat related aside, my Android/Windows setup avoids those contact
collisions by having _nothing_ in the sqlite contacts database on Android,
and by populating Thunderbird on Windows with the same physical contacts
vcard or excel file as I populate the privacy-aware Android apps with.

The only Android apps that need contacts are the telecommunications apps,
AFAICT, right?

All you need to do is use a telecommunications app which maintains its own
contacts database. Most don't. But some do. The privacy aware ones do.
<https://i.postimg.cc/cHbmNtJ2/contacts01.jpg>

And then, all you need is export/import of a vcf or csv file, right?

Even WhatsApp can be made to respect your privacy if you know what to do.
<https://i.postimg.cc/636XBckk/whatsapp01.jpg> No need for WA contacts

Morally, I think it's rude for people to give Google my contacts and that of
my family and friends, just because they don't know how to set up a device.
--
Posted to add value so that every thread serves as a permanent reference.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
....
> > They are *really* trying to get us to use "Sign in with Google",
> > aren't they!? :-(

> Indeed :-/

:(
--
Tiredness, Picard, winter, and Paralympics (good opening ceremony) are back again.
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| |
\ _ /
( )

On 03/06/2022 09:07 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> 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 ..

There's an extension called Leet key that does a number of similar
translations. I just noticed that it claims to be incompatible with
TB38, but I know I've used it before to translate ROT13 stuff.

I think mnenhy also allowed you to select messages to read from the
'References' entry in the message headers, but trying that now just
results in some sort of hang or other unpleasantness.

--
Cheers, Bev
666øF -- the oven temperature for roast beast.