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

mechanic 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.

Well, I don't disagree as I have plenty of friends who work for Google.
They're SMART people.
Super smart people.

Yet, their algorithms, in my humble opinion, are sophomoric.
However, I have a Yahoo email address, which is filled with spam.

In essence the difference is that google is draconian in filtering.
a. Google hates VPN
b. Google hates changing the IP address even when NOT on VPN
c. Google hates local email mailing lists
etc.

One thing Google hates that is apropos is logging in from an application
such as K-9 Mail, where I suspect their rationale is they feel I should be
using GMail, which I would, if it didn't do _two_ things I don't want.
1. GMail will instantly _create_ an account on your Android phone, and,
2. GMail will _always_ upload your contacts the first time you use it!
Last I checked, admittedly a while ago, at least it did that.
I dropped GMail for K-9 Mail when I found this out.

Now I have to drop K-9 Mail, but I have other options.
I just haven't explored them yet (and I'm hoping others may suggest them).

Basically on Windows, TB works fine as Claws did before that.
On Android, I'll find a free ad free respectable MUA that uses OAuth2.
On iOS, well, Apple locked up on and won't let me use FaceTime/Messages on
the others, so it's always iOS that is more restrictive than all the rest.

I assume that if I had wanted to use the iPads as more than just toys, I'd
also have to find a MUA that doesn't do the two things the GMail app does on
Android.

Actually, come to think of it... maybe... just maybe...
a. Maybe the GMail app on iOS does _not_ create an account on the device?
(probably it doesn't as you already are forced to have an iCloud account)
b. Maybe the GMail app on iOS does _not_ upload contacts the first time?
(dunno. I don't know how iOS _stores_ your contacts!)

On Android, the contacts are stored in a known location in an sqlite format.
I don't know HOW they're stored on iOS.

I could ask but they are such little children on the iOS newsgroups that
they probably wouldn't know as it's not something Apple has fed them yet.

The only thing the folks know on the Apple newsgroup are product
announcements and advertising slogans (like "Apple inside" bullshit).

None of them knows much about how iOS actually works (they don't even
realize how it's updated differently from all other operating systems).

Back to Google, I agree with you that it's just that they're draconian in
denying every possible avenue for others to misuse their system, which
ensnares me even as I am just a regular longtime user.

mechanic wrote:

> Much missed, although a bit prickly to deal with. He died in 2012.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Crispin

I was in high tech for decades in the Silicon Valley.
All the best people are "a bit prickly" in my estimation.
They don't suffer fools at all.

I used to have to convince them to do stuff for me like add a feature.
They would all argue about what they cared about (sometimes rightly).

But I would argue on behalf of the customer.
Sometimes I'd have to go above them to get them to do it.

But I almost always got them to do it.
They respected me since I was never wrong on my facts.

They don't respect bullshitters.
Which is why I know the iKooks couldn't last a day at a startup out here.

In article <t0dn9m$62n$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> a. Google hates VPN

so much so, that they offer their own vpn.

On 2022-03-10 13:25, Rob wrote:
> 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.

They are doing the correct thing.

And anyway, this is configurable.

Fraud? Not at all.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In message <QPFUkj3QZVKiFwQ4@a.a> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> 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.

So what? That has nothing to do with what I said.

> I know at least one person who uses POP on multiple devices.

And that is a supremely shitty experience with many limitations and no
syncing of state. Messages you read are not marked as read on other
devices. Replies only exist on the machine the reply was composed on, so
if you want to find an email you sent to Bob, you have to check the sent
mail on every device you may have used.

>>
>>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.

It's not the 90s.

>>> 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).

POP "enthusiasts" simply do not understand the differences between POP
and IMAP and claim that POP is 'simpler' or 'safer' and neither of those
things is true.

>>> 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).

It happens with people who never delete their spam, or who have shitty
hosts with very low limits.

> 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.

And? You can do the same with IMAP.

>> 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.

Bullshit. If he reads his mail on device one, and then goes to device
two, all the mail he already read on device one is still marked as
unread on device two. That's just a fact.

>>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.

The advantages to IMAP are absolutely things that people want, and that
anyone who has used IMAP expects, unless they have a single device for
email and never use any other device. This does not describe most
people, and probably no people under 80.

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

POP users are constantly going on about how it's "more secure" or
"safer". Conspiracy nutters, flat earthers, and other jackasses love POP.

--
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting
it in a fruit salad.

In message <t0anl1$f3b$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> But he is right. Zero privacy and I reject all mails from Gmail-senders

Ahahahahah. Yeah, sure you do. 1.5 billion people, at least, use gmail.
If you reject gmail users you are cutting off a significant percentage
of the wordl.

But maybe if you have no friends this is fine.

> on my regular mail-accounts. I do not want Google to collect information
> about me indirectly.

Then you best disconnect for the Internet. You know Google is archiving
your posts here, right?

> I use my Google-account only to get all the stupid technical mails who
> logged into my Google-account and whether it was me and which device
> from where. Utter busllshit and only useable for mentally handicapped
> people. Google has no access to anything else.

Hilarious. You block gmail and use gmail. Did you take stupid pills as a
child?

--
>> a Freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really
>> thinking about a mother.
> no, a Freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 07:49:49, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>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.

How do they stand in the way of _you_ making progress? (If they choose
to, as you see it, impede their _own_ progress, how does it impede
_yours_?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ...
(first series, fit the second)

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

Or people who used POP since 1995 (long before cellphones were common)
and have developed a complex filtering structure. The idea of having to
do this all over again is genuinely unpleasant, especially since it
offers ME no benefit over POP. YMMV, of course; not everyone uses the
internet in the same way.

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

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

--
Cheers, Bev
" While in high school, we were encouraged to keep a daily journal.
I never liked it, especially when early on I realized that anybody
could find it and read it. Fortunately, the jury never saw it."
-- Anonymous, for obvious reasons

nospam wrote:

>> a. Google hates VPN
>
> so much so, that they offer their own vpn.

Are you intimating that Google won't make your life miserable if you log
into your Google account to access your mail while you're using any of six
thousand rotating random VPN server IP addresses as I do?

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I refuse to do that.

Ask any of the _adults_ here how I treat them, Carlos.

I'll even treat you as an adult when you act like an adult.

But it's up to you whether or not you want to act like an adult.