Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Eudora and gmail
111 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Cohen
Mar 29, 2012, 5:49:09 PM3/29/12
to
Still using Eudora on OS 10.6.8.
I have a gmail account that is accessed by IMAP.
Lately (this did not happen previously) if I delete messages in Eudora,
it takes ages next time I collect messages. For instance, I deleted
three messages, checked again at 21.00 and finally received messages at
21.08. While this was happening I got the SPOD in Eudora. I have a
feeling that the problem occurs only with (some) HTML mail.
I will stick with Eudora as long as it works well, but this is getting
too much. I may have to move (probably to Postbox, which seems pretty
good, though it lacks user support forums, and is not brilliant on
manuals and support).
--
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.
I have a gmail account that is accessed by IMAP.
Lately (this did not happen previously) if I delete messages in Eudora,
it takes ages next time I collect messages. For instance, I deleted
three messages, checked again at 21.00 and finally received messages at
21.08. While this was happening I got the SPOD in Eudora. I have a
feeling that the problem occurs only with (some) HTML mail.
I will stick with Eudora as long as it works well, but this is getting
too much. I may have to move (probably to Postbox, which seems pretty
good, though it lacks user support forums, and is not brilliant on
manuals and support).
--
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.
John H Meyers
Apr 1, 2012, 2:35:44 AM4/1/12
to
On 3/29/2012 4:49 PM, Daniel Cohen wrote:
> I have a gmail account that is accessed by IMAP.
IMO Eudora provides more value when using POP.
> I have a gmail account that is accessed by IMAP.
I have been using _only_ Gmail as my "server,"
and _only_ via POP, with response time virtually instantaneous
in either direction (receiving and sending), for many years.
Otherwise, why bother to use any email client for Gmail via IMAP,
when the web-based application itself accomplishes much more than what
IMAP was even created for, in a "native" manner which removes
all the overhead and complexity of IMAP, including:
o Mail appears exactly as it is on the real, original Gmail platform.
o IMAP is constrained by imagining hierarchical "folders"
which in reality have no existence in Gmail,
which cause much duplicate processing.
o If you don't turn off "All Mail" view in IMAP,
which by default includes all mail ever received and accumulated at Gmail,
you'll have to "synchronize" the ever growing "All Mail" every time you connect.
o Most delays are caused by the fundamental architecture of IMAP,
whereby the client and server are separated by a huge distance
over a network, and can communicate only via IMAP protocol,
requiring local "caching" of all mailbox summaries and messages,
whereas in native "web app" mode, client and server are
a single integrated entity, merely operated across a network
using a web browser, aided in most cases by very efficient
advanced HTML, javascript and XML ("AJAX")
Etc.
> Lately (this did not happen previously) if I delete messages in Eudora,
> it takes ages next time I collect messages. For instance, I deleted
> three messages, checked again at 21.00 and finally received messages at
> 21.08. While this was happening I got the SPOD in Eudora. I have a
> feeling that the problem occurs only with (some) HTML mail.
on the Gmail side or in your own computer, and I tend to think that
the odds are against Gmail having really changed, though you can
always use Gmail's forums to inquire, where there are real Gmail employees
looking at major official Gmail forums for well stated questions
about meaningful and pertinent issues that they could answer.
> I will stick with Eudora as long as it works well, but this is getting
> too much. I may have to move (probably to Postbox, which seems pretty
> good, though it lacks user support forums, and is not brilliant on
> manuals and support).
considered as the next (and only) logical step for such inherently
web-based systems as Gmail, whose entire architecture was designed
as a web-driven engine, nothing like a conventional old mail server
for computer-based clients.
--
David Morrison
Apr 1, 2012, 9:40:01 PM4/1/12
to
In article <4F77F740...@nomail.invalid>,
1. Web apps do not offer the same functionality as native mail clients.
Sometimes it is more, but more often it is less, especially compared to
Eudora.
2. They depend on having an Internet connection, which is not always
possible.
3. They are slow unless you have a fast Internet connection.
4. Having to have a browser hanging around all the time is painful,
given the memory leaks and unreliability of most of them, to say nothing
of accidentally closing it when doing something else in the browser.
5. Webmail tends to handle one address at a time, whereas I have 15
personalities from a bunch of different places. Having Google drag them
all into one account is not an answer as I don't always want to look at
them all, especially when travelling.
John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> I continue to wonder why moving to native "web apps" fails to be
> considered as the next (and only) logical step for such inherently
> web-based systems as Gmail, whose entire architecture was designed
> as a web-driven engine, nothing like a conventional old mail server
> for computer-based clients.
From my perspective it is because:
> I continue to wonder why moving to native "web apps" fails to be
> considered as the next (and only) logical step for such inherently
> web-based systems as Gmail, whose entire architecture was designed
> as a web-driven engine, nothing like a conventional old mail server
> for computer-based clients.
1. Web apps do not offer the same functionality as native mail clients.
Sometimes it is more, but more often it is less, especially compared to
Eudora.
2. They depend on having an Internet connection, which is not always
possible.
3. They are slow unless you have a fast Internet connection.
4. Having to have a browser hanging around all the time is painful,
given the memory leaks and unreliability of most of them, to say nothing
of accidentally closing it when doing something else in the browser.
5. Webmail tends to handle one address at a time, whereas I have 15
personalities from a bunch of different places. Having Google drag them
all into one account is not an answer as I don't always want to look at
them all, especially when travelling.
John H Meyers
Apr 1, 2012, 11:34:40 PM4/1/12
to
On 4/1/2012 8:40 PM, David Morrison wrote:
JHM:
> 2. They depend on having an Internet connection, which is not always
> possible.
IMAP also depends on having an Internet connection,
and that's the comparison I meant to imply.
> 3. They are slow unless you have a fast Internet connection.
IMAP can be horrendously and hopelessly slow
(try re-syncing seven years of accumulated "All Mail" at Gmail :)
My Gmail web app is splendidly fast, its graph of network loading
vs. accumulations of even unlimited messages and "folders" (Labels)
is absolutely flat (updates to the current screen view are all that's
downloaded, many local screen updates are handled entirely locally
in return for some downloaded javascript,
and mouse + keyboard activity is all that's uploaded),
and if it weren't so on any particular system, Gmail offers a "Basic HTML"
alternative (less "flashy" but still efficient and responsive)
> 4. Having to have a browser hanging around all the time is painful,
> given the memory leaks and unreliability of most of them, to say nothing
> of accidentally closing it when doing something else in the browser.
My browser has no such problems, has a function for immediately re-opening
any tab(s) accidentally closed, and Gmail's "Basic HTML" view
is designed to work with even the most "basic" pf browsers:
<https://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=15049>
> 5. Webmail tends to handle one address at a time, whereas I have 15
> personalities from a bunch of different places. Having Google drag them
> all into one account is not an answer as I don't always want to look at
> them all, especially when traveling.
I can open multiple different Gmail accounts in one browser -- can't you?
<http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/access-two-gmail-accounts-at-once-in.html>
(with "private sessions" this can be increased indefinitely,
as well as having always been possible via that browser feature anyway).
"Multiple account sign-in for mobile"
<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=1664268>
Is your perspective changing yet? ;-)
--
JHM:
>> I continue to wonder why moving to native "web apps" fails to be
>> considered as the next (and only) logical step for such inherently
>> web-based systems as Gmail, whose entire architecture was designed
>> as a web-driven engine, nothing like a conventional old mail server
>> for computer-based clients.
> From my perspective it is because:
>
> 1. Web apps do not offer the same functionality as native mail clients.
> Sometimes it is more, but more often it is less, especially compared to
> Eudora.
Apples vs. Oranges -- some folks prefer one, some the other.
>> considered as the next (and only) logical step for such inherently
>> web-based systems as Gmail, whose entire architecture was designed
>> as a web-driven engine, nothing like a conventional old mail server
>> for computer-based clients.
> From my perspective it is because:
>
> 1. Web apps do not offer the same functionality as native mail clients.
> Sometimes it is more, but more often it is less, especially compared to
> Eudora.
> 2. They depend on having an Internet connection, which is not always
> possible.
and that's the comparison I meant to imply.
> 3. They are slow unless you have a fast Internet connection.
(try re-syncing seven years of accumulated "All Mail" at Gmail :)
My Gmail web app is splendidly fast, its graph of network loading
vs. accumulations of even unlimited messages and "folders" (Labels)
is absolutely flat (updates to the current screen view are all that's
downloaded, many local screen updates are handled entirely locally
in return for some downloaded javascript,
and mouse + keyboard activity is all that's uploaded),
and if it weren't so on any particular system, Gmail offers a "Basic HTML"
alternative (less "flashy" but still efficient and responsive)
> 4. Having to have a browser hanging around all the time is painful,
> given the memory leaks and unreliability of most of them, to say nothing
> of accidentally closing it when doing something else in the browser.
any tab(s) accidentally closed, and Gmail's "Basic HTML" view
is designed to work with even the most "basic" pf browsers:
<https://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=15049>
> 5. Webmail tends to handle one address at a time, whereas I have 15
> personalities from a bunch of different places. Having Google drag them
> all into one account is not an answer as I don't always want to look at
I can open multiple different Gmail accounts in one browser -- can't you?
<http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/access-two-gmail-accounts-at-once-in.html>
(with "private sessions" this can be increased indefinitely,
as well as having always been possible via that browser feature anyway).
"Multiple account sign-in for mobile"
<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=1664268>
Is your perspective changing yet? ;-)
--
David Morrison
Apr 2, 2012, 8:45:20 AM4/2/12
to
In article <4F791E50...@nomail.invalid>,
access them without an Internet connection
> My Gmail web app is splendidly fast, its graph of network loading
> vs. accumulations of even unlimited messages and "folders" (Labels)
> is absolutely flat (updates to the current screen view are all that's
> downloaded, many local screen updates are handled entirely locally
> in return for some downloaded javascript,
> and mouse + keyboard activity is all that's uploaded),
> and if it weren't so on any particular system, Gmail offers a "Basic HTML"
> alternative (less "flashy" but still efficient and responsive)
But I would ask how old your computer is? Anything more than a year or
two old, or a low end machine, finds AJAX a struggle. And if you use
Basic HTML, then you are losing the functionality that you are claiming
makes the web-based version viable.
> > 5. Webmail tends to handle one address at a time, whereas I have 15
> > personalities from a bunch of different places. Having Google drag them
> > all into one account is not an answer as I don't always want to look at
> > them all, especially when traveling.
>
> I can open multiple different Gmail accounts in one browser -- can't you?
Fine if all your accounts are gmail. Only 3 of mine are. The others are
often related to clients' services and I don't have a choice.
John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> > 2. They depend on having an Internet connection, which is not always
> > possible.
>
> IMAP also depends on having an Internet connection,
> and that's the comparison I meant to imply.
But a native client does cache the messages and attachments so you can
> > possible.
>
> IMAP also depends on having an Internet connection,
> and that's the comparison I meant to imply.
access them without an Internet connection
> My Gmail web app is splendidly fast, its graph of network loading
> vs. accumulations of even unlimited messages and "folders" (Labels)
> is absolutely flat (updates to the current screen view are all that's
> downloaded, many local screen updates are handled entirely locally
> in return for some downloaded javascript,
> and mouse + keyboard activity is all that's uploaded),
> and if it weren't so on any particular system, Gmail offers a "Basic HTML"
> alternative (less "flashy" but still efficient and responsive)
two old, or a low end machine, finds AJAX a struggle. And if you use
Basic HTML, then you are losing the functionality that you are claiming
makes the web-based version viable.
> > 5. Webmail tends to handle one address at a time, whereas I have 15
> > personalities from a bunch of different places. Having Google drag them
> > all into one account is not an answer as I don't always want to look at
> > them all, especially when traveling.
>
> I can open multiple different Gmail accounts in one browser -- can't you?
often related to clients' services and I don't have a choice.
David Morrison
Apr 2, 2012, 8:47:34 AM4/2/12
to
In article <4F791E50...@nomail.invalid>,
John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> I can open multiple different Gmail accounts in one browser -- can't you?
> <http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/access-two-gmail-accounts-at-once-in.ht
> ml>
So why are you still using Eudora if gmail is so good?
> <http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/access-two-gmail-accounts-at-once-in.ht
> ml>
D.F. Manno
Apr 3, 2012, 7:04:02 PM4/3/12
to
In article <davidmor-5C67F6...@news.internode.on.net>,
6. If a Web mail server loses your e-mail, you're screwed (with the
limited exception of Gmail). It's not easy to back up Web mail, either.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead
soldiers. (George Carlin)
limited exception of Gmail). It's not easy to back up Web mail, either.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead
soldiers. (George Carlin)
John H Meyers
Apr 3, 2012, 11:20:27 PM4/3/12
to
On 4/2/2012 7:45 AM, David Morrison wrote:
>> IMAP also depends on having an Internet connection,
>> and that's the comparison I meant to imply.
> But a native [IMAP?] client does cache the messages and attachments
>> IMAP also depends on having an Internet connection,
>> and that's the comparison I meant to imply.
> so you can access them without an Internet connection
How do I access NEW MAIL without an internet connection?
As to even when having an internet connection for IMAP,
the ability to "go offline" yet even have all prior mail available
would require _download everything_ (including attachments) in advance,
in which case I might as well be using POP -- POP is even
considerably superior, in that anything downloaded for an IMAP account
is only a cache, and can be lost later, whereas everything that's been
downloaded via POP is permanently stored.
> Anything more than a year or
> two old, or a low end machine, finds AJAX a struggle.
thanks for your nay-saying condolences anyway.
> And if you use
> Basic HTML, then you are losing the functionality that you are claiming
> makes the web-based version viable.
with very excellent results, can perhaps be talked out of even trying,
but once people see that it all works, and very well,
then they will have their own personal experience as a better guide.
>> I can open multiple different Gmail accounts in one browser -- can't you?
> Fine if all your accounts are gmail. Only 3 of mine are. The others are
> often related to clients' services and I don't have a choice.
so your response this time is, as Perry Mason used to say,
illogical, irrelevant, and immaterial.
--
John H Meyers
Apr 3, 2012, 11:28:19 PM4/3/12
to
On 4/2/2012 7:47 AM, David Morrison wrote:
> So why are you still using Eudora if gmail is so good?
Perhaps for the same reason that some craftsmen
> So why are you still using Eudora if gmail is so good?
keep more than one screwdriver in their tool kit.
Routing mail through Gmail, by the way,
adds excellent spam filtering to any POP client,
as well as automatic off-site mail backup
(free -- no need for "carbonite" etc.)
--
John H Meyers
Apr 3, 2012, 11:37:15 PM4/3/12
to
On 4/3/2012 6:04 PM, D.F. Manno wrote:
> 6. If a Web mail server loses your e-mail, you're screwed (with the
> limited exception of Gmail). It's not easy to back up Web mail, either.
With Gmail:
> 6. If a Web mail server loses your e-mail, you're screwed (with the
> limited exception of Gmail). It's not easy to back up Web mail, either.
o Enable free POP access to everything stored at Gmail.
o Fetch all mail to any client or secondary web-based mail.
In the opposite direction, I also use various addresses
as "forwarders" to more than one web-based system,
thus backing up all my important traffic
to more than one web-based system at the same time.
It's more likely that I'll be killed by one drunk or
distracted driver than that all my backup alternatives
will simultaneously be compromised, lost, destroyed,
go out of business, or start charging too much :)
--
0 new messages