How to recover from Google dropping password support on May 30th 2022

[Andy Burnelli]

Do you have a solution that allows us to keep using a passwd in an MUA?

Did you get this message today in all your Google email accounts?
<https://i.postimg.cc/2yBvxJhJ/gmailpasswd02.jpg>

It implies Google is dropping third-party mail user agent passwd support.
<https://i.postimg.cc/MGfN2Z7r/gmailpasswd01.jpg>

Verbatim:
"On May 30, you may lose access to apps that are using
less secure sign-in technology
To help keep your account secure, Google will no longer support
the use of third-party apps or devices which ask you to sign in
to your Google Account using only your username and password.

Instead, you'll need to sign in using Sign in with Google
or other more secure technologies, like OAuth 2.0."

I'm sure I'm like others in that I do _not_ want to use my phone to
authorize anything (not text, not 2FA, not my IP, nothing). I simply want a
login and a password and I don't want anything more than only that.

I'm not even sure if I want to use OATH2 (only if there is no other way).

I don't use Google applications if I can help it, so I use 3rd party MUAs on
all my platforms (K-9 Mail, Thunderbird, FairEmail, etc.).

Do you have any solution that allows us to keep using a password in an MUA?
--
Usenet is a team sport where each of us pitches in to help all the others.

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burnelli wrote: > I'm not even sure if I want to use OATH2 (only if there
is no other way).

I don't understand the reluctance to use oAuth2, it uses your same gmail
username and after you enter the same password once, it substitutes a "token",
then in future it logs in using username+token, instead of username+passord,
what's objectionable about that?

How does google suddenly invade your privacy any more than it does as an
IMAP/POP user?

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burns wrote:

> I don't understand the reluctance to use oAuth2,

Hi Andy,

Thanks for trying to help as I just want the simplest login that preserves
as much of my privacy as possible, where I'll _never_ want the phone to be
part of that authentication process. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never.

Google locks me out a lot (they _hate_ VPN for example), but even so, it may
be more complicated than you (or Google) intimate though as I just looked
and I _already_ have OATH2 set (or so it seems) on my Windows TB setup.
[Tools/AccountSettings/YourGmailAccount/ServerSettings/SecuritySettings/AuthenticationMethod]

Do you see anything wrong with this TB setup I just snapshotted for you?
<https://i.postimg.cc/432zCNgx/gmailpasswd03.jpg> Current Gmail OATH2 setup
--
Usenet isn't for amusement; it's for learning from and helping each other.

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I don't understand the reluctance to use oAuth2,
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for trying to help as I just want the simplest login that preserves
> as much of my privacy as possible, where I'll _never_ want the phone to be
> part of that authentication process. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never.

so you should be happy enough, because the phone isn't involved in pop/imap
authentication

> Google locks me out a lot (they _hate_ VPN for example), but even so, it may
> be more complicated than you (or Google) intimate though as I just looked
> and I _already_ have OATH2 set (or so it seems) on my Windows TB setup.
> [Tools/AccountSettings/YourGmailAccount/ServerSettings/SecuritySettings/AuthenticationMethod]

yep, looks right.

> Do you see anything wrong with this TB setup I just snapshotted for you?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/432zCNgx/gmailpasswd03.jpg> Current Gmail OATH2 setup

same setup as mine, plus if you look in Tools/Preferences/Privacy/SavedPasswords
you'll see the token itself corresponding to the username, so TB knows it, it'll
only ever be sent within a TLS session, google can confirm it, nobody else sees it.

I would be reluctant to use oAuth2 to allow google to authenticate me to
non-google services, or any of the other "we trust them to authenticate you for
us" services.

You may be aware that Eran Hammer walked away from it? I don't know why Vimeo
wants people to login just to watch, but apparently it can be watched
anonymously when it's embedded in another page.

<https://hustoknow.blogspot.com/2012/12/oauth2-road-to-hell.html>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 08:35:53, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]

>You may be aware that Eran Hammer walked away from it? I don't know
>why Vimeo wants people to login just to watch, but apparently it can be
>watched anonymously when it's embedded in another page.
>
><https://hustoknow.blogspot.com/2012/12/oauth2-road-to-hell.html>
>

So can you make your own such page (e. g. on your own computer?), or is
the "embedding" more complicated than that? If you can, I'm sure someone
with a little skill could automate the process of doing so into a batch
file or similar (even a browser extension?).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Do you want to be right, or friends?"
- a friend quoted by Vicky Ayech in UMRA, 2018-12-4

[Andy Burns]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> So can you make your own such page (e. g. on your own computer?), or is the
> "embedding" more complicated than that?

Don't know, today is the first time I've noticed it wanting me to login (I could
understand if I wanted to thumbs-up videos, or save favourites) I've generally
regarded Vimeo as being for more-professional use than youtube ... e.g. creator
pays for hosting, no adverts, no recommendation of other people's videos)

[Theo]

Apparently it's due to old videos not being 'rated'. Seems like they've
decided everything unrated (could be adult content etc) needs a login. And
so old videos that weren't rated because that wasn't a necessity at the time
are stuck behind a login wall.

Your page with embedded video didn't work for me - just got a blank space,
even with adblock turned off.

It may be a Europe-only thing:
https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/89086-vimeo-enforcing-content-rating-for-all-public-videos/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-tech-twitter-idUKKBN28J0I6

Theo

[Andy Burns]

Theo wrote:

> Your page with embedded video didn't work for me - just got a blank space,
> even with adblock turned off.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have uBlock enabled, but all it blocks on that page is googleadsyndication.

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burns wrote:

>> Do you see anything wrong with this TB setup I just snapshotted for you?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/432zCNgx/gmailpasswd03.jpg> Current Gmail OATH2 setup
>
> same setup as mine

Thank you for confirming as I am confused _why_ I'm getting this message.
a. It could be about Thunderbird or it could be about K-9 or some other MUA
b. Or, it may be only about my settings inside of my Google Account perhaps?

To check, on a VPN browser I logged into Google (which gave me hell but at
least they didn't disable my computer like Apple did for the same offense).

I seem to have "Less secure app access" turned on in my Google Account:
<https://i.postimg.cc/cL9r9qFW/gmailpasswd05.jpg>

Thunderbird is on but not K-9 for "Apps with access to your account".
<https://i.postimg.cc/MGs3HSyn/gmailpasswd04.jpg>
Yet, for now, both TB and K9 (Android) work just fine as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure what to do there, but I'm sure others have the same confusion.
Any advice is welcome as all I want is the minimum invasion & most utility.

> plus if you look in Tools/Preferences/Privacy/SavedPasswords
> you'll see the token itself corresponding to the username, so TB knows it, it'll
> only ever be sent within a TLS session, google can confirm it, nobody else sees it.

Ah. That helped a lot! Now I see it was last changed on July 7th, 2021, most
likely in response to a nastigram by Google as I don't usually touch it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/RhHkj4gJ/gmailpasswd06.jpg>
Which, transcribed, amounts to the following (I would think typical) setup:
imap://imap.gmail.com (imap://imap.gmail.com) lo...@gmail.com 7/7/2021
oauth://accounts.google.com (https://mail.google.com.com) lo...@gmail.com 7/7/2021
smtp://smtp.gmail.com (smtp://imap.gmail.com) lo...@gmail.com 7/7/2021

> I would be reluctant to use oAuth2 to allow google to authenticate me to
> non-google services, or any of the other "we trust them to authenticate you for
> us" services.

I don't even understand what you meant by that, but I don't use _any_ Google
Services (such as their gCloud services) in the least that I know of anyway.

> You may be aware that Eran Hammer walked away from it?

I'm never afraid to admit I don't know something (unless it's a cop asking
me if I know how fast I was going and then I'll claim the speed limit).

I am ignorant of who Eran Hammer is, but, luckily, ignorance can be cured...
*OAuth 2.0 leader resigns, says standard is 'bad'*
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/oauth-2-0-leader-resigns-says-standard-is-bad/>
"The standard grew too far away from its roots as a simple Web
authentication technology, author Eran Hammer-Lahav says,
and now is insecure and overly broad."

> I don't know why Vimeo
> wants people to login just to watch, but apparently it can be watched
> anonymously when it's embedded in another page.
> <https://hustoknow.blogspot.com/2012/12/oauth2-road-to-hell.html>

Thanks for that last ever OAuth talk video. "Death by a million cuts".
Unfortunately he can't wear his own Oath branded t-shirt in his own house!

He seems to be much like I am in terms of brutal honesty, both self honesty,
and in unafraid condemnation of the actions by the big powers that control.
--
Usenet is a team sport where each person adds unique value in their own way.

[NY]

"Andy Burnelli" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:svtg5b$r3a$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> Do you have a solution that allows us to keep using a passwd in an MUA?
>
> Did you get this message today in all your Google email accounts?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/2yBvxJhJ/gmailpasswd02.jpg>
>
> It implies Google is dropping third-party mail user agent passwd support.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/MGfN2Z7r/gmailpasswd01.jpg>
>
> Verbatim:
> "On May 30, you may lose access to apps that are using less secure sign-in
> technology
> To help keep your account secure, Google will no longer support the use
> of third-party apps or devices which ask you to sign in to your Google
> Account using only your username and password.
> Instead, you'll need to sign in using Sign in with Google or other more
> secure technologies, like OAuth 2.0."
>
> I'm sure I'm like others in that I do _not_ want to use my phone to
> authorize anything (not text, not 2FA, not my IP, nothing). I simply want
> a
> login and a password and I don't want anything more than only that.
>
> I'm not even sure if I want to use OATH2 (only if there is no other way).
>
> I don't use Google applications if I can help it, so I use 3rd party MUAs
> on
> all my platforms (K-9 Mail, Thunderbird, FairEmail, etc.).

What POP email clients are there which will support the new authentication
which Gmail will introduce?

I currently use Windows Live Mail on Windows 7 and Thunderbird on Windows
10. I also use the default email client (just called "Email") V6.1.61.1 that
is supplied with my Samsung Galaxy S7 Android phone.

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.

Will I have to switch to Webmail and/or a proprietary Gmail email client for
accessing that account (and a separate POP email client such as Thunderbird
for my various other email accounts)?

[Andy Burns]

NY wrote:

>
> What POP email clients are there which will support the new authentication
> which Gmail will introduce?

Thunderbird certainly supports oAuth

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.

[Big Al]

On 3/5/22 13:08, this is what NY 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.

That was a feature I did like but I have too many devices I need my mail on so IMAP seems to solve that issue. However I have local folders
on my laptop (the main device) and anything that is worth noting is dragged into those folders and saved. So at least get 1/2 of your plan
by copying them there so I can back them up. If gmail wants to lose my How-To-Geek daily newsletter and reminder for my doc visit next
week, they can.

Al

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 14:22:35, Big Al <Be...@invalid.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):

>On 3/5/22 13:08, this is what NY 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.
>
>That was a feature I did like but I have too many devices I need my
>mail on so IMAP seems to solve that issue. However I have local

Unless you have a folder structure, you can have POP on multiple devices
- just set them all to "leave messages on server" (or, as my friend
does, all but one, and only get email[s] on that one last). That's
assuming you can actually _find_ a POP client on all the devices you
want email on.

>folders on my laptop (the main device) and anything that is worth
>noting is dragged into those folders and saved. So at least get 1/2 of
>your plan by copying them there so I can back them up. If gmail wants
>to lose my How-To-Geek daily newsletter and reminder for my doc visit
>next week, they can.

I'd worry about the doc reminder, if I was relying on it as the only
reminder. (I have a paper written-on calendar!)
>
>Al
John

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...

[Chris Green]

... or do what I do. Have E-Mail delivered to my server (actually my
desktop machine at home) and read it remotely by logging in using ssh.

To do this from Android I have termux on my Android phone.

--
Chris Green
·

[nospam]

In article <t0091r$n8t$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@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.

[NY]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:k+BJoyLJp7IiFwl+@a.a...

> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 14:22:35, Big Al <Be...@invalid.com> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/5/22 13:08, this is what NY 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.
>>
>>That was a feature I did like but I have too many devices I need my mail
>>on so IMAP seems to solve that issue. However I have local
>
> Unless you have a folder structure, you can have POP on multiple devices -
> just set them all to "leave messages on server" (or, as my friend does,
> all but one, and only get email[s] on that one last). That's assuming you
> can actually _find_ a POP client on all the devices you want email on.

That's what I do. My Windows 7 / WLM PC is the "master" which is set to
delete messages 28 days after downloading. My Win 10 / Thunderbird laptop
and my Android phone are set to "never delete" so they can be the first
device that sees a new incoming message, but I can be confident that it will
remain on the POP server to be downloaded onto WLM for filing (if necessary)
or else deletion.

IMAP is a great idea but it is too prone to one of the devices accidentally
deleting a message such that is it no longer available for filing. And it
means you cannot read your existing messages (especially on the phone) in a
place that has no internet access. IMAP and a mail client is little better
than webmail.

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:050320221458163330%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Can it? How do you configure it to do that? I thought that if you received
your email by IMAP it never left the server, apart from when the client
downloads a transient copy of it to read, which was erased when you closed
the mail app.

What is the big advantage of IMAP over POP?

[nospam]

In article <t00lv9$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> IMAP is a great idea but it is too prone to one of the devices accidentally
> deleting a message such that is it no longer available for filing.

deleting email normally moves it to the trash folder, where it can be
retrieved, usually within 30 days.

> And it
> means you cannot read your existing messages (especially on the phone) in a
> place that has no internet access.

if you don't have internet access, email won't be the only thing you
can't do.

> IMAP and a mail client is little better
> than webmail.

webmail is a front end to imap.

[nospam]

In article <t00lv9$tdr$2...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@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.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 21:49:43, NY <m...@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.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You can believe it if it helps you to sleep. - Quoted by Tom Lehrer (on
religion, in passing), April 2013.
(Apparently he was quoting James Taylor's "Sweet Baby James".)

[nospam]

In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@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.

[The Real Bev]

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?

> 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.)

Chromebooks?


--
Cheers, Bev
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

[nospam]

In article <t01iqo$dcs$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I switch my gmail accounts to IMAP, will I no longer have my incoming
> mail stored by Thunderbird on my own computer?

there's nothing to switch and mail can be stored wherever you want,
regardless of protocol used to access it.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-05 19:08, NY wrote:
> "Andy Burnelli" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:svtg5b$r3a$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> What POP email clients are there which will support the new authentication
> which Gmail will introduce?
>
> I currently use Windows Live Mail on Windows 7 and Thunderbird on Windows
> 10. I also use the default email client (just called "Email") V6.1.61.1
> that
> is supplied with my Samsung Galaxy S7 Android phone.
>
> 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.

This is not exact.

On some clients, the messages on the imap folders can be locally cached
and read offline. For example, Thunderbird supports this.

Another strategy is to move email from the imap folder into a local
folder. This can be manual or automatic; it can be done as soon as email
arrives, or after being read. Again, Thunderbird supports this.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

Correct.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-06 02:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 21:49:43, NY <m...@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.

[Carlos E.R.]

All correct, saves me typing :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Chris]

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.

[Rob]

Chris <ithi...@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.

[mechanic]

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.

[mechanic]

Unfortunately some clients are not very good at it!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 12:23:32, mechanic <mech...@example.net> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):

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

[nospam]

In article <z1486siqpKJiFw+b@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@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>

[Frank Slootweg]

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.

[Frank Slootweg]

Andy Burns <use...@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.

[Andy Burns]

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

[nospam]

In article <t02okt...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@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.

[Ken Blake]

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

>Chris <ithi...@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

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 12:34:50 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 12:23:32, mechanic <mech...@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)
>>> <G6...@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

[Ken Blake]

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

>mechanic <mech...@example.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>> > In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>> > <G6...@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.

[Frank Slootweg]

Andy Burns <use...@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.

[Carlos E.R.]

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.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-06 17:20, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 13:05:06 +0100, Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithi...@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.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-06 17:31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@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.

[Carlos E.R.]

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"
(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.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-06 17:27, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2022 15:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> mechanic <mech...@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@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.

[Frank Slootweg]

Indeed, *if*! :-)

[The Real Bev]

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

[Andy Burns]

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 ..

[Ken Blake]

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

>On 2022-03-06 17:27, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2022 15:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> mechanic <mech...@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@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.

--

[Wilf]

On 04/03/2022 at 18:27, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burnelli wrote: > I'm not even sure if I want to use OATH2 (only if there
> is no other way).
>
> I don't understand the reluctance to use oAuth2, it uses your same gmail
> username and after you enter the same password once, it substitutes a "token",
> then in future it logs in using username+token, instead of username+passord,
> what's objectionable about that?
>
> How does google suddenly invade your privacy any more than it does as an
> IMAP/POP user?
>
>
>

oAuth2 works nicely for gmail accounts on iPhone's Mail app, but if
logged in in that way, you don't get the opportunity to use any aliases
you may have set up in Gmail for sending mail. The only way to do that
is to set up the Gmail account as type Other in the iOS Mail app, and
then app specific passwords are needed as oAuth2 doesn't work for
"other" type email accounts. If app passwords are stopped, this will
cause problems unless iOS Mail app allows oAuth2 for "other" email
account types.
--
Wilf

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-03-06 16:48, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andy Burns <use...@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.

[Carlos E.R.]

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.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-06 19:09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-06 16:48, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <use...@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-r...@accounts.google.com>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Frank Slootweg]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 08:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andy Burns <use...@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.

[Paul]

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

[Andy Burns]

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 ...

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-03-06 19:09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-06 16:48, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Andy Burns <use...@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!? :-(

[...]

[Andy Burnelli]

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 Burnelli]

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.

[Andy Burnelli]

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]

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.

[Rob]

Yeah, me too!

[Andy Burnelli]

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.

[Ken Blake]

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

Yeah, me too

[Carlos E.R.]

:-/

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

Indeed :-/

>
> [...]


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

Ouch. You are right.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <K...@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?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 06.03.22 um 21:55 schrieb J. P. Gilliver (John):

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <K...@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

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 22:12:36, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@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 <K...@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?

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:55:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <K...@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.

--

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 21:24:26 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 22:12:36, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@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 <K...@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?
>>

--

[Ken Blake]

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

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 17:49:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
><robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-03-06 17:27, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On 6 Mar 2022 15:48:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>> mechanic <mech...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2022 20:42:30 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>>> In article <lDVZnXVdBBJiFwOg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@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.

[Andy Burnelli]

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.

[Ant]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Carlos E.R. <robin_...@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| |
\ _ /
( )

[Nobody]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 21:24:26 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 22:12:36, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@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 <K...@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.)

Are you sure "their" service is not already farmed out to an IMAP
provider?

Xfinity/Comcast AFAIK don't maintain their own email server.

My own in Canada, Telus, certainly doesn't.

My Telus domain account is in effect gmail... in T's words "powered by
gmail".

>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?
>>

Gmail can do that...

[The Real Bev]

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.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 07.03.22 um 06:32 schrieb The Real Bev:

> I just noticed that it claims to be incompatible with
> TB38

Are you surprised? Currently we stand 91.6.2
TB 38 was released in 2016.

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

[The Real Bev]

On 03/06/2022 10:50 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 07.03.22 um 06:32 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> I just noticed that it claims to be incompatible with
>> TB38
>
> Are you surprised? Currently we stand 91.6.2
> TB 38 was released in 2016.

I had it long before v38. I suppose that happened (if it did) during an
automatic update. I should never have checked that box :-(

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird



--
Cheers, Bev
"Everything sucks; reverse the wires and everything will blow."
-- Desert Ed

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 07.03.22 um 08:23 schrieb The Real Bev:

> I had it long before v38. I suppose that happened (if it did) during an
> automatic update. I should never have checked that box :-(

I tried to suggest an update of your dusty TB with lame wings.
And your Linux - I guess - will have about the same age. It is full of
security holes like a Swiss Emmentaler.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.03.22 um 17:52 schrieb Andy Burnelli:
> Do you have a solution that allows us to keep using a passwd in an MUA?
>
> Did you get this message today in all your Google email accounts?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/2yBvxJhJ/gmailpasswd02.jpg>
>
> It implies Google is dropping third-party mail user agent passwd support.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/MGfN2Z7r/gmailpasswd01.jpg>
> Do you have any solution that allows us to keep using a password in an MUA?

The whole issue is a nonstarter. iPhone-users are accustomed to that
kind of procedures for many years. It has absolutely no impact on
privacy but a very positive one on security.

As soon as we get there we will see.

[Frank Slootweg]

I tried it as well, but - as I have many, many folders and subfolders
- it's way too messy for me.

In (View -> Folders ->) 'All' view, the folder list in my folder pane
is just a bit longer than [1] the pane, so I can easily select the
desired top-level folder and open it.

In 'Unified' view the list is some 16 screens long and hence an
absolute pain to navigate.

Which once more shows "Different strokes for different folks!".

[1] It would fit in the pane if Thunderbird could include IMAP accounts
in the 'Global Inbox'! :-(

[Frank Slootweg]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

With sufficient kludge/hacks an IMAP e-mail account can mostly be made
to provide POP-like functionality.

While the IMAP *protocol* can indeed do 'everything' the POP protocol
can do, and more, there are aspects outside the protocols, which may
still favour POP over IMAP.

I already gave an example of the 'Global Inbox' (one Inbox for all
mail from several accounts) functionality in Thunderbird [1], which is
only available for POP accounts.

Another example is that you cannot have a single folder structure
accross multiple IMAP servers. In practice that probably means that you
will have to have one 'home' IMAP server which carries all your main
folders and have only Inbox(/Drafts/Sent/etc.) folders on each of the
other non-'home' IMAP servers. It also means that you will have to move
mail from your non-'home' servers to the appropriate folders on your
'home' server. Not a big deal, but also not an advantage of IMAP.

These are some of the issues I've encountered. Maybe there are others,
maybe not.

FWIW, I use a combination of POP and IMAP accounts. Mostly POP,
because of the Global Inbox and single folder structure aspects, and an
IMAP account (because that particular MSP (Mail SP) has a misbehaving
spam filtering system which cannot be turned off)

[1] Other/earlier e-mail clients like Outlook Express, Windows Mail and
Windows Live Mail - and probably many others - had/have similar
functionality.

[nospam]

In article <t05bvk...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank

Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >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?
>
> With sufficient kludge/hacks an IMAP e-mail account can mostly be made
> to provide POP-like functionality.

documented functionality is not a kludge/hack.

copying mail to a local store, the pop-like functionality that people
frequently mention, is trivial to do with imap, no kludge/hack needed.

the problem is that in doing so, reading email is now limited to only
that one device, in a world where people have numerous devices.

> While the IMAP *protocol* can indeed do 'everything' the POP protocol
> can do, and more, there are aspects outside the protocols, which may
> still favour POP over IMAP.
>
> I already gave an example of the 'Global Inbox' (one Inbox for all
> mail from several accounts) functionality in Thunderbird [1], which is
> only available for POP accounts.

that is a limitation of thunderbird, not pop/imap.

> Another example is that you cannot have a single folder structure
> accross multiple IMAP servers. In practice that probably means that you
> will have to have one 'home' IMAP server which carries all your main
> folders and have only Inbox(/Drafts/Sent/etc.) folders on each of the
> other non-'home' IMAP servers. It also means that you will have to move
> mail from your non-'home' servers to the appropriate folders on your
> 'home' server. Not a big deal, but also not an advantage of IMAP.

that's also a function of the email client, not pop/imap, and without
the need for a 'home server'.

[Andy Burnelli]

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> The whole issue is a nonstarter. iPhone-users are accustomed to that
> kind of procedures for many years.

Who on earth would say such a thing but an avowed iKook?

It's like saying why bother fighting for freedom of speech.

We may as well all be slaves because it's easier to live that way.
--
The problem with low IQ people like Joerg isn't that they're incredibly
stupid, but that they can never seem to add any on-topic technical value.

[sms]

On 3/6/2022 8:20 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

> 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.

OMG, I don't think anyone still uses POP3. The advantages of IMAP are
enormous.

“It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.” ― Mark Crispin,
inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol

[The Real Bev]

On 03/07/2022 12:02 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/6/2022 8:20 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> OMG, I don't think anyone still uses POP3. The advantages of IMAP are
> enormous.

I do on the accounts that are important to me. Thunderbird displays the
trivial IMAP accounts in a really stupid way. I don't have the IMAP
accounts on my phone, just the POP(3) accounts. Not looking forward to
having to switch my REAL accounts because google gets its panties in a wad.

> “It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
> you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
> fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.” ― Mark Crispin,
> inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol

If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?

--
Cheers, Bev
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management

[Joerg Lorenz]

The Real Bev schrieb:

> If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?

I think you wouldn't understand the arguments.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 14:30:20, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:55:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 09:27:52, Ken Blake <K...@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.

https://uk.godaddy.com/help/server-and-port-settings-for-workspace-email-
6949
suggests both.
[]

[The Real Bev]

On 03/07/2022 01:14 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> The Real Bev schrieb:
>> If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?
>
> I think you wouldn't understand the arguments.

Perhaps, but quite a few intelligent people have been explaining them
for several days now. The main advantage seems to be that you can
access your mail from a number of devices. I can already do that with POP.

I get mail each day into one of my IMAP accounts. I don't need to see
it and would prefer that it be deleted without my ever seeing it. I'd
prefer NEVER receiving it, but it's part of a subscription. When I try
to delete it with Thunderbird it simply draws a line through the entry.
It's permanently in the trash. I can't delete it. Perhaps if I go
to the gmail website I can delete it there but I NEVER want to go to the
gmail website. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't use Thunderbird.

Oh yeah, I can't get to the FULL gmail site with my preferred version of
Firefox; I have to use Chrome. I hate Chrome. So I have to use a tool
that I hate in order to do something that I shouldn't need to do.

Gmail is so nice. In order to get rid of something you have to delete
it TWICE, possibly THREE times. First from the inbox, next from trash,
and then (possibly) from All Mail. Does All Mail include drafts? I
don't know because I don't send mail from those accounts, certainly not
from the website. Maybe it includes Sent, but again I don't know
because I never send from those accounts.

I rest my case.

[Rob]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2022 01:14 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> The Real Bev schrieb:
>>> If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?
>>
>> I think you wouldn't understand the arguments.
>
> Perhaps, but quite a few intelligent people have been explaining them
> for several days now. The main advantage seems to be that you can
> access your mail from a number of devices. I can already do that with POP.

That means you have little expectations of "access mail"...

> I get mail each day into one of my IMAP accounts. I don't need to see
> it and would prefer that it be deleted without my ever seeing it. I'd
> prefer NEVER receiving it, but it's part of a subscription.

That all has NOTHING to do with IMAP!

> When I try
> to delete it with Thunderbird it simply draws a line through the entry.

That is a setting under "server settings". "when I delete a message..."
(you can set it to "move to Trash", "mark as deleted" or "remove it")

> It's permanently in the trash. I can't delete it. Perhaps if I go
> to the gmail website I can delete it there but I NEVER want to go to the
> gmail website. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't use Thunderbird.

There is the extra setting to "Expunge" it on exit.

[nospam]

In article <t05uu1$8gi$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?
> >
> > I think you wouldn't understand the arguments.
>
> Perhaps, but quite a few intelligent people have been explaining them
> for several days now. The main advantage seems to be that you can
> access your mail from a number of devices. I can already do that with POP.

not without significant effort and a huge risk of losing mail, you
don't.

> I get mail each day into one of my IMAP accounts.

imap is not a separate type of account.

imap a protocol, as is pop. either or both can be used to access a
single mailstore, assuming the mail provider offers both protocols.
increasingly, only imap is offered, since it has made pop obsolete.

some people consider webmail to be a third method to access mail, but
it's using imap behind the scenes.

it's a bit like having a single network share and using ftp, smb, afp
or nfs to access it.

> I don't need to see
> it and would prefer that it be deleted without my ever seeing it.

then create a filter to move it into a junk folder (or whatever folder
you think is appropriate), or in gmail's case, tag it.

very easy.

> I'd
> prefer NEVER receiving it, but it's part of a subscription.

then unsubscribe to whatever mailing list is sending you the mail you
don't want to see.

also very easy.

> When I try
> to delete it with Thunderbird it simply draws a line through the entry.
> It's permanently in the trash.

nope. it can be moved back if you later decide to not delete it.

eventually, what's in the trash will be permanently deleted, so if
you're going to change your mind, do it sooner than later.

> I can't delete it. Perhaps if I go
> to the gmail website I can delete it there but I NEVER want to go to the
> gmail website. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't use Thunderbird.

it can be permanently deleted in thunderbird, or just wait for the
trash to auto-empty on its own.

> Oh yeah, I can't get to the FULL gmail site with my preferred version of
> Firefox; I have to use Chrome. I hate Chrome.

gmail works with firefox, but you just said you don't want to go to the
website, so why is that an issue?

> So I have to use a tool
> that I hate in order to do something that I shouldn't need to do.

you don't need to do anything, other than create a filter to move email
to wherever you want. once that filter is created, the computer does
the work for you.

you can always move email manually if you prefer, even after the filter
moved it.

> Gmail is so nice. In order to get rid of something you have to delete
> it TWICE, possibly THREE times. First from the inbox, next from trash,
> and then (possibly) from All Mail.

only once is needed.

> Does All Mail include drafts? I
> don't know because I don't send mail from those accounts, certainly not
> from the website. Maybe it includes Sent, but again I don't know
> because I never send from those accounts.
>
> I rest my case.

you just made the case supporting the original claim, that you don't
understand the arguments.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 12:02:47, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):

>On 3/6/2022 8:20 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>OMG, I don't think anyone still uses POP3. The advantages of IMAP are
>enormous.

I collect my email on one device (this computer), and manually move
emails into folders occasionally. (Actually, I do have some
autorouteing.) I do backups. For me, the touted advantages of IMAP are
zero.

>
>“It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
>you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is

>fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.” ? Mark Crispin,

>inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol

It's best not to argue with people whose minds are that closed. Perhaps
excusable if he "invented" it, as it's his baby so he's likely to be a
little biased; does sound insufferably smug though (-:

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The voices of Radio 4 continuity and newsreading have been keeping me right
for as long as I can remember. I can call on a million different information
sources, but it doesn't make sense until I've heard it from Peter, Harriet,
Charlotte and the rest.- Eddie Mair in Radio Times 10-16 November 2012

[nospam]

In article <Tu6EcMEhhoJiFwbg@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >OMG, I don't think anyone still uses POP3. The advantages of IMAP are
> >enormous.
>
> I collect my email on one device (this computer), and manually move
> emails into folders occasionally. (Actually, I do have some
> autorouteing.) I do backups. For me, the touted advantages of IMAP are
> zero.

you're using folders, so not zero.

[The Real Bev]

On 03/07/2022 02:16 PM, Rob wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2022 01:14 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> The Real Bev schrieb:
>>>> If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?
>>>
>>> I think you wouldn't understand the arguments.
>>
>> Perhaps, but quite a few intelligent people have been explaining them
>> for several days now. The main advantage seems to be that you can
>> access your mail from a number of devices. I can already do that with POP.
>
> That means you have little expectations of "access mail"...

I rarely want to see email on my phone. I'm a computer person. I type
with all ten fingers. The phone is just for when I'm not at my
computer, which is rare. Yes, I need a life, but I'm not going to get
one so this is second best :-(

My two real accounts have both POP and IMAP enabled. Thunderbird sees
'POP' and my phones see IMAP. On the face of it this seems like the
best of all possible worlds, but if I have to eventually tell TB that
the account is IMAP I suspect that it will foul up my 'folder' structure
(I have filters that send messages to maybe 30 different 'folders')
tremendously. I don't care about this on my phone because I just use it
for 'now' messages.

>> I get mail each day into one of my IMAP accounts. I don't need to see
>> it and would prefer that it be deleted without my ever seeing it. I'd
>> prefer NEVER receiving it, but it's part of a subscription.
>
> That all has NOTHING to do with IMAP!
>
>> When I try
>> to delete it with Thunderbird it simply draws a line through the entry.
>
> That is a setting under "server settings". "when I delete a message..."
> (you can set it to "move to Trash", "mark as deleted" or "remove it")

THANKS! I hadn't paid any attention to those accounts since forever,
and the POP accounts don't offer those options -- I'd forgotten they
existed :-(

>> It's permanently in the trash. I can't delete it. Perhaps if I go
>> to the gmail website I can delete it there but I NEVER want to go to the
>> gmail website. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't use Thunderbird.
>
> There is the extra setting to "Expunge" it on exit.

I want to control when I delete stuff. The only reason for keeping it
hanging around is that I MIGHT need it because... because. At some
point I figure I haven't needed any of that stuff so I get rid of it,
but I want to make that decision myself perhaps every 3 months or so.

I guess I'm bitching about the same thing(s) that everyone else is
bitching about -- we've got something that works now and we don't want
to have to jump through a lot of new hoops just to accomplish the same
old thing. ESPECIALLY since it seems to offer no particular advantage
over what already exists.

--
Cheers, Bev
Bender: And so I ask you this one question: Have you ever tried simply
turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

[nospam]

In article <t065t0$qv4$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

except it does offer numerous advantages, some of which you are using.

[Joerg Lorenz]

The Real Bev schrieb:

> On 03/07/2022 01:14 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> The Real Bev schrieb:
>>> If the "superior" attributes are of no interest, why are they superior?
>>
>> I think you wouldn't understand the arguments.
>
> Perhaps, but quite a few intelligent people have been explaining them
> for several days now. The main advantage seems to be that you can
> access your mail from a number of devices. I can already do that with POP.

But in the first place your sent folders are inconsistent across the
population of your devices. POP is dead and the number of providers
offering POP3 is shrinking rapidly.

[Rob]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to control when I delete stuff. The only reason for keeping it
> hanging around is that I MIGHT need it because... because. At some
> point I figure I haven't needed any of that stuff so I get rid of it,
> but I want to make that decision myself perhaps every 3 months or so.

In IMAP you can make folders. You can move stuff into folders to
keep it, you can automate that, you can even configure where it is
moved when you click the delete button.
In my mail, stuff from mailinglist is automatically moved into a folder
for each list, as are certain other messages.
(this can be done inside Thunderbird but in my case I do it on the
IMAP server using a filtering protocol called SIEVE, because then it
also happens when I don't have Thunderbird open but e.g. access my
mail via WEBMAIL)

> I guess I'm bitching about the same thing(s) that everyone else is
> bitching about -- we've got something that works now and we don't want
> to have to jump through a lot of new hoops just to accomplish the same
> old thing. ESPECIALLY since it seems to offer no particular advantage
> over what already exists.

It is the typical behavior of old people. Do not want to learn new
things, want to keep doing things the old way.
I do have that in some fields, but fortunately I have made the move
to IMAP very long ago so that is not one of them.

[Rob]

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> I collect my email on one device (this computer), and manually move
> emails into folders occasionally. (Actually, I do have some
> autorouteing.) I do backups. For me, the touted advantages of IMAP are
> zero.

It means that when you are away, you are not able to access your mail.
Of course when you never leave the home for e.g. a holiday, that does
not matter. But lots of people do.

[John Hall]

In message <slrnt2e7jr...@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nom...@example.com> writes

You can still access via webmail items that have arrived on your email
service provider's server since you last did a OP3 download, and those
new items are the ones that you are most likely to want to read. (And,
if you want to, you can arrange for items not to be deleted from the
server once they've been downloaded.)
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)