Re: web-based gmail problems.

A friend describes problems [which I've pasted below] that I can expect
if I use gmail. Can any of the described problems be avoided?

> So you want to know how I like gmail? No much.
> One of many reasons is that you can't just edit-in-situ my text below
> & mail it back to me. So that I can just run a text-comparator over it;
> also in-situ & see how/what you've edited/added-value.
>
> Under linux, when I swap different installations and browsers, gmail fails,
> due to cookies. Web-based gmail insists on cookies-enabled.
> And then later accesses insist on cookies being consistent with the previous.
> Once you get out of sync, you're screwed.
-----------
> I have to transport my main hard-disk weekly: Parkhurst <--> Edenvale !
> In order to break the 'locked-loop' I often just use an inet-cafee
> to simulate a new/unknown/1st-post.
---------
> And of course google wants you to stay on line [and pay telco costs]
> while they hit you with adverts.
> So to originate or reply substantially, you need to compose your
> text off-line and paste it to gmail, quickly when you're next on line.
>
> I wonder if the gmail-server is in California or RSA?
> So then, it you go to Japan and gmail from there, it would perhaps:
> IF japan:gmail fails to find you
> THEN try HQ-California to get the RSA-server.
>
> So what happens if you stay in Japan for 20 years ?
>
> IMO Web-2 is just trying to be too smart!

OK, thanks for the feedback; I'll paste this to Newgroups
and hope to get some answers or advice.

==TIA.

On 2010-07-25, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> A friend describes problems [which I've pasted below] that I can expect
> if I use gmail. Can any of the described problems be avoided?
>
>> So you want to know how I like gmail? No much.
>> One of many reasons is that you can't just edit-in-situ my text below
>> & mail it back to me. So that I can just run a text-comparator over it;
>> also in-situ & see how/what you've edited/added-value.
>>
>> Under linux, when I swap different installations and browsers, gmail fails,
>> due to cookies. Web-based gmail insists on cookies-enabled.
>> And then later accesses insist on cookies being consistent with the previous.
>> Once you get out of sync, you're screwed.
> -----------
>> I have to transport my main hard-disk weekly: Parkhurst <--> Edenvale !
>> In order to break the 'locked-loop' I often just use an inet-cafee
>> to simulate a new/unknown/1st-post.
> ---------
>> And of course google wants you to stay on line [and pay telco costs]
>> while they hit you with adverts.
>> So to originate or reply substantially, you need to compose your
>> text off-line and paste it to gmail, quickly when you're next on line.
>>
>> I wonder if the gmail-server is in California or RSA?
>> So then, it you go to Japan and gmail from there, it would perhaps:
>> IF japan:gmail fails to find you
>> THEN try HQ-California to get the RSA-server.
>>
>> So what happens if you stay in Japan for 20 years ?
>>
>> IMO Web-2 is just trying to be too smart!
>
> OK, thanks for the feedback; I'll paste this to Newgroups
> and hope to get some answers or advice.
>
>==TIA.
>

Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
all...

--
Caveat utilitor,
indi

On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
> with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
> all...

Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.

--

-John ((E-Mail Removed))

John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> disait le 07/26/10 que :

> On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
>> with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
>> all...
>
> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.

Imap interface is a pain in the ass, since emails are found in several
folders (2 + number of tags) and reading in one folder does not mark read in the others...



--
Le travail n'est pas une bonne chose. Si ça l'était,
les riches l'auraient accaparé

In article <d6cvh7-(E-Mail Removed)>, John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> --- snip ---
> > Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
> > with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
> > all...
>
Well if you read the *Subject: web-based gmail problems.*
you'd know that *web-based* is not for mutt.

> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.
>
Obviously, it's because *web-based* is what they push in your face
initially.
My notes on mutt tell that it's got
6 screens of 22lines > 100 key-combinations,
arranged alphabetically!! - as if it were a dictionary-
which IMO shows a badly conceived design.
They just kept adding features, and looked around for
unused key-combinations to allocate.

I'd rather not <oh well you'll get used to it> again.
I suppose pine can't handle it ?

Is SSL encrypted independant of the mail-client?
then perhaps my normal POP3 mail-client could handle it,
if I can see how to tell it to use SSL encrypted.

== TIA.

On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2010-07-25, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> A friend describes problems [which I've pasted below] that I can expect
>> if I use gmail. Can any of the described problems be avoided?
[...]
> Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
> with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
> all...

I've been using mutt+IMAP+gmail for a couple years as well, and it
works great. Far better than either MS Exchange server run by my
employer or courier-IMAP server that my ISP was running.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My Aunt MAUREEN was a
at military advisor to IKE &
gmail.com TINA TURNER!!

On 2010-07-26, John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
>> with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
>> all...
>
> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.

It's quite handy for searching (especially mailboxes containing
thousands of messgages).

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! In Newark the
at laundromats are open 24
gmail.com hours a day!

On 2010-07-26, Grant Edwards <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2010-07-26, John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
>>> with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
>>> all...
>>
>> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
>> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
>> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.
>
> It's quite handy for searching (especially mailboxes containing
> thousands of messgages).
>

I prefer just keeping things organized so that I know where they are.
Not hard to do really with proper filtering.
Guess I'm old school... Or maybe just neurotic.

--
Caveat utilitor,
indi

On 2010-07-26, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <d6cvh7-(E-Mail Removed)>, John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> --- snip ---
>> > Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
>> > with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
>> > all...
>>
> Well if you read the *Subject: web-based gmail problems.*
> you'd know that *web-based* is not for mutt.
>

This being comp.mail.mutt I wasn't sure what the heck it was about.
Why would anyone post questions about gmail's web interface to
comp.mail.mutt?

>> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
>> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
>> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.
>>
> Obviously, it's because *web-based* is what they push in your face
> initially.
> My notes on mutt tell that it's got
> 6 screens of 22lines > 100 key-combinations,
> arranged alphabetically!! - as if it were a dictionary-
> which IMO shows a badly conceived design.
>

LOL, you must really get bent out of shape when faced with vi!

> then perhaps my normal POP3 mail-client could handle it,
> if I can see how to tell it to use SSL encrypted.
>

Or use fetchmail or getmail, they both wirk fine with gmail.

--
Caveat utilitor,
indi

On 2010-07-26, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2010-07-26, Grant Edwards <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 2010-07-26, John Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 2010-07-25, Indi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail
>>>> with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at
>>>> all...
>>>
>>> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and
>>> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I
>>> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all.
>>
>> It's quite handy for searching (especially mailboxes containing
>> thousands of messgages).
>>
>
> I prefer just keeping things organized so that I know where they are.
> Not hard to do really with proper filtering. Guess I'm old school...
> Or maybe just neurotic.

I guess I don't see how "proper filtering" can help. There's no way I
can memorize the contents of each of almost 7000 different messages.
Sure, I know the piece of info I need is in a particular mailbox (or
two), but than may only narrow it down to a few hundred messages.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm reporting for duty
at as a modern person. I want
gmail.com to do the Latin Hustle now!