Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #157351 > unrolled thread

recommended free email?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 10:16 -0800
    Re: recommended free email? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 12:59 -0600
      Re: recommended free email? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-22 19:05 +0000
      Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-22 14:23 -0500
    Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 13:32 -0600
      Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-22 20:31 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 17:10 -0600
          Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-22 19:09 -0500
    Re: recommended free email? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 15:45 -0500
      Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-22 21:19 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-22 14:49 -0600
      Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-23 04:58 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-22 22:52 +0000
      Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 14:57 -0600
        Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 21:47 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-23 12:58 +1100
      Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-23 10:57 -0500
        Re: recommended free email? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:49 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:42 +1100
          Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-23 20:24 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:34 +1100
        Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 15:00 -0600
          Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:22 -0600
            Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:46 -0500
              Re: recommended free email? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:36 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:03 -0500
                  Re: recommended free email? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-01-31 17:29 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-23 09:25 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:31 +0000
      Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-23 13:54 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-23 14:58 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-23 15:35 +0000
            Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-23 16:04 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:42 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:39 -0500
        Re: recommended free email? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:43 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-24 10:56 +0000
            Re: recommended free email? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:27 +0000
              Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-24 16:34 +0000
            Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-24 11:53 -0600
              Re: recommended free email? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 08:22 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 11:25 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:32 +0100
              Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 11:21 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-25 14:18 +0000
                  Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 09:54 -0800
                    Re: recommended free email? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-25 13:56 -0600
                      Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 08:10 -0800
                        Re: recommended free email? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:07 -0600
                          Re: recommended free email? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-26 13:32 -0500
                            Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 15:15 -0600
                              Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 10:33 -0800
                                Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:57 +0000
                                  Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-28 21:47 +0000
                                    Re: recommended free email? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-06 20:20 +0300
                              Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:50 +0000
                          Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 11:06 -0800
                            Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-26 16:13 -0600
                              Re: recommended free email? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 21:32 -0600
                            Re: recommended free email? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 21:20 -0600
                          Re: recommended free email? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 19:19 -0500
                    Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-25 15:45 -0600
                    Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 22:24 +0000
                    Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 15:11 -0600
                  Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-25 18:14 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:42 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#157415

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601231053280.5652@darkstar.example.org...
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, kipg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
>> news:4d02e0c0-31e6-4263-a4c1-a74e2682d4ec@googlegroups.com...
>>> Would anyone care to recommend what free email service they think is 
>>> best?
>>>
>>> --AOL
>>>
>>> --GMAIL
>>
>> That works fine and has a very decent automatic spam filter
>> that works very well.
>>
> Does it?

Yeah, I have used it as an unmunged email address in usenet
and it gets very little spam that doesn't end up in the spam folder.

Unlike the result you get with a yahoo address used like that.

> I have one gmail account that I check multiple times, I use it to get 
> basically junk mail (all those stores trying to lure me in by offering 
> deals).  I rarely get spam there.
>
> But the other two get a lot.  Actually, the reason I got one of them is 
> long in the past, but there is a constant flow of email from I don't know 
> where.  Near as I can tell, someone went around and gave out the wrong 
> gmail address, so is started getting it.  It's all either mailing lists or 
> someone sending out to their list of contacts.  That gets spam, but not 
> that much.
>
> The third is the one I gave my sister, and there's a trickle of real email 
> there.  But, the spam is amazing.  Not only lots of it, but I swear it's 
> related to my sister's use of gmail, since there is a lot of dog and 
> health related stuff.  Almost relevant, but I sure didn't ask for it.
>
> So I suspect gmail is more careful with accounts that get used regularly, 
> but that's speculation.

None of my gmail accounts get much spam at all
into the inbox. It does end up in the spam folder.

>  > Some don't like the idea that google snoops on your email.
>>
>>> --YAHOO
>>
>> Works fine too.
>>
>>> others?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> P.S.  Someone suggested _not_ to use the email from your ISP (ie.
>>> comcast.net) because if you change ISP's, you have to change all
>>> your email contacts.
>>
>> Yeah, the ISP free email is to be avoided for that reason. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157959

Michael Black wrote:


> The third is the one I gave my sister, and there's a trickle of real email
> there.  But, the spam is amazing.  Not only lots of it, but I swear it's
> related to my sister's use of gmail, since there is a lot of dog and
> health related stuff.  Almost relevant, but I sure didn't ask for it.
Sure, post your real email right here, and within two days, you will get 
spam, possibly even related to something discussed on here.  These 
harvesters of email really spread the emails they have found around to 
purveyors of all sorts of dreck.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157989

On 1/27/2016 3:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
>
>
>> The third is the one I gave my sister, and there's a trickle of real email
>> there.  But, the spam is amazing.  Not only lots of it, but I swear it's
>> related to my sister's use of gmail, since there is a lot of dog and
>> health related stuff.  Almost relevant, but I sure didn't ask for it.
> Sure, post your real email right here, and within two days, you will get
> spam, possibly even related to something discussed on here.  These
> harvesters of email really spread the emails they have found around to
> purveyors of all sorts of dreck.
>

Could be. But I've been using a real email address for a decade, and 
never noticed any spam related to a.f.c.

I get a lot of spam, but most of it is from nonprofits/advocacy 
groups/politicians, who obviously share email lists with each other. 
And IT headhunters with Indian names, one of who made a typo years ago 
that put me on his list, and now dozens of them send to me. It's easy 
to delete en masse just by looking at the sender/subject (the 
headhunters get tossed with filter rules). There is apparently some 
filtering at namecheap (which my mail comes through), and my ISP... I 
can't tell if they filter, or just randomly throw mail away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158027

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Dave Garland wrote:

> On 1/27/2016 3:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>> Michael Black wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> The third is the one I gave my sister, and there's a trickle of real email
>>> there.  But, the spam is amazing.  Not only lots of it, but I swear it's
>>> related to my sister's use of gmail, since there is a lot of dog and
>>> health related stuff.  Almost relevant, but I sure didn't ask for it.
>> Sure, post your real email right here, and within two days, you will get
>> spam, possibly even related to something discussed on here.  These
>> harvesters of email really spread the emails they have found around to
>> purveyors of all sorts of dreck.
>> 
>
> Could be. But I've been using a real email address for a decade, and never 
> noticed any spam related to a.f.c.
>
> I get a lot of spam, but most of it is from nonprofits/advocacy 
> groups/politicians, who obviously share email lists with each other. And IT 
> headhunters with Indian names, one of who made a typo years ago that put me 
> on his list, and now dozens of them send to me. It's easy to delete en masse 
> just by looking at the sender/subject (the headhunters get tossed with filter 
> rules). There is apparently some filtering at namecheap (which my mail comes 
> through), and my ISP... I can't tell if they filter, or just randomly throw 
> mail away.
>
>
I think it depends on the ISP.  I don't get much spam at my Ottawa Freenet 
email, and I only use that for posting to USENET.  I think they must have 
a good spam filter.

I seem to recall more spam at my last ISP where I used the email address 
on USENET, but I also think they filtered well because I never got the 
amount others seemed to complain about.  Though it's subjective, "too much 
spam" might mean one or two to someone while another's threshold is much 
higher.

There was one period, around 1999, when there was a virus or something 
aimed right at USENET, if I didnt' clear out my inbox every few hours, it 
would reach its quota.  Went on for a few days, the amount coming in was 
amazing.

I've never scrambled my email address on USENET in 20 years, so obviously 
I don't get enough spam to bother me.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158347

On 2016-01-28, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2016 3:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>> Michael Black wrote:

[...]

> There was one period, around 1999, when there was a virus or something 
> aimed right at USENET, if I didnt' clear out my inbox every few hours, it 
> would reach its quota.  Went on for a few days, the amount coming in was 
> amazing.

[...]

I think someone just harvested a load of email addresses from the freely
available XOVER files from a large NSP and sold them to a shipload of
spammers.  No virus needed, just human malice and a smidgin of ingenuity.

That's why the Reply-To header is not included in the XOVERs.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158356

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016, Whiskers wrote:

> On 2016-01-28, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2016 3:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>> Michael Black wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> There was one period, around 1999, when there was a virus or something
>> aimed right at USENET, if I didnt' clear out my inbox every few hours, it
>> would reach its quota.  Went on for a few days, the amount coming in was
>> amazing.
>
> [...]
>
> I think someone just harvested a load of email addresses from the freely
> available XOVER files from a large NSP and sold them to a shipload of
> spammers.  No virus needed, just human malice and a smidgin of ingenuity.
>
> That's why the Reply-To header is not included in the XOVERs.
>
But you remember that episode?  It just seemed like so much was coming in, 
and people on Usenet were having the same thing so it wasn't just me.  I 
thought I read an explanation, or possible explanation, at the time, but I 
can't remember what it was.

I might have some of that junk still around, on one of the older hard 
drives.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158365

On 2016-01-31, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2016-01-28, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2016 3:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>>> Michael Black wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There was one period, around 1999, when there was a virus or something
>>> aimed right at USENET, if I didnt' clear out my inbox every few hours, it
>>> would reach its quota.  Went on for a few days, the amount coming in was
>>> amazing.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I think someone just harvested a load of email addresses from the freely
>> available XOVER files from a large NSP and sold them to a shipload of
>> spammers.  No virus needed, just human malice and a smidgin of ingenuity.
>>
>> That's why the Reply-To header is not included in the XOVERs.
>>
> But you remember that episode?  It just seemed like so much was coming in, 
> and people on Usenet were having the same thing so it wasn't just me.  I 
> thought I read an explanation, or possible explanation, at the time, but I 
> can't remember what it was.
>
> I might have some of that junk still around, on one of the older hard 
> drives.
>
>    Michael

I seem to remember I was using a PDA tethered to a GSM ('2G') mobile
phone for usenet email and web (such as it was).  Very expensive staying
on line long enough with my email service's web site to delete all the
garbage and set up a 'filter' to delete all new messages on reception;
took the best part of a day.  That's when I learned to have one email
address for usenet and other addresses for other purposes.

There have been one or two similar episodes since, but not (I think)
quite as bad.  There have also been some 'flooding' or 'sporge' attacks
on individual newsgroups, which are also not virus related but just
malice.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157385

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:16:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>Would anyone care to recommend what free email service they think is best?
>
>--AOL
>
>--GMAIL
>
>--YAHOO
>
>others?
>
>Thanks!
>
>P.S.  Someone suggested _not_ to use the email from your ISP (ie.
>comcast.net) because if you change ISP's, you have to change all
>your email contacts.

Use them all but get a client that doesn't do duplicates. 

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157386

On 22/01/2016 18:16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Would anyone care to recommend what free email service they think is best?
>
> --AOL
>
> --GMAIL
>
> --YAHOO
>
> others?
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S.  Someone suggested _not_ to use the email from your ISP (ie.
> comcast.net) because if you change ISP's, you have to change all
> your email contacts.
>

I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....

1) You get a large mailbox store, but the space is shared with my google 
drive

2) It uses SMTP over SSL for submission so generally works wherever I am.

3) The contacts/people integrates nicely with my Android Phone so when I 
loose my phone my contacts are intact.

4) It will pop off mail from my legacy account.

5) It has comprehensive server side rules.

.. the BAD things...

6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
tools are naff.

I do have Yahoo accounts, but seldom use the mail. Main issue with Yahoo 
is its running out of money and making silly descisions about how it 
develops...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yahoo-stops-using-qa-test-its-software-wrong-root-cause-dekort

AOL- Never used.

... and there is outlook.com (was hotmail)...
.. Some others?  http://www.gmx.com/, mail.com?

Dave Wade
G4UGM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157391

On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:

[17 lines snipped]

> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....

[12 lines snipped]

> .. the BAD things...
>
> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
> tools are naff.

7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.

-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 23rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157397

On 23 Jan 2016 13:54:30 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[17 lines snipped]
>
>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>
>[12 lines snipped]
>
>> .. the BAD things...
>>
>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
>> tools are naff.
>
>7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.

Who cares? There's nothing that I want to hide.

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157400

On 2016-01-23, Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2016 13:54:30 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[17 lines snipped]
>>
>>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>>
>>[12 lines snipped]
>>
>>> .. the BAD things...
>>>
>>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
>>> tools are naff.
>>
>>7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>
> Who cares?

Me.

> There's nothing that I want to hide.

What's the URL of the webcam in your bathroom?


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 23rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157402

On 23 Jan 2016 15:35:07 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-01-23, Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2016 13:54:30 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[17 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>>>
>>>[12 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> .. the BAD things...
>>>>
>>>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
>>>> tools are naff.
>>>
>>>7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>>
>> Who cares?
>
>Me.
>
>> There's nothing that I want to hide.
>
>What's the URL of the webcam in your bathroom?

I haven't got a bathroom

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157404

On 2016-01-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [17 lines snipped]
>
>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>
> [12 lines snipped]
>
>> .. the BAD things...
>>
>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
>> tools are naff.
>
> 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>

One could take it that they all do. 


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157418

In article <slrnna7bbc.18i.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> 
> On 2016-01-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> > On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [17 lines snipped]
> >
> >> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
> >
> > [12 lines snipped]
> >
> >> .. the BAD things...
> >>
> >> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration 
> >> tools are naff.
> >
> > 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
> >
> 
> One could take it that they all do. 

Assume that someone else is going to read your email.  Just take it as a 
given.  It goes through several routers to get from your mail client to 
the mail server, and several more to get from there to the destination, 
and the operators of ALL of them can be reading it if they want to and 
the only thing that prevents them is that it's more effort than it's 
worth.

If you want to keep something secret, encrypt it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157444

On 23/01/2016 13:54, Huge wrote:
> On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [17 lines snipped]
>
>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>
> [12 lines snipped]
>
>> .. the BAD things...
>>
>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration
>> tools are naff.
>
> 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>
It always has, and from what I remember it said from day one that was 
how it would fund the service. That is it would mine your data so it 
could target you with appropriate adds. I find the targeted adds that 
result from my e-mail being mined some what innocuous.

Those that result from clicking on links on web sites bother me more. I 
looked at a Viking River Cruise and get pictures of Budapest on every 
web page, even though I have already had a Viking cruise there....

... and Google actually does a good job of indexing it. Much better than 
Outlook, which seems slow to search my mail box even though its indexed 
the thing. I often use the gmail web interface for seraching.

Yahoo is worse. It injects adds as "pseudo" e-mails. So tonight when I 
look at one of my Yahoo mailboxes I get an advert for Asia Tours as the 
first item. Except its not an e-mail its just and advert  that looks 
like an e-mail.... I also have adverts in the Margins. In contrast the 
GMAIL page is totally add-free....

A quick search reveals Yahoo has also over-stepped the rules...

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/01/14/yahoo-settles-class-action-suit-over-scanning-email-for-ad-targeting/

I also note Microsoft says it datamines Outlook.com. I have no idea 
about AOL.

Dave
G4UGM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157478

On 2016-01-24, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/01/2016 13:54, Huge wrote:
>> On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [17 lines snipped]
>>
>>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>>
>> [12 lines snipped]
>>
>>> .. the BAD things...
>>>
>>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration
>>> tools are naff.
>>
>> 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>>
> It always has, and from what I remember it said from day one that was 
> how it would fund the service. That is it would mine your data so it 
> could target you with appropriate adds. I find the targeted adds that 
> result from my e-mail being mined some what innocuous.
>
> Those that result from clicking on links on web sites bother me more. I 
> looked at a Viking River Cruise and get pictures of Budapest on every 
> web page, even though I have already had a Viking cruise there....

I run Ghostery and AdBlock+. Adverts? What adverts?

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 24th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157494

On 24/01/2016 10:56, Huge wrote:
> On 2016-01-24, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23/01/2016 13:54, Huge wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [17 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>>>
>>> [12 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> .. the BAD things...
>>>>
>>>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration
>>>> tools are naff.
>>>
>>> 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>>>
>> It always has, and from what I remember it said from day one that was
>> how it would fund the service. That is it would mine your data so it
>> could target you with appropriate adds. I find the targeted adds that
>> result from my e-mail being mined some what innocuous.
>>
>> Those that result from clicking on links on web sites bother me more. I
>> looked at a Viking River Cruise and get pictures of Budapest on every
>> web page, even though I have already had a Viking cruise there....
>
> I run Ghostery and AdBlock+. Adverts? What adverts?
>
I found AddBlock+ seemed to cause several modern sites to fail to load.
Not tried Ghostery...

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157495

On 2016-01-24, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/01/2016 10:56, Huge wrote:
>> On 2016-01-24, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2016 13:54, Huge wrote:
>>>> On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [17 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>>>>
>>>> [12 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> .. the BAD things...
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration
>>>>> tools are naff.
>>>>
>>>> 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>>>>
>>> It always has, and from what I remember it said from day one that was
>>> how it would fund the service. That is it would mine your data so it
>>> could target you with appropriate adds. I find the targeted adds that
>>> result from my e-mail being mined some what innocuous.
>>>
>>> Those that result from clicking on links on web sites bother me more. I
>>> looked at a Viking River Cruise and get pictures of Budapest on every
>>> web page, even though I have already had a Viking cruise there....
>>
>> I run Ghostery and AdBlock+. Adverts? What adverts?
>>
> I found AddBlock+ seemed to cause several modern sites to fail to load.

There's the odd site that pops up something along the lines of "You're
running AdBlock so we're not showing you our site". To which my response
is "Your loss. Bye."

Other Ad blockers are available.

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 24th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157502

On 1/24/2016 4:56 AM, Huge wrote:
> On 2016-01-24, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23/01/2016 13:54, Huge wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-23, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [17 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> I use GMAIL for a number of reasons....
>>>
>>> [12 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> .. the BAD things...
>>>>
>>>> 6) The address book does not integrate with outlook. The integration
>>>> tools are naff.
>>>
>>> 7) and the showstopper. Google data mines your email.
>>>
>> It always has, and from what I remember it said from day one that was
>> how it would fund the service. That is it would mine your data so it
>> could target you with appropriate adds. I find the targeted adds that
>> result from my e-mail being mined some what innocuous.
>>
>> Those that result from clicking on links on web sites bother me more. I
>> looked at a Viking River Cruise and get pictures of Budapest on every
>> web page, even though I have already had a Viking cruise there....
>
> I run Ghostery and AdBlock+. Adverts? What adverts?

Ghostery, uBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript (which does break a lot of 
websites, but at least lets me select who gets to run Javascript on my 
computer).

I've seen multiple people get drive-by malware from Yahoo in 
particular, via syndicated adverts with payloads. I expect the ads 
were clean when they were placed, and had the malware inserted later, 
after the ad was running.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web