Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32717 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-25 15:02 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-07-26 04:58 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-25 15:02 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:56 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-25 16:01 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 13:56 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:16 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 23:30 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-25 18:58 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 20:25 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 23:42 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 01:13 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 01:21 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:29 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 01:39 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:44 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:34 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 09:50 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 13:45 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 13:57 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-26 11:14 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 14:30 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-26 11:51 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 14:55 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-26 19:52 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:45 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-26 18:50 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 14:55 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 02:08 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-31 03:32 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 11:12 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:36 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:45 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 23:25 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-07-26 17:42 +0100
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 13:04 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 13:48 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-26 18:30 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:59 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 02:40 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 05:09 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 09:50 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 13:50 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 13:57 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 05:02 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 09:50 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-27 01:19 +1000
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 11:24 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:55 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 12:44 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 13:18 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:51 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 14:55 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 15:49 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 15:55 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:59 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 12:26 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-27 12:52 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-03 23:57 +0100
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 16:06 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nigel Wade <nmw@local.domain> - 2016-07-27 11:02 +0100
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:11 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 12:26 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-27 16:58 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nigel Wade <nmw@local.domain> - 2016-07-28 10:32 +0100
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:58 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-28 11:07 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nigel Wade <nmw@local.domain> - 2016-07-28 17:43 +0100
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 20:55 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nigel Wade <nmw@local.domain> - 2016-07-29 12:37 +0100
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-28 13:35 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-28 13:38 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 01:55 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-31 02:12 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:14 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:58 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-07-26 00:24 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-25 18:35 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:16 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-07-26 22:43 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 17:11 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-26 00:10 -0500
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:23 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-26 00:32 -0500
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 23:01 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:50 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:49 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:26 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 21:45 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-27 19:55 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:15 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-28 19:04 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-27 17:15 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:19 -0700
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:23 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:48 +0200
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 02:03 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:38 +0000
Re: What's your favorite email app? Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> - 2016-07-26 13:12 -0400
Re: What's your favorite email app? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-26 04:58 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rtbfpbplmab8b8c5mmcgrfojb9b6oduut8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32800 |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:30:48 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <dt9fpbp0p3ps3b0jtv6604h678kiojqdqv@4ax.com>, Ken Blake ><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> >> Or again a cell phone. Call those >> >> computers? >> > >> >a cellphone absolutely is a computer. >> >> Smart cell phones, yes. Unquestionably. > >smartphones is the topic in an android newsgroup. True. However the message I replied to didn't say smart cell phones" or "android cell phones"; it made a general statement about all "cell phones." >> However the older cell phones, like the flip-top phone I used until a >> few months ago are not really computers, in my opinion. > there's a microprocessor, storage and firmware. that's a computer. Yes. That's why I said one could argue that even those older cell phones were computers. But considering how little you could do with them, they were "not *really* [emphasis added] computers, in my opinion." I never used mine for anything but sending and receiving calls, so I never considered it a computer (even though I knew that technically it was).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 14:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260720161455032607%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32804 |
In article <rtbfpbplmab8b8c5mmcgrfojb9b6oduut8@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> >> Or again a cell phone. Call those > >> >> computers? > >> > > >> >a cellphone absolutely is a computer. > >> > >> Smart cell phones, yes. Unquestionably. > > > >smartphones is the topic in an android newsgroup. > > > True. However the message I replied to didn't say smart cell phones" > or "android cell phones"; it made a general statement about all "cell > phones." > > > >> However the older cell phones, like the flip-top phone I used until a > >> few months ago are not really computers, in my opinion. > > > there's a microprocessor, storage and firmware. that's a computer. > > > Yes. That's why I said one could argue that even those older cell > phones were computers. But considering how little you could do with > them, they were "not *really* [emphasis added] computers, in my > opinion." I never used mine for anything but sending and receiving > calls, so I never considered it a computer (even though I knew that > technically it was). you can't do much with an original ibm pc or commodore 64 but those are still computers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dvptbdFg134U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32804 |
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:30:48 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: [...] > > there's a microprocessor, storage and firmware. that's a computer. > > Yes. That's why I said one could argue that even those older cell > phones were computers. But considering how little you could do with > them, they were "not *really* [emphasis added] computers, in my > opinion." I never used mine for anything but sending and receiving > calls, so I never considered it a computer (even though I knew that > technically it was). Sadly there are many different interpretations/definitions for 'computer'. Generally one uses the requirement to be able to add a - user-chosen - program as a way of distinguishing a 'computer' from other devices. By the latter definition, "those older cell phones" would probably not be considered a computer. nospam's interpretation is so broad, it's meaningless/unusable. But you'll have to excuse me, because I have to receive some email on my (dumb)watch/RC/TV/VCR/thermostat/airco/fridge/... ad infinitum!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 02:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9rqfjsiap1bo.1imml3l1ch05p$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #32813 |
On 26 Jul 2016 19:52:17 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > nospam's interpretation is so broad, it's meaningless/unusable. Naah -- he just enjoys violently dragging "reasoning" along by the hair, kicking and screaming as it's scraped across the web :-) . As I wrote earlier, he's welcome to be my guest. I'll pass. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dvppmvFf313U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32793 |
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:50:29 -0400, nospam wrote: > > > you need to have a computer to get *any* email. > > LOL ... fsvo "computer". E.g.: an ASCII terminal, a modem, and a keyboard > suffice for simple text-based email. Or again a cell phone. Call those > computers? -- OK, be my guest. I'll hold off, though :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp More to the point: (To get email,) One needs *access to* a computer (-like device), one does not neccesarily need to *have*/own/<whatever> a computer. But I (we?) digress. We live - and *think* - in the *real* world, not in nospam's parallel universe. P.S. If I'm not mistaken, I have been using/getting e-mail since the (very) early 70's, but I can assure you I didn't 'have' the 'needed' multi 100K$ computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 14:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260720161455012526%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32802 |
In article <dvppmvFf313U1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > > > you need to have a computer to get *any* email. > > > > LOL ... fsvo "computer". E.g.: an ASCII terminal, a modem, and a keyboard > > suffice for simple text-based email. Or again a cell phone. Call those > > computers? -- OK, be my guest. I'll hold off, though :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp > > More to the point: (To get email,) One needs *access to* a computer > (-like device), one does not neccesarily need to *have*/own/<whatever> a > computer. you're arguing just to argue, as always. > But I (we?) digress. We live - and *think* - in the *real* world, not > in nospam's parallel universe. > > P.S. If I'm not mistaken, I have been using/getting e-mail since the > (very) early 70's, but I can assure you I didn't 'have' the 'needed' > multi 100K$ computer. you had access.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 02:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nc5rpbhibaatm5ud7lr2anmai99vnmca6t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32793 |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:45:45 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:50:29 -0400, nospam wrote: > >> you need to have a computer to get *any* email. > >LOL ... fsvo "computer". E.g.: an ASCII terminal, a modem, and a keyboard >suffice for simple text-based email. Or again a cell phone. Call those >computers? -- OK, be my guest. I'll hold off, though :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp Or a computer at the library. And the point was that since there are many people who don't have a computer (whether they get email or not) there are also many many people who have only one computer. It's amazing someone would not know that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 03:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c6ul5v5je81y$.1wghhm9x2vhci$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #32955 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 02:08:51 -0400, Micky wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:45:45 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> > wrote: > >>On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:50:29 -0400, nospam wrote: >> >>> you need to have a computer to get *any* email. >> >>LOL ... fsvo "computer". E.g.: an ASCII terminal, a modem, and a keyboard >>suffice for simple text-based email. Or again a cell phone. Call those >>computers? -- OK, be my guest. I'll hold off, though :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp > > Or a computer at the library. Did you read it? It said "you need ...". My point was *you don't need*. You can get by with much less. For a time I even got by with a $50 Chemical Bank "Home Banking Terminal" (dedicated 300 baud keyboard/modem device) whose output was displayed on a B/W TV set. Yes, it'd dial up my mail service providers' modem banks and let me see and send emails. You want to brand that a computer? Be my guest :-) . But don't expect me to join you. > And the point was that since there are many people who don't have a > computer (whether they get email or not) there are also many many > people who have only one computer. It's amazing someone would not > know that. OK, be amazed: *I* had no idea that that was the point. AFAIK, the point was totally *other* than that. But "have it your way" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 11:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <310720161112082563%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32958 |
In article <c6ul5v5je81y$.1wghhm9x2vhci$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: > >>> you need to have a computer to get *any* email. > >> > >>LOL ... fsvo "computer". E.g.: an ASCII terminal, a modem, and a keyboard > >>suffice for simple text-based email. Or again a cell phone. Call those > >>computers? -- OK, be my guest. I'll hold off, though :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp > > > > Or a computer at the library. > > Did you read it? It said "you need ...". My point was *you don't need*. you're wrong. you do need. sending or receiving email requires a computer, even if the computer is at the library. > You > can get by with much less. For a time I even got by with a $50 Chemical > Bank "Home Banking Terminal" (dedicated 300 baud keyboard/modem device) > whose output was displayed on a B/W TV set. Yes, it'd dial up my mail > service providers' modem banks and let me see and send emails. You want to > brand that a computer? Be my guest :-) . But don't expect me to join you. guess what was at the other end of the modem. as usual you're arguing just to argue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 17:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a5gvpb527t0mb0qefb10d597gugi1mhkro@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32958 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 03:32:45 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: >On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 02:08:51 -0400, Micky wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:45:45 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> >> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:50:29 -0400, nospam wrote: >>> >>>> you need to have a computer to get *any* email. >>> >>>LOL ... fsvo "computer". E.g.: an ASCII terminal, a modem, and a keyboard >>>suffice for simple text-based email. Or again a cell phone. Call those >>>computers? -- OK, be my guest. I'll hold off, though :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp >> >> Or a computer at the library. > >Did you read it? It said "you need ...". My point was *you don't need*. You >can get by with much less. For a time I even got by with a $50 Chemical >Bank "Home Banking Terminal" (dedicated 300 baud keyboard/modem device) >whose output was displayed on a B/W TV set. Yes, it'd dial up my mail >service providers' modem banks and let me see and send emails. You want to >brand that a computer? Be my guest :-) . But don't expect me to join you. > >> And the point was that since there are many people who don't have a >> computer (whether they get email or not) there are also many many >> people who have only one computer. It's amazing someone would not >> know that. > >OK, be amazed: *I* had no idea that that was the point. AFAIK, the point >was totally *other* than that. But "have it your way" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp Well, it was Nil's point, and mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 22:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn8i5i$7bg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32777 |
Dne 26/07/2016 v 15:50 nospam napsal(a): > In article <nn70sn$p33$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik > <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote: > > > just because some people have't switched yet doesn't mean it hasn't > been replaced. it has. Replaced is replaced. >>>> >>>> Many people have no computer at all. >>> >>> then they won't be getting very much email, will they? >>> >> You need not to have a computer to have very many emails. > > you need to have a computer to get *any* email. > > if someone has no computer, then they can't get any email at all. zero. > > you're arguing just to argue. No, I point out holes in your logic for educatuional purposes. All you need as an access to a computer. You need not to have a computer. BTW, YOU are renown for arguing just to argue. :-) -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 23:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260720162325430982%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32825 |
In article <nn8i5i$7bg$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Many people have no computer at all. > >>> > >>> then they won't be getting very much email, will they? > >>> > >> You need not to have a computer to have very many emails. > > > > you need to have a computer to get *any* email. > > > > if someone has no computer, then they can't get any email at all. zero. > > > > you're arguing just to argue. > > No, I point out holes in your logic for educatuional purposes. > > All you need as an access to a computer. > You need not to have a computer. you're arguing just to argue. are you that bored that all you can do is nitpick on irrelevant details?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 17:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <VA.00000ba7.155ca142@me.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32739 |
In article <260720160121112727%nospam@nospam.invalid>, Nospam wrote: > pop3 is not suitable at all anymore. it's been replaced. I disagree. It's still a perfectly good mail protocol for a certain way of managing one's mail. > anything pop does, imap can also do, including downloading mail and > saving it locally *and* it can do a whole lot more. While this may be true, I've had some questionable experiences with some IMAP servers that have made me shy away from IMAP and stick to POP, which I can at least get to work. The worst experience was an IMAP server that automatically deleted EMail older than a certain (quite short -- about a month) limit, regardless of the client settings. The whole point of IMAP is that you keep your EMail on the server, so the server should keep it unless and until you delete it. The ISP in question seemed to be treating IMAP as a sort of POP3 on steroids, and not expecting anyone to actually keep mail on the server. The best solution is to run your own mailserver and collect mail from that using whichever of POP and IMAP suits you. At least then you know you'll always have all your EMail on the server ... but it's not for the fainthearted! -- Cheers, Daniel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 13:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260720161304002806%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32786 |
In article <VA.00000ba7.155ca142@me.invalid>, Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: > > pop3 is not suitable at all anymore. it's been replaced. > > I disagree. It's still a perfectly good mail protocol for a certain way > of managing one's mail. > > > anything pop does, imap can also do, including downloading mail and > > saving it locally *and* it can do a whole lot more. > > While this may be true, I've had some questionable experiences with > some IMAP servers that have made me shy away from IMAP and stick to > POP, which I can at least get to work. > > The worst experience was an IMAP server that automatically deleted > EMail older than a certain (quite short -- about a month) limit, > regardless of the client settings. The whole point of IMAP is that you > keep your EMail on the server, so the server should keep it unless and > until you delete it. The ISP in question seemed to be treating IMAP as > a sort of POP3 on steroids, and not expecting anyone to actually keep > mail on the server. then that isp needs to be educated. don't blame imap for a server that's run by idiots. > The best solution is to run your own mailserver and collect mail from > that using whichever of POP and IMAP suits you. At least then you know > you'll always have all your EMail on the server ... but it's not for > the fainthearted! hillary clinton figured out how :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 13:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ezseimvv4nv8$.1wtl17askcvc7.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #32789 |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:04:00 -0400, nospam wrote: > then that isp needs to be educated. Good luck. Or do you think isps are more easily educated than lawyers or realtors or HIPAA-bound medical offices :-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dvpoiuFeqbuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32786 |
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: [...] > The best solution is to run your own mailserver and collect mail from > that using whichever of POP and IMAP suits you. At least then you know > you'll always have all your EMail on the server ... but it's not for > the fainthearted! Yet another alternative is to use a local 'pretend' mailserver such as Hamster [1]. Such a 'pretend' mailserver acts as a mail *client* (MUA/MSA) not as a mail server (MTA) to the outside world, i.e. on the receiving side it uses POP or/and IMAP, not SMTP. It can keep your mail as long as you want. In turn the real mail clients, i.e. the mail clients you use, talk to the 'pretend' mailserver with POP or/and IMAP (and SMTP for the sending side. Hamster can do the same thing for NetNews/Usenet and that is what I use it for (see my User-Agent header). [1] I use 'Hamster Classic' which is mature software. I only have a German-language reference handy: <http://www.tglsoft.de/freeware_hamster.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 22:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nn6u8k$i0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32737 |
On 07/25/2016 10:13 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2016, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in
> comp.mobile.android:
>
>> If you use the gmail app, you can't choose to download mail only
>> when and from which account you choose. It's download everything
>> as soon as you get it or download nothing.
>
> I wonder if that's still true. I get the impression that the Gmail app
> has changed considerably in the past short while and it no longer works
> the way you describe. It's on my list of things to try when or if Blue
> Mail doesn't work out.
>
>> When I opened the accounts I had only one device -- my desktop.
>> When did gmail start? I've since opened a couple of IMAP
>> accounts, but since people know my POP address there's not much
>> point in using them -- I'm afraid people will default to an IMAP
>> address for me and I'll never get the mail because I never look at
>> that account even if it's right there in my Thunderbird list.
>
> I think you're confused about that. Email addresses have nothing to do
> with the protocol you use to that mailbox. Gmail, for example, can be
> accessed via the web interface, POP3, or IMAP. All interfaces can be
> used at any time.
I can get mail just as I want it with Thunderbird. Mail isn't the
problem. With firefox, say, I want to have one tab open to my picasaweb
(google photos) ID1 account, a different picasaweb account (ID2), my
youtube (ID3) account, a webmail account (ID4), and the play store
(ID5). I can't have that. I can be logged in to only one account at a
time. I can run several separate browsers at the same time, each logged
into a different google account, but I don't really want to do that.
I THINK it's worse with android because I have only ONE screen to play
with -- I have four on my linux desktop so I can be running a lot of
separate programs. Android does a lot of logging in/out automatically,
so maybe it's not so bad after all. I only actually use a few of the
accounts on the phone.
Google wants you to have only ONE identity, which you use for all google
products. No, I don't want that. Yes, it's convenient, but I don't
want it.
> You can choose to retrieve your mail with any of
> those methods. POP3 is most suitable if you use a single computer to
> retrieve your email and you want to remove your email from the server
> ASAP and store it locally. IMAP is most suitable if you check your
> email mailbox using multiple devices, leaving the mail on the server.
> You can later choose to remove some or all mail from the server and
> archive it locally.
>
>> I've got a lot of awkward constructs just because I need to keep
>> legacy stuff going :-(
>
> Yes, but it's unnecessary.
Not unless I want to do something I don't want to do.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Tip: Place your houseplants in front of the television during
the next presidential debate and watch how leafy they get."
-- Scott Adams
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 02:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6511B36D80F9nilch1@wheedledeedle.moc> |
| In reply to | #32745 |
On 26 Jul 2016, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in comp.mobile.android: > Not unless I want to do something I don't want to do. Not sure what you mean by that, either. You're bringing up a lot of stuff that's beside my point, which was that you can more easily sync email with all your computers if you use IMAP, and that you can use IMAP to get to any of your existing email boxes. Also, you can have multiple Gmail accounts set up in most or all Android email apps... even the Gmail app, or so I have read. I do understand that it's difficult, maybe impossible, to have two tabs in one browser open to two different Google accounts, but that's a different issue than the email one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 05:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <khkmgp6s8brx$.fwjx816fu0ro.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #32745 |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:59:46 -0700, The Real Bev wrote: >>> I've got a lot of awkward constructs just because I need to keep >>> legacy stuff going :-( >> >>[nospam] Yes, but it's unnecessary. > > Not unless I want to do something I don't want to do. He gets his jollies telling folks something they need is unnecessary :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260720160950286131%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32761 |
In article <khkmgp6s8brx$.fwjx816fu0ro.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: > > >>> I've got a lot of awkward constructs just because I need to keep > >>> legacy stuff going :-( > >> > >>[nospam] Yes, but it's unnecessary. > > > > Not unless I want to do something I don't want to do. > > He gets his jollies telling folks something they need is unnecessary :-) . you get your jollies arguing just to argue. you also snipped to alter context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web