Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #236255 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-22 01:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-06-27 17:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 45 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Messed up Email "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> - 2021-06-22 01:30 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Mark Allums <mark@allums.email> - 2021-06-22 06:10 +0200
Gmail's special approach to Email [was: Re: Messed up Email] Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Gmail's special approach to Email [was: Re: Messed up Email] (SOLVED) "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> - 2021-06-22 22:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2021-06-22 12:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-06-22 13:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-06-22 13:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-06-22 13:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-06-22 13:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-06-22 16:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-22 20:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-06-22 20:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-22 21:00 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2021-06-22 21:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-22 21:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2021-06-23 14:00 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-23 21:30 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian Thompson <bthompson.deb@gmail.com> - 2021-06-23 23:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-23 23:00 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2021-06-23 23:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 00:30 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 20:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-06-24 20:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 12:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-26 15:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-27 17:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-06-26 13:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:00 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-27 18:00 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-28 09:30 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-27 17:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-27 17:30 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-28 08:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-24 22:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 00:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-25 20:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 20:50 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-06-26 04:40 +0200
Re: Messed up Email John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-26 15:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 12:10 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-06-26 14:00 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 12:20 +0200
Re: Messed up Email Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-06-27 17:20 +0200
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Cugo1-6do-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #236468 |
Gene writes: > I've found that switching fetchmail from pop3 access to imap access, > restores that delete function. However that may be server dependent, > my server at shentel.net is dovecot. Very few problems. Google uses gsmtp, their own implementation. It's likely that they are selective in their standards compliance. If they fully implemented EXPUNGE (DELETE would remove the mailbox) they would get complaints. -- John Hasler john@sugarbit.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Cudq9-4fL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #236457 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Vi, 25 iun 21, 19:29:31, mick crane wrote: > On 2021-06-25 19:04, Brian wrote: > <snipped> > > It is perfectly possible to send and receive mail via gmail without > > ever encountering its web interface. That's no different from any > > other ISP. > > It seems to me they do not honour the "delete" request when collecting from > IMAP because in my case they certainly go from INBOX but are retained in ALL > MAIL. > mick Indeed, you have to move them to Trash/Bin/whatever (or Spam) instead and delete them from there (or just let the 30 days retention policy kick in). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Cuf8C-5ei-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #236457 |
On Fri 25 Jun 2021 at 19:29:31 +0100, mick crane wrote: > On 2021-06-25 19:04, Brian wrote: > <snipped> > > It is perfectly possible to send and receive mail via gmail without > > ever encountering its web interface. That's no different from any > > other ISP. > > It seems to me they do not honour the "delete" request when collecting from > IMAP because in my case they certainly go from INBOX but are retained in ALL > MAIL. I can only speak of POP3 and the same happens with that. It's a feature, and not a bad one, IMO. The same sort of archiving could be done here with my received mail and a procmail rule. Anyway, on the Settings page at Gmail I altered the "When messages are accessed with POP" option to have "delete Gmail's copy". Tested. No copy in All Mail now. Perhaps IMAP works the same way. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 12:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CudzP-4iF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #236426 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Jo, 24 iun 21, 14:04:13, Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:25:37 +0300 > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mi, 23 iun 21, 17:12:07, Michael Grant wrote: > > > > Apparently the lines are blurry enough for you to include Signal in that > > > > list. > > > > > > Why? Not blurry at all. Signal is just as closed a system as > > > WhatsApp. Maybe more private, but unless you know something I don't, > > > Signal doesn't talk to anything other than other Signal. Puppeted > > > bridges are not interoperability, as far as I am aware, all users > > > still need to be on Signal. > > > > You seem to be using a completely different meaning of 'proprietary' (no > > federation) than I do (closed source software, proprietary protocol that > > must be reversed engineered, patents, etc.). > > Well, Michael's original post that you challenged contrasted: > > > a standards based system such as mail or the web and a proprietary > > system such as facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc etc. > > Would you call Signal "a standards based system?" I understand that the > software itself is open source, and the project does publish various > "Signal Protocal" libraries, but I'm not sure that's quite enough to > call it "standards based." In the strict definition that would imply there is an RFC or so for the Signal Protocol. Still the protocol is published and open for anyone to re-implement[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol How is that proprietary? The trouble with actually making something a standard is that if later it turns out something is a really bad idea it is basically impossible to remove, because now it's part of the standard, and several implementations have come to rely on that. [1] several other apps claim to have implemented the Signal Protocol. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-27 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CuEJH-4TM-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #236475 |
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 13:14:37 +0300 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jo, 24 iun 21, 14:04:13, Celejar wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:25:37 +0300 > > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mi, 23 iun 21, 17:12:07, Michael Grant wrote: > > > > > Apparently the lines are blurry enough for you to include Signal in that > > > > > list. > > > > > > > > Why? Not blurry at all. Signal is just as closed a system as > > > > WhatsApp. Maybe more private, but unless you know something I don't, > > > > Signal doesn't talk to anything other than other Signal. Puppeted > > > > bridges are not interoperability, as far as I am aware, all users > > > > still need to be on Signal. > > > > > > You seem to be using a completely different meaning of 'proprietary' (no > > > federation) than I do (closed source software, proprietary protocol that > > > must be reversed engineered, patents, etc.). > > > > Well, Michael's original post that you challenged contrasted: > > > > > a standards based system such as mail or the web and a proprietary > > > system such as facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc etc. > > > > Would you call Signal "a standards based system?" I understand that the > > software itself is open source, and the project does publish various > > "Signal Protocal" libraries, but I'm not sure that's quite enough to > > call it "standards based." > > In the strict definition that would imply there is an RFC or so for the > Signal Protocol. Still the protocol is published and open for anyone to > re-implement[1]. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol > > How is that proprietary? I'm not arguing that it's proprietary, but that it's not "standards based." I agree that the one is not the negation of the other. > The trouble with actually making something a standard is that if later > it turns out something is a really bad idea it is basically impossible > to remove, because now it's part of the standard, and several > implementations have come to rely on that. Fair - but standards have advantages, as well. We can debate whether Signal is better off not using a real standard, but my point remains that it's somewhat dubious to call Signal "standards based." > [1] several other apps claim to have implemented the Signal Protocol. Celejar
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web