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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #186758 > unrolled thread

getting mail from Exchange/Outlook

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> - 2017-09-13 21:50 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-09-13 22:20 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 22:20 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Sarunas Burdulis <sarunas@math.dartmouth.edu> - 2017-09-13 22:40 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-13 22:50 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-09-14 09:00 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-14 10:00 +0200
      Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 13:40 +0200
        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-09-14 14:00 +0200
          Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-14 14:20 +0200
            Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 17:00 +0200
              Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 17:30 +0200
                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 18:00 +0200
                  Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 18:20 +0200
                    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 18:30 +0200
                      Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 18:40 +0200
                        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-09-15 05:10 +0200
                          Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-09-15 14:20 +0200
                            Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-09-16 16:40 +0200
                              Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-09-16 17:30 +0200
                                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2017-09-16 18:10 +0200
                  Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 18:40 +0200
                    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-15 03:30 +0200
                      OT: Crossing toll bridges (was Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-15 14:50 +0200
                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 18:30 +0200
              Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-09-14 18:10 +0200
                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 19:00 +0200
        Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-14 14:20 +0200
          Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from  Exchange/Outlook] Frank <zuiderduin@gmx.com> - 2017-09-14 16:50 +0200
            Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook] Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 17:00 +0200
              Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from  Exchange/Outlook] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 17:30 +0200
                Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook] Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 18:40 +0200
        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-09-14 14:40 +0200
        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-14 18:20 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook soyeomul@doraji.xyz (Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희, 黃炳熙)) - 2017-09-14 15:00 +0200
      Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-14 17:40 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2017-09-15 04:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#186758 — getting mail from Exchange/Outlook

My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
have no choice in the matter.

My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.

If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
grateful to hear it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#186759

On 13/09/17 20:32, Steve Kleene wrote:
> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
>
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.

This is true, but depends on the administrator enabling such access.
Otherwise, look at davmail (http://davmail.sourceforge.net/) which will
log into Exchange and provide local IMAP/Caldav access for your existing
applications :)

>
> If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
> grateful to hear it.
>

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

#186760

Could you please elaborate more about what exactly you trying to achieve?
You can setup Microsofck Exchange server to access it by IMAP transport
and use any compatible mail client for that, ex. Outlook or Thunderbird.
AFAIK, OWA is just a web-mail client to access Exchange via your browser.
There is also virtualized service (SaaS) of Exchange by Microsofck
(Office 360) where you pay money annually for per-user licenses, to get
functional Exchange server and access all your mail stored on Microsofck
servers via web-mail interface or IMAP-compatible mail client.


On 14.09.2017 00:32, Steve Kleene wrote:
> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
>
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
>
> If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
> grateful to hear it.
>

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

#186761

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-09-13 15:32, Steve Kleene wrote:
> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
> 
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
> 
> If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
> grateful to hear it.

I'm accessing Exchange mail account via IMAP (Thunderbird). Exchange
server settings can probably differ, but, while in OWA, it is worth
checking

Options → Mail → Accounts → POP and IMAP

where you might find settings for configuring IMAP and SMTP in your
email app.


-- 
Sarunas Burdulis
Systems Administrator, Dartmouth Mathematics
math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas

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

#186764

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:32:33 -0400
Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> wrote:

> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail
> server.  I have no choice in the matter.
> 
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an
> Outlook Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I
> can tell you cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That
> makes OWA pretty useless.

You may find that the server has been deliberately configured to
prevent this, as a 'security' measure. I haven't used OWA for a while,
and I'm not sure what version I last used, but attachments could be
saved.

>  The documentation, if it can be believed,
> says that I can access Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including
> Thunderbird.

As others have said, this is not enabled by default and requires
someone to do it, as well as any firewall adjustments and port
forwarding involved.

-- 
Joe

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

#186769

On 13.09.17 15:32, Steve Kleene wrote:
> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
> 
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
> 
> If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
> grateful to hear it.

If the employer's core requirement is to funnel all mail through one M$
mail server, you might be able to get away with just pointing your Linux
mail server at theirs. (About 12 years ago, we did that when our
department faced the same corporate directive. I can't remember whether
we were able to continue using SMTP or had to switch to POP3 for the
link. But it allowed the departmental mail server to hold/distribute
mail as before, so no upheaval.)

Or shut down the Linux mail server, and use fetchmail to fetch mail to
your host, via POP3 or IMAP, then use your preferred MUA. (OK, there are
alternatives to fetchmail (and procmail to sort it), but I've not tried
them.)

Erik

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

#186771

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:32:33PM -0400, Steve Kleene wrote:
> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
> 
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.

As others have said, IMAP is the best path (if the Exchannge server is
set up for it).

In my case, I've been doing it for the last six years. At first directly
with mutt, then, and after realizing that Exchange [1] was set up to
archive the mails after a while and did other things to my mailboxes,
I started archiving locally, picking up the mails with fetchmail and
reading them locally with mutt.

So yes, I can confirm mutt+Exchange and fetchmail+exchange both work
reliably via imap. Calendar and all (you get calendar notifications
in that funny text/calendar format).

I played around with other possibilities, but most of them failed due
to lacking NTLM auth support (which my work Exchange instance requires).

Feel free to ask for details

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlm6NjYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYVRgCfbqmW+h/acauTmDFeh3YVfV/o
qLYAn33k5aKS6H69hifzmbzuD2ApyOEq
=7QIR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#186780

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 03:56:38 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:32:33PM -0400, Steve Kleene wrote:
> > My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> > have no choice in the matter.
> > 
> > My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an
> > Outlook Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I
> > can tell you cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes
> > OWA pretty useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that
> > I can access Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
> 
> As others have said, IMAP is the best path (if the Exchannge server is
> set up for it).

I'm sort of moving OT, but want to ask: presumably you think IMAP is 
preferable to POP3--what makes you say that (in general)?

It's been a long time since i chose to use pop3 instead of imap--in fact, 
iirc, imap became an option later, and my decision was more whether to stick 
with pop3 or switch to imap.

I prefer pop3 because it (in most cases, unless set otherwise or dealing with 
gmail) deletes the email from the email server, which is what I prefer.

I presume imap gives you an option to delete mail from the server?

I recognize that leaving email on the server can make it easier to access your 
email from multiple devices, but (1) I rarely have that need (maybe not in the 
last 10 years), and (2), when I do, I can set pop3 to leave email on the 
server (but, iirc, I typically set my "main" email device to delete it from 
the server--iirc, if I didn't, I'd keep getting the same emails sent to me 
over and over--but maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.

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

#186782

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:38:57AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>On Thursday, September 14, 2017 03:56:38 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:32:33PM -0400, Steve Kleene wrote:
>> > My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
>> > have no choice in the matter.
>> >
>> > My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an
>> > Outlook Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I
>> > can tell you cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes
>> > OWA pretty useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that
>> > I can access Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
>>
>> As others have said, IMAP is the best path (if the Exchannge server is
>> set up for it).
>
>I'm sort of moving OT, but want to ask: presumably you think IMAP is
>preferable to POP3--what makes you say that (in general)?

Not the OP here, but...

IMAP4 and POP3 basically treat your mail server as different things. IMAP 
is, essentially, a protocol for accessing your mailbox, while POP3 is a 
protocol for picking up your mail from another mailbox.

With IMAP, the expectation is that your MUA is just a viewer of email. 
The mail is stored elsewhere and you want to read/reply/manage it 
without worrying about storing it. So IMAP allows you to download just 
the headers of messages - meaning that you can, for example, read the 
small messages and leave the big ones for later. There are even advanced 
features in IMAP such as the ability to save a message in an Outbox 
folder and ask the IMAP server to send the message out (in case your MUA 
doesn't have access to an SMTP server).

With POP, the expectation is that the remote mail server is merely 
looking after your mail temporarily. So the default for POP is to 
download all the messages and remove them from the remote server. POP is 
great when your remote mail server is managed by your ISP, and they only 
give you a limited quota. You wouldn't want to be storing months of 
messages there, so you pull them all to your local machine and read them 
there.

So, they are different protocols for different purposes. That's not to 
say that you can't work the other way around (your IMAP client could be 
configured to delete all messages once fetched, your POP client could be 
configured to leave messages on the server).

>
>It's been a long time since i chose to use pop3 instead of imap--in fact,
>iirc, imap became an option later, and my decision was more whether to stick
>with pop3 or switch to imap.
>
>I prefer pop3 because it (in most cases, unless set otherwise or dealing with
>gmail) deletes the email from the email server, which is what I prefer.
>
>I presume imap gives you an option to delete mail from the server?

When you delete a message in your MUA, IMAP will generally mark the 
message as deleted, rather than deleting it there and then. When you 
close the mailbox (either by closing your MUA or by navigating away from 
the mailbox, depending on the client) an "EXPUNGE" command is sent, 
which deletes all messages marked for deletion.

>
>I recognize that leaving email on the server can make it easier to access your
>email from multiple devices, but (1) I rarely have that need (maybe not in the
>last 10 years), and (2), when I do, I can set pop3 to leave email on the
>server (but, iirc, I typically set my "main" email device to delete it from
>the server--iirc, if I didn't, I'd keep getting the same emails sent to me
>over and over--but maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.
>

-- 
For more information, please reread.

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

#186784

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:59:04PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:

[...]

> With IMAP, the expectation is that your MUA is just a viewer of
> email. The mail is stored elsewhere and you want to
> read/reply/manage it without worrying about storing it.

[...]

While in principle you are absolutely right, I've found out
that IMAP in combination with fetchmail works wonderfully as
a "better POP3". IDLE alone is worth it, but also much better
error recovery etc.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlm6c3sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kazBgCfdsNaEHE6VuWuAFV3cxEeo3aE
b6oAnAjTW5mr+ChUWyalRvbwGlo5Q9Pd
=YKUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#186793

On Thursday 14 September 2017 08:18:03 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:59:04PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > With IMAP, the expectation is that your MUA is just a viewer of
> > email. The mail is stored elsewhere and you want to
> > read/reply/manage it without worrying about storing it.
>
> [...]
>
> While in principle you are absolutely right, I've found out
> that IMAP in combination with fetchmail works wonderfully as
> a "better POP3". IDLE alone is worth it, but also much better
> error recovery etc.
>
> Cheers
> -- tomás

Begin rant:

The problem I have with that is the exposure. With my ISP's dovecot setup 
serving as both imap access and pop3, which I am using via fetchmail, is 
that because a huge fraction of their clients use imap, they have 
disabled fetchmails ability to dele the successfully downloaded message. 
THis is based on the premise, probably correct, that the average M$ user 
hasn't a clue and leaves the defaults set in OE or whatever.

Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping agencies, this 
exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times longer (If I do it 
once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail pulling and deleting it 
every 3 minutes.  Its also a cast iron bitch to maintain, requiring me 
to log into the webmail portal, move the old mail to the trash 100 at a 
time, then finally discover by clicking on the trash that the 29000 
messages I just deleted are in the trash folder and still readable, and 
it takes their machines about 5 minutes and several more clicks on the 
ok button popup to delete them too. I hadn't done that since the end of 
may, so all that tomfoolery took about an hour and a half in the night 
last night. :(

However, their spam filtering is truly excellent.

So my question to the fetchmail list last night was how to I convert the 
dele into to a move this msg to trash, and when its done with the 
current login, empty the trash.  I'll probably get ignored based on 
people in hell wanting ice water. :)

I have, live, a 5 machine home network here, and IMO here is where imap 
belongs, so I could do my email from any of these machines by pulling 
from their server with fetchmail, and making it available to any of 
these machines by imaping it. But I have been told, repeatedly, that 
such an interfaceing between the maildir/mailfile filtered incoming 
pop3'd messages database that kmail maintains and a dovecot local server 
working from that email corpus is not possible. TBT, methinks I am being 
lied to. It ought to be a packaged script, apt installable, that needs 
only the local networks address configured to make it usefull.  Not all 
local networks are on 192.168.0.0/24.

/rant:
 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#186796

On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> Begin rant:
[...]
> Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping agencies, this 
> exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times longer (If I do it 
> once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail pulling and deleting it 
> every 3 minutes.

Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the ISP's
system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers napping/
on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however the
agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar strategy
for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then sprinting
across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll booths
are located.

Cheers,
David.

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

#186802

	Hi.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Begin rant:
> [...]
> > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping agencies, this 
> > exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times longer (If I do it 
> > once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail pulling and deleting it 
> > every 3 minutes.
> 
> Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the ISP's
> system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers napping/
> on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however the
> agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar strategy
> for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then sprinting
> across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll booths
> are located.

While it's a legitimate point, the better one would be the following:

How can you be sure that deleting mail at your ISP server actually
deletes it?

It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.

Reco

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

#186806

On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 18:55:34 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Begin rant:
> > [...]
> > > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping agencies, this 
> > > exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times longer (If I do it 
> > > once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail pulling and deleting it 
> > > every 3 minutes.
> > 
> > Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the ISP's
> > system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers napping/
> > on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however the
> > agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar strategy
> > for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then sprinting
> > across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll booths
> > are located.
> 
> While it's a legitimate point, the better one would be the following:
> 
> How can you be sure that deleting mail at your ISP server actually
> deletes it?

If the agencies are going to snoop at the obvious point, the point of
entry to the ISP, then it makes no difference how long the ISP keeps
information after you think it's been deleted. (Once you've paid the
toll, it doesn't matter to them whether you sprint to the other side
of the bridge or push a pea across it with your nose: they've already
got your money.)

> It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
> stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
> second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.

What, by emailing it somewhere else?

Cheers,
David.

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

#186807

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:15:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 18:55:34 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> > 	Hi.
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Begin rant:
> > > [...]
> > > > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping agencies, this 
> > > > exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times longer (If I do it 
> > > > once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail pulling and deleting it 
> > > > every 3 minutes.
> > > 
> > > Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the ISP's
> > > system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers napping/
> > > on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however the
> > > agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar strategy
> > > for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then sprinting
> > > across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll booths
> > > are located.
> > 
> > While it's a legitimate point, the better one would be the following:
> > 
> > How can you be sure that deleting mail at your ISP server actually
> > deletes it?
> 
> If the agencies are going to snoop at the obvious point, the point of
> entry to the ISP, then it makes no difference how long the ISP keeps
> information after you think it's been deleted. (Once you've paid the
> toll, it doesn't matter to them whether you sprint to the other side
> of the bridge or push a pea across it with your nose: they've already
> got your money.)

True. But it's more convenient to 'persuade' ISP to store e-mails for
them. This way ISP filters spam, not the man-in-the-middle.
Saves taxpayer money by reducing storage costs and all such.


> > It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
> > stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
> > second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.
> 
> What, by emailing it somewhere else?

Nah, by setting up MDA in such a way that every user has two mailboxes.
Only one of them is exposed to the user via POP or IMAP.
hardlinking files in maildir also does the trick.

Reco

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

#186810

On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 19:25:15 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:15:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 18:55:34 (+0300), Reco wrote:

> > > It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
> > > stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
> > > second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.
> > 
> > What, by emailing it somewhere else?
> 
> Nah, by setting up MDA in such a way that every user has two mailboxes.
> Only one of them is exposed to the user via POP or IMAP.
> hardlinking files in maildir also does the trick.

Oh, I misunderstood you. For me, that's not a backup. A hardlink is
in the same filesystem; I'm talking at least a different box. My
mail server happens to be on a different continent.

Cheers,
David.

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

#186827

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-09-14 at 12:34, David Wright wrote:

> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 19:25:15 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:15:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 18:55:34 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> 
>>>> It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every
>>>> e-mail is stored in two different places, first one for the
>>>> users' IMAP, and second one is for … backup purposes, so to
>>>> speak.
>>> 
>>> What, by emailing it somewhere else?
>> 
>> Nah, by setting up MDA in such a way that every user has two
>> mailboxes. Only one of them is exposed to the user via POP or
>> IMAP. hardlinking files in maildir also does the trick.
> 
> Oh, I misunderstood you. For me, that's not a backup. A hardlink is
> in the same filesystem; I'm talking at least a different box. My mail
> server happens to be on a different continent.

I read the "for backup purposes" as being a euphemism, implying that the
second copy was being kept for nefarious purposes, including so that it
could be reviewed (including by third parties) even if the user had
deleted the "visible" copy.

(Also, I have entire rants about how *anything that you can fall back to
if the main instance fails*, no matter how limited the circumstances in
which you can do so are, qualifies for the literal meaning of the noun
"backup"; the insistence that, e.g., "RAID is not backup" - while
certainly based on good advice from a practical perspective - rubs me
the wrong way linguistically, and your "that's not a backup" does the
same thing to a lesser extent. But exploring that further would be a
wildly different topic.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#186843

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:00:19PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I read the "for backup purposes" as being a euphemism, implying that the
> second copy was being kept for nefarious purposes, including so that it
> could be reviewed (including by third parties) even if the user had
> deleted the "visible" copy.

Yes, precisely this.  I thought it was blatantly obvious, but as
usual the Internet has corrected my assumptions.

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

#186891

Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:00:19PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>> I read the "for backup purposes" as being a euphemism, implying that the
>> second copy was being kept for nefarious purposes, including so that it
>> could be reviewed (including by third parties) even if the user had
>> deleted the "visible" copy.
>
> Yes, precisely this.  I thought it was blatantly obvious, but as
> usual the Internet has corrected my assumptions.

Hm, I must've missed that message ...

"Nefarious" or not, anyone worth their salt has backups of their mail
(be it corporate IT / an ISP / google / whoever), since things fail at
times.  Hell, I have "dead-tree-backups(tm)" of emails from previous
employers asking for stupid things that'd break best practices / etc.

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#186892

On 2017-09-16, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:00:19PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>>> I read the "for backup purposes" as being a euphemism, implying that the
>>> second copy was being kept for nefarious purposes, including so that it
>>> could be reviewed (including by third parties) even if the user had
>>> deleted the "visible" copy.
>>
>> Yes, precisely this.  I thought it was blatantly obvious, but as
>> usual the Internet has corrected my assumptions.
>
> Hm, I must've missed that message ...
>
> "Nefarious" or not, anyone worth their salt has backups of their mail
> (be it corporate IT / an ISP / google / whoever), since things fail at
> times.  Hell, I have "dead-tree-backups(tm)" of emails from previous
> employers asking for stupid things that'd break best practices / etc.
>

I would not wish my ISP to retain a backup for some ulterior purpose of
the private emails that I have expressly deleted.

YMMV.

The recourse to encryption is tempting to the serious-minded; however, I
fear it just red-flags you for further and more exhaustive study.


-- 
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." Groucho

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web