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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #202772 > unrolled thread

Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service

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

Contents

  Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> - 2018-11-26 15:50 +0100
    Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> - 2018-11-26 16:00 +0100
    Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2018-11-26 16:00 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2018-11-26 17:30 +0100
    Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:10 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-11-26 23:20 +0100
        Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2018-11-27 03:30 +0100
          Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-11-27 04:00 +0100
            Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 14:50 +0100
              Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-11-27 15:20 +0100
                Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-11-27 15:50 +0100
                  Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-11-27 20:40 +0100
          Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-11-27 04:00 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-11-29 09:10 +0100
    Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-11-26 16:10 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-11-26 17:50 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-11-26 17:50 +0100
    Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-11-26 17:30 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service John Cunningham <djohngo@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 17:40 +0100
    Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 04:20 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2018-11-27 05:10 +0100
        Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-11-27 07:30 +0100
        Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 19:30 +0100
      Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> - 2018-11-27 10:00 +0100
        Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 05:10 +0100
          Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-12-07 11:10 +0100
            Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-12-07 15:40 +0100
    <<SOLVED>> Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service mark@neidorff.com - 2018-12-10 16:20 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#202804

On 26.11.18 21:12, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500
> Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
> > Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage for old 
> 
> Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited storage
> for old emails?

There are various values for old and limited, in reality. When I'm out
of town for a fortnight, there's usually 1500 to 2k emails piled up on
the ISP's mailhost. Fortunately only a small subset of them are over 1
MB in size.

It is fortunately rare for ISPs to block multi-megabyte emails now that
we've left the old millennium behind, as I'm in the process of building,
and local authorities, building surveyors, fire authorities, etc.,
mostly issue their documents by email now.

Still, a few hundred MB usually does it for the fortnight, and the
longer absence over the new year is an email drought, so size would be
similar.

Those who leave read mail on the ISP's mailhost, due to accessing from
multiple client hosts, are at greater risk of exceeding their quota, and
would naturally look for some extra, I figure.

Erik

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

#202806

On Monday 26 November 2018 23:04:48 Erik Christiansen wrote:

> On 26.11.18 21:12, Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500
> >
> > Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
> > > Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage
> > > for old
> >
> > Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited
> > storage for old emails?
>
> There are various values for old and limited, in reality. When I'm out
> of town for a fortnight, there's usually 1500 to 2k emails piled up on
> the ISP's mailhost. Fortunately only a small subset of them are over 1
> MB in size.
>
> It is fortunately rare for ISPs to block multi-megabyte emails now
> that we've left the old millennium behind, as I'm in the process of
> building, and local authorities, building surveyors, fire authorities,
> etc., mostly issue their documents by email now.
>
> Still, a few hundred MB usually does it for the fortnight, and the
> longer absence over the new year is an email drought, so size would be
> similar.
>
> Those who leave read mail on the ISP's mailhost, due to accessing from
> multiple client hosts, are at greater risk of exceeding their quota,
> and would naturally look for some extra, I figure.
>
> Erik

Thats why I store my old mail on my own machine. I just checked my inbox, 
and the oldest email there that is actually dated, some don't have dates, 
is from 12/11/01.

As machines get replaced, or hard drives get full or whatever and get 
replaced, that email corpus gets copied to the new machine or drive, 
so I have a good email history right at my fingertips. 

It can be at times a valuable resource.

Speaking of old hard drives, one of the first 1T drives in this machine is
according to smartctl:

5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033  100  100  036  Pre-fail  Always - 25
9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032  012  012  000  Old_age   Always - 77192

That drive worried me with that re-allocated count at about 5k hours, 
the first time I looked at it with the then brand new smartctl.  So
I trolled thru the Seagate site and found an iso file with new firmware
for it, and installed it on the drive by rebooting to that iso on a CD.

That upped its read/write speed by about 50%, to over 130 meg/second, 
and didn't lose a single bit.

That drive now has 77192 hours on it. Thats now 8.80584074835 years of 
spinning essentially 24/7/365.25. And it is not giving any indication 
its anywhere near the end of its life. In the life of some drives I've 
had, thats equ to an eon or so.

Does anyone have a drive with more hours on it?



-- 
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]

#202834

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:04:48 +1100
Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:

> On 26.11.18 21:12, Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500
> > Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
> > > Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage for old 
> > 
> > Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited storage
> > for old emails?
> 
> There are various values for old and limited, in reality. When I'm out
> of town for a fortnight, there's usually 1500 to 2k emails piled up on
> the ISP's mailhost. Fortunately only a small subset of them are over 1
> MB in size.
> 
> It is fortunately rare for ISPs to block multi-megabyte emails now that
> we've left the old millennium behind, as I'm in the process of building,
> and local authorities, building surveyors, fire authorities, etc.,
> mostly issue their documents by email now.
> 
> Still, a few hundred MB usually does it for the fortnight, and the
> longer absence over the new year is an email drought, so size would be
> similar.
> 
> Those who leave read mail on the ISP's mailhost, due to accessing from
> multiple client hosts, are at greater risk of exceeding their quota, and
> would naturally look for some extra, I figure.

Understood. But the big players - Gmail, Yahoo - are probably the ones
offering the largest amount of storage, whether you're accessing the
mail via POP3 / IMAP or the webmail interface.

Celejar

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

#202809

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

On 18-11-26 21:12:19, Celejar wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500
>Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
>
>...
>
>> Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage for old
>
>Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited storage
>for old emails?
>

My suggestion [0] (a 'small' player) does!

[0] https://www.migadu.com/

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

#203104

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:59:25 +0000
Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> wrote:

> On 18-11-26 21:12:19, Celejar wrote:
> >On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500
> >Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> >> Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage for old
> >
> >Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited storage
> >for old emails?
> >
> 
> My suggestion [0] (a 'small' player) does!
> 
> [0] https://www.migadu.com/

Very interesting, thanks. I notice that they say "Storage is not your
problem, it is ours." [0] We trust you will not abuse it." What does
"abuse" mean in this context? That it shouldn't be used for file
storage?

[0] https://www.migadu.com/en/benefits.html#anchor_storage

Celejar

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

#203114

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 23:05:24 -0500
Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:59:25 +0000
> Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 18-11-26 21:12:19, Celejar wrote:  
> > >On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500
> > >Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >...
> > >  
> > >> Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage
> > >> for old  
> > >
> > >Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited
> > >storage for old emails?
> > >  
> > 
> > My suggestion [0] (a 'small' player) does!
> > 
> > [0] https://www.migadu.com/  
> 
> Very interesting, thanks. I notice that they say "Storage is not your
> problem, it is ours." [0] We trust you will not abuse it." What does
> "abuse" mean in this context? That it shouldn't be used for file
> storage?
> 
> [0] https://www.migadu.com/en/benefits.html#anchor_storage

Some people keep a) all their old email, which is a perfectly
reasonable thing to do, and b) leave all the attachments in, which is
also perfectly reasonable to do on your own storage.

I used to deal with a client who did this and who received a *lot* of
attachments. I had to fix his broken [Exchange] mailbox a couple of
times, and it was *enormous*. Exchange mailboxes seem to take an amount
of time to fix that is an exponential function of their size, they are
basically MS Access databases.

-- 
Joe

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

#203123

On Fri 07 Dec 2018 at 10:08:35 (+0000), Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 23:05:24 -0500 Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:59:25 +0000 Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> wrote:
> > > On 18-11-26 21:12:19, Celejar wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:37:21 -0500 Mark Neidorff <mark@neidorff.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >...
> > > >  
> > > >> Now, I don't like the webmail interfaces and the limited storage
> > > >> for old  
> > > >
> > > >Limited storage? Who - big or small player - offers unlimited
> > > >storage for old emails?
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > My suggestion [0] (a 'small' player) does!
> > > 
> > > [0] https://www.migadu.com/  
> > 
> > Very interesting, thanks. I notice that they say "Storage is not your
> > problem, it is ours." [0] We trust you will not abuse it." What does
> > "abuse" mean in this context? That it shouldn't be used for file
> > storage?
> > 
> > [0] https://www.migadu.com/en/benefits.html#anchor_storage
> 
> Some people keep a) all their old email, which is a perfectly
> reasonable thing to do, and b) leave all the attachments in, which is
> also perfectly reasonable to do on your own storage.
> 
> I used to deal with a client who did this and who received a *lot* of
> attachments. I had to fix his broken [Exchange] mailbox a couple of
> times, and it was *enormous*. Exchange mailboxes seem to take an amount
> of time to fix that is an exponential function of their size, they are
> basically MS Access databases.

OTOH they may feel that uploading all your backups etc is unreasonable,
perhaps including workarounds like mailing them to yourself.

Cheers,
David.

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

#203233 — <<SOLVED>> Re: Looking for a "friendly" e-mail service

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

On Monday, November 26, 2018 9:37:21 AM EST Mark Neidorff wrote:
> 
> It is time for me to give the static IP back and stop being my own e-mail
> service.  I'm moving from my static IP to Verizon FIOS, but I don't think
> that really matters.
> 
> If you know of an e-mail service that allows me  POP3 and SMTP connections,
> would you please post it in a reply.

Thank you all for your suggestions.  I found that Ionos (used to be 1&1 for those with long 
memories) gives me the best bang for the buck.  The accept mail for my domain (so I don't 
have to resubscribe to everything), provide pop3 and imap access, have a 2Gb limit on the 
contents of the mailbox (not on traffic) for $1 per month.  For $2 per month, they allow up 
to 20 user names under the same domain.  More storage is available for more money.  
Their help was excellent, and the process of getting set up was easy.  

Certainly they are not the only company to provide this service, but they suit my needs.  

Thanks to everyone,
Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web