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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #212790 > unrolled thread

webmail and email from command line

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

Contents

  webmail and email from command line loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> - 2019-08-14 16:30 +0200
    Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-14 17:10 +0200
      Re: webmail and email from command line loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> - 2019-08-14 18:10 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2019-08-14 18:30 +0200
          Re: webmail and email from command line lena <lena@pangea.org> - 2019-08-16 16:10 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line tomas@tuxteam.de - 2019-08-14 18:30 +0200
          Re: webmail and email from command line Joe Dennigan <general@jdenn.fastmail.fm> - 2019-08-14 21:40 +0200
          Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-16 04:00 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-08-14 19:10 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line Paul Sutton <zleap@disroot.org> - 2019-08-14 19:30 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-08-14 20:40 +0200
          Re: webmail and email from command line David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-16 03:50 +0200
    Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-16 04:10 +0200
      Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-16 10:20 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-18 23:20 +0200
          Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-18 23:50 +0200
            Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-19 03:20 +0200
              Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-19 10:40 +0200
                Re: webmail and email from command line Nektarios Katakis <nektarios@mail.nektarioskatakis.xyz> - 2019-08-19 11:20 +0200
                Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-19 15:50 +0200
                  Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-19 17:30 +0200
                    Re: webmail and email from command line Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-08-19 17:30 +0200
                      Re: webmail and email from command line tomas@tuxteam.de - 2019-08-19 17:50 +0200
                    Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-19 18:10 +0200
                      Why I mistrust bigcorps [was: webmail and email from command line] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-19 19:30 +0200
                    Re: webmail and email from command line Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-19 22:10 +0200
                      Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-19 23:10 +0200
              Re: webmail and email from command line Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-19 11:40 +0200
                Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-19 16:10 +0200
                  Re: webmail and email from command line <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-19 17:30 +0200
                    Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-19 18:10 +0200
                      Re: webmail and email from command line Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-19 19:40 +0200
                        Re: webmail and email from command line Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-19 20:30 +0200
                          Re: webmail and email from command line Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-19 22:00 +0200
      Re: webmail and email from command line loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> - 2019-08-16 14:10 +0200
        Re: webmail and email from command line Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-08-16 15:00 +0200
          Re: webmail and email from command line loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> - 2019-08-16 15:30 +0200
            Re: webmail and email from command line Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2019-08-16 19:20 +0200
    Re: webmail and email from command line loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 19:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#212790 — webmail and email from command line

Greetings,

I posted the following message to debian-accessibility and I post it
again suggested.

Briefly, I am a "long term" debian user (since debian potato) and I am
almost but not completely blind. This happened recently, so I am still
adapting to the new situation. Please keep this in mind, as it is the
primary problem for us.

I find increasily difficult and error prone to read/send email via a
browser and would like to either use emacs (preferred, now that it
talks, thanks to speechd-el) or the command line.

'Though I managed to send mail to my gmail account by allowing less
secure applications, this is likely not to be a viable solution (it
seems that google is going to forbit less secure application access
starting November first of this year and it is already a pain to use
it now).

Two factor authentication may well be the only solution for desktop
users in a couple of months time.

Your Institution willl have somebody solving this issue for you, but
at home normal users who prefer to avoid using a browser for email are
on their own.

Once the authentication issue is solved, then any client (not only a
browser) should be able to read/send mail, making life for me and
possibly other visually impaired people easier.

Here is what I plan to do:

* use mbsync to fetch mail locally

* use any tool to read/edit mail locally (I will use emacs and mu4e,
but at this point any editor and mail agent than can work with mail
locally should be just fine)

* configure exim to deal with gmail authentication to read and send
mail via smtp gmail server frpm localhost.

Is this a reasonable approach? Any comment or suggestion? Any other
way of dealing with email locally, without a browser, and to use the
network only for reading/sending mail with an imap/smtp server
acceptable authorization?

BTW, swacks is in debian and it is a very nice tool to test smtp
connections from the command line:

swaks --tls --auth --to <username>@gmail.com --server smtp.gmail.com

Be careful with spoken passwords ..

Loredana

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#212793

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:24:49PM +0000, loredana wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> I posted the following message to debian-accessibility and I post it
> again suggested.

[...]

> 'Though I managed to send mail to my gmail account by allowing less
> secure applications, this is likely not to be a viable solution (it
> seems that google is going to forbit less secure application access
> starting November first of this year and it is already a pain to use
> it now).

Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.

Is changing mail provider an option for you?

Cheers
-- tomás

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

#212797

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> [...]

> Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
> marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.

I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.

> Is changing mail provider an option for you?

Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
address.

Moreover, is this going to be a solution?

Which provider would you suggest?

Cheers, Loredana


>
> Cheers
> -- tomás

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

#212799

On 8/14/2019 8:02 PM, loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>> Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
>> marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
>
> I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.
>
>> Is changing mail provider an option for you?
>
> Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> address.
>

You could use e-mail redirect to work around this

In other words, you setup your gmail account to redirect/forward all
your e-mail to an other e-mail that is more suitable to you.

--
John Doe

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

#212876

Hi Loredana,

I agree with other debianers that setting a forward to another email
provider for now should be the easiest option.

I think it would be a good idea to find an email provider that allows
smtp/imap clients, and as far as I know protonmail does it only in Pro
version. I know there is posteo.de that does. Also, there should be
some small local email providers in your area, the services are usually
on fee (normally quite low) but you gain direct support with setups and
all the rest.

As for command line email clients, probably the most complete one is
Mutt. There is a guide from a year ago on how to configure it with gmail
here: https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/wikis/UseCases/Gmail

I know mutt allows different security features, but it surpass my
experience with it, as gmail might be demanding and moody in allowing
external clients.

You can actually set mutt and emacs to work together as explained here:
https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/wikis/MuttFaq/Editor#how-do-i-configure-mutt-to-use-mail-mode-in-emacs
or here https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MuttInEmacs 

If you decide for mutt and stumble across configuration problems, you
can look for support in sdf.org community. It is a command-line based
community (you login over ssh) with an important part of blind users,
so surely they will be more knowledgeble than I am :smiley:

I hope this helps,
best regards,
~l.

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

#212801

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

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:02:01PM +0000, loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> 
> > Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
> > marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
> 
> I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.

Of course not. It's just noticing the problem. This is a prerequisite for
the solution :-)

> > Is changing mail provider an option for you?
> 
> Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> address.
> 
> Moreover, is this going to be a solution?

To some things, yes. To others, no :-)

But at least expect a more "normal" IMAP access than Google offers...

> Which provider would you suggest?

Depends on where you are. Over here in Germany, I know a few good
ones costing a small fee.

Elsewhere, perhaps riseup [1] is an option. It's donation-funded,
so consider throwing some small amount into their hat.

Cheers

[1] https://riseup.net/

-- tomás

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

#212811

tomas@tuxteam.de writes:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:02:01PM +0000, loredana wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >=20
> > > [...]
> >=20
> > > Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
> > > marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
> >
> > I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.
> 
> Of course not. It's just noticing the problem. This is a prerequisite for
> the solution :-)
> 
> > > Is changing mail provider an option for you?
> >0
> > Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> > human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> > address.
> >
> > Moreover, is this going to be a solution?
> 
> To some things, yes. To others, no :-)
> 
> But at least expect a more "normal" IMAP access than Google offers...
> 
> > Which provider would you suggest?
> 
> Depends on where you are. Over here in Germany, I know a few good
> ones costing a small fee.
> 
> Elsewhere, perhaps riseup [1] is an option. It's donation-funded,
> so consider throwing some small amount into their hat.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> [1] https://riseup.net/
> 
Just thought I'd chime in here.  I've been redirecting all webmail (currently
gmail and my ISP) to a Fastmail¹ account for nearly ten years then using
fetchmail and nmh (+ emacs/mh-e at times) to read it with no problems.
Sending via their servers and a basic postfix installation here has been
reliable.

I don't know if their service meets the OPs needs but may be worth a look,
and they're pretty cheap for basic email.

Regards

Joe

¹https://www.fastmail.com


-- 
“Blood sacrifices keep the planet from eating your feet”
 -- Red

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

#212845

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:23:23 +0200
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

...

> Elsewhere, perhaps riseup [1] is an option. It's donation-funded,
> so consider throwing some small amount into their hat.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> [1] https://riseup.net/

I think you've mentioned them before, but how seriously should we take
its politics? Say I do have some moderate techno-libertarian leanings,
but I don't quite qualify as a person who is "working on liberatory
social change" [1], or an "[ally] engaged in struggles against
patriarchy, white-supremecy, capitalism, and other forms of
oppression." [2] Is Riseup still for me?

[1] https://riseup.net/
[2] https://account.riseup.net/user/new

Celejar

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

#212805

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>> Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
>> marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
>
> I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.
>
>> Is changing mail provider an option for you?
>
> Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> address.

You can always set gmail up to forward mails to another email address.
Then your friends and family can keep sending to "you@gmail.com".
You'll just be replying from "you@not-gmail.com".

> Which provider would you suggest?

Digital Ocean, and Postfix / Dovecot.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl1UPQYACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooGSwwgAmeCAcyCwycVnWtNZ3xwqYtnElsMKqv0AMlZbz511yMTrXenoM1E+KKuN
yUDEAiqureKVQGvlJOGlEpivKF9+394a/r9WRsJIn64lesRA4P9Ox3o7vi/Un9Ar
Urt7RSSHJjVt2lCn/z2rdClHarjk9rhCM1lQhmpkvX0OF+lWCCcIdFjFYZosAddQ
EkPD2h7e2I5PcpeDRQ+AkYeTaSZWeonBfC8CN5H2Zk1YPbyZBt40DExAMxeHNPCw
KYxhkWkf4vgCt5c8AFr8rzS0ayWfBF8Dvkiizg74uht2TKUwAp12Qlut5b/xZ+Ie
3MtxK/VKGTI/IGzBCDube5KyEAuIQw==
=6IrX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

#212806

On 14/08/2019 19:02, loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
>> marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
> I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.
>
>> Is changing mail provider an option for you?
> Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> address.
>
> Moreover, is this going to be a solution?
>
> Which provider would you suggest?
>
> Cheers, Loredana
>
>
I use https://protonmail.com/ which is due to get features such as
calender etc very soon

and

https://disroot.org/en

disroot also offers, cloud, file sharing and many other services. 

Moving is not always difficult or can just be time consuming.  I spent a
good few hours logging in to websites, changing my credentials and
confirming from the resulting e-mail. 

It also gives you a chance to do an audit and decide do I use this
service, if not dump it or move the e-mail associated with that to
another service,  2 or 3 disroot services are good for different things.

I had scam e-mail a while back, sent a e-mail to report it, and got a
reply asking for me to include headers, so the developers want you and
care about their user base enough to do this.

Hope this helps

Paul


>> Cheers
>> -- tomás

-- 
Paul Sutton
http://www.zleap.net
gnupg : 7D6D B682 F351 8D08 1893  1E16 F086 5537 D066 302D

https://fediverse.party/ - zleap@social.isurf.ca

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

#212809

loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>> Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
>> marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
>
> I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.
>
>> Is changing mail provider an option for you?
>
> Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> address.

For exactly that reason, years ago I bought my own domain (no, this
isn't it -- mostly out of inertia, I still post to usenet using my old
NMSU address) and run my own email server.  That way I only had to do it
one last time, and won't need to change again.

> Moreover, is this going to be a solution?
>
> Which provider would you suggest?

There are multiple providers out there that will work fine.  I'm on
netfirms.com; I'm webmaster for a shotgun club
(mesillavalleyshotgunsports.com) that uses godaddy.com. 

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

#212844

On Wed 14 Aug 2019 at 12:19:01 (-0600), Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >
> >> Note that what Google calls there "less secure applications" is just
> >> marketing mumbo-jumbo to nudge users off their non-browser clients.
> >
> > I know. But knowing it, and perhaps blaiming it, is not a solution.
> >
> >> Is changing mail provider an option for you?
> >
> > Yes, not an easy one, 'though. Image writing to all your contacts,
> > human and automatic ones, and convince them to write to a new email
> > address.
> 
> For exactly that reason, years ago I bought my own domain (no, this
> isn't it -- mostly out of inertia, I still post to usenet using my old
> NMSU address) and run my own email server.

Just to make it clear, you don't have to go to the trouble of running
a mail server just because you buy a domain. A hosting service can do
this for you, so that you need do no more than read emails and manage
your inboxes through a mail client via IMAP, and send emails through
their smarthost via SMTP.

I originally bought my domain through my ISP, and it cost nothing
because it was bundled into their service. I've moved it once, to
an independent hosting service, when I changed my ISP to one that
doesn't do hosting.

Since moving continents (and ISP), I've kept the domain with the same
hosting service (in the UK). They automatically reregister it
(actually, them) automatically every two years (as they did just today).
It means no change in email addresses every time you move.

> That way I only had to do it
> one last time, and won't need to change again.
> 
> > Moreover, is this going to be a solution?
> >
> > Which provider would you suggest?
> 
> There are multiple providers out there that will work fine.  I'm on
> netfirms.com; I'm webmaster for a shotgun club
> (mesillavalleyshotgunsports.com) that uses godaddy.com. 

Cheers,
David.

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

#212846

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +0000
loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> secure applications, this is likely not to be a viable solution (it
> seems that google is going to forbit less secure application access
> starting November first of this year and it is already a pain to use
> it now).

What is your source for Google's plans, and how is it already a pain? I
have been using getmail and sylpheed with several Google mail accounts
for years, and it seemed pretty straightforward - just set the "allow
less secure apps" option, and then configure POP3 / SMTP normally.

Celejar

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

#212850

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

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:02:57PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +0000
> loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > secure applications, this is likely not to be a viable solution (it
> > seems that google is going to forbit less secure application access
> > starting November first of this year and it is already a pain to use
> > it now).
> 
> What is your source for Google's plans, and how is it already a pain? I
> have been using getmail and sylpheed with several Google mail accounts
> for years, and it seemed pretty straightforward - just set the "allow
> less secure apps" option, and then configure POP3 / SMTP normally.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Google's evil comes through the backdoor, without making any noise,
like Wormtongue.

Cheers
-- t

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

#212942

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:02:57PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +0000
> > loredana <llcfree@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > secure applications, this is likely not to be a viable solution (it
> > > seems that google is going to forbit less secure application access
> > > starting November first of this year and it is already a pain to use
> > > it now).
> > 
> > What is your source for Google's plans, and how is it already a pain? I
> > have been using getmail and sylpheed with several Google mail accounts
> > for years, and it seemed pretty straightforward - just set the "allow
> > less secure apps" option, and then configure POP3 / SMTP normally.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Google's evil comes through the backdoor, without making any noise,
> like Wormtongue.

Explain, please?

Celejar

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

#212944

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

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

[...]

> > > less secure apps" option, and then configure POP3 / SMTP normally.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Google's evil comes through the backdoor, without making any noise,
> > like Wormtongue.
> 
> Explain, please?

Allow me to be short, since off-topic for this thread and most probably
off-topic for the list.

In the specific case above, first of all, definitional power ("we get
to say what is secure").

In general,

 - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search engines...)
   and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side.

 - mindshare: developers get used to do things "the Google way"

 - mindshare (II): users perceive an app as broken if it works
   differently

 - subtle behavioural knowledge about almost anyone on or near
   the 'net

(I'm sure you can think of two or three more).

IMO they're far too big.

Cheers
-- t

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

#212951

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
> > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > less secure apps" option, and then configure POP3 / SMTP normally.
> > >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 
> > > Google's evil comes through the backdoor, without making any noise,
> > > like Wormtongue.
> > 
> > Explain, please?
> 
> Allow me to be short, since off-topic for this thread and most probably
> off-topic for the list.
> 
> In the specific case above, first of all, definitional power ("we get
> to say what is secure").

I think terming Google's decision to call software that doesn't
implement OAuth "less secure" "evil" is hyperbole that doesn't help our
broader cause of opposing its breaking of standards, imposing various
sorts of lock-in, invasions of privacy, etc.

> In general,
> 
>  - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search engines...)
>    and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side.

I don't consider dominance gained largely through superior
technology and legitimate means "evil". Undesirable, yes.

>  - mindshare: developers get used to do things "the Google way"
> 
>  - mindshare (II): users perceive an app as broken if it works
>    differently
> 
>  - subtle behavioural knowledge about almost anyone on or near
>    the 'net
> 
> (I'm sure you can think of two or three more).
> 
> IMO they're far too big.

Agreed, but again, I don't think that makes them "evil".

Celejar

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

#212961

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

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200

[...]

> I think terming Google's decision to call software that doesn't
> implement OAuth "less secure" "evil" is hyperbole [...]

This nicely demonstrates my point: OAuth is a HTTP oriented access
delegation protocol. Why should that be at all relevant, e.g. in
the context of IMAP?

> > In general,
> > 
> >  - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search engines...)
> >    and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side.
> 
> I don't consider dominance gained largely through superior
> technology and legitimate means "evil". Undesirable, yes.

This misses the point. The fact that my favourite news"paper" has to
embed Google trackers in its website to survive economically has nothing
to do with technical superiority and all with market dominance.

Not long ago, Microsoft was in this position. Remember when Internet
Explorer was the dominant browser and everyone was hot on implementig
ActiveX?

[...]

> > (I'm sure you can think of two or three more).
> > 
> > IMO they're far too big.
> 
> Agreed, but again, I don't think that makes them "evil".

Call that what you want. I call this "emergent evil". And I definitely
want it out of my cereal bowl :-)

Cheers
-- t

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

#212966

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I think terming Google's decision to call software that doesn't
> > implement OAuth "less secure" "evil" is hyperbole [...]
> 
> This nicely demonstrates my point: OAuth is a HTTP oriented access
> delegation protocol. Why should that be at all relevant, e.g. in
> the context of IMAP?
> 

I couldn't agree more. SMTP and IMAP have their own specs and any mail
host that follows them is legit. Google is evil as it is monopolizing
the market and following microsoft practices from 10-15 years back.

Like either works with Google or we dont care. 

> > > In general,
> > > 
> > >  - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search
> > > engines...) and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side.
> > 
> > I don't consider dominance gained largely through superior
> > technology and legitimate means "evil". Undesirable, yes.
> 
> This misses the point. The fact that my favourite news"paper" has to
> embed Google trackers in its website to survive economically has
> nothing to do with technical superiority and all with market
> dominance.
> 
> Not long ago, Microsoft was in this position. Remember when Internet
> Explorer was the dominant browser and everyone was hot on implementig
> ActiveX?
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > (I'm sure you can think of two or three more).
> > > 
> > > IMO they're far too big.
> > 
> > Agreed, but again, I don't think that makes them "evil".
> 
> Call that what you want. I call this "emergent evil". And I definitely
> want it out of my cereal bowl :-)

And definitely is. I am happy that there are people out there
recognizing it.


> 
> Cheers
> -- t

Regards,

-- 
Nektarios Katakis

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

#212977

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I think terming Google's decision to call software that doesn't
> > implement OAuth "less secure" "evil" is hyperbole [...]
> 
> This nicely demonstrates my point: OAuth is a HTTP oriented access
> delegation protocol. Why should that be at all relevant, e.g. in
> the context of IMAP?

>From the Introduction to RFC 6749:

*****

In the traditional client-server authentication model, the client
   requests an access-restricted resource (protected resource) on the
   server by authenticating with the server using the resource owner's
   credentials.  In order to provide third-party applications access to
   restricted resources, the resource owner shares its credentials with
   the third party.  This creates several problems and limitations:

Third-party applications are required to store the resource
      owner's credentials for future use, typically a password in
      clear-text.

...

Third-party applications gain overly broad access to the resource
      owner's protected resources, leaving resource owners without any
      ability to restrict duration or access to a limited subset of
      resources.

Resource owners cannot revoke access to an individual third party
      without revoking access to all third parties, and must do so by
      changing the third party's password.

Compromise of any third-party application results in compromise of
      the end-user's password and all of the data protected by that
      password.

*****

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749

You can argue that none of this matters to you, since you trust
whatever OSS software you're using, but I stand by what I wrote that
it's unfair to term Google's decision to refer to applications that
don't implement OAuth "less secure" "evil".

> > > In general,
> > > 
> > >  - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search engines...)
> > >    and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side.
> > 
> > I don't consider dominance gained largely through superior
> > technology and legitimate means "evil". Undesirable, yes.
> 
> This misses the point. The fact that my favourite news"paper" has to
> embed Google trackers in its website to survive economically has nothing
> to do with technical superiority and all with market dominance.

I was referring to the client side - Chrome / Chromium achieved
dominance (particularly on the desktop) largely because they were
widely recognized as being more performant than the alternatives.
Firefox may be catching up now, but my impression is that for years,
both experts as well as laymen often preferred Chrome / Chromium
because of its speed. [Note that I have always stuck to Firefox for
almost all my browsing, largely because I don't like / trust Google, so
we're not as far apart as we might seem.]

...

> > > IMO they're far too big.
> > 
> > Agreed, but again, I don't think that makes them "evil".
> 
> Call that what you want. I call this "emergent evil". And I definitely
> want it out of my cereal bowl :-)

We agree - I want it out of my cereal bowl as well ;)

Celejar

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web