Requires your GMail Login Credentials
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Dec 02, 2009 3:16 AM EDT |
Now I know I won't be bothering. |
| cabreh Dec 02, 2009 3:41 AM EDT |
I have a GMail account and I still wont be using ChromeOS. The only reason I have GMail is so no matter how many ISPs I switch to or what country I end up in I have a consistent E-mail address for all my contacts. Then I use IMAP to access the mail. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 02, 2009 3:55 AM EDT |
@cabreh: Ever thought about setting up your own e-mail domain? It's only a few dollars a year... E.g. Fastmail can do IMAP hosting for $19.95 a year under your own domain name. There are probably plenty of other e-mail hosters out there. Or you can do it yourself. |
| cabreh Dec 02, 2009 4:07 AM EDT |
@Sander
Actually I just moved away from having my own e-mail server. I was using a Zimbra server and decided I didn't want to have to keep a server running all the time and am switching to a lower powered NAS for the home network. Plus I like the more or less anonymous nature of GMail. Not to mention it's free. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 02, 2009 7:25 AM EDT |
Each to their own. I don't trust Google enough to put my e-mail and calendaring there. |
| jdixon Dec 02, 2009 9:24 AM EDT |
> The only reason I have GMail is so no matter how many ISPs I switch to or what country I end up in I have a consistent E-mail address for all my contacts. http://www.pobox.com They receive and spam filter your email, then forward it to any address (or addresses, from memory) you want. $20/year gets you three email addresses. I'm pretty sure they're not the only one providing this service, but they've been around a long time and demonstrated that they're trustworthy. |
| cabreh Dec 02, 2009 9:41 AM EDT |
@Sander and jdixon: OK, I'll bite. What is so untrustworthy about Google as compared to any other such service? Why trust any other provider? Also, why pay some other equally untrustworthy, in-the-cloud provider when I can have the same for free? I have never experience an inability to access GMail. I have never had any complaints about losing messages in either direction. And it all "just works" with Evolution. Seems like a good deal to me. |
| zenarcher Dec 02, 2009 10:07 AM EDT |
cabreh, I also share your view. |
| jdixon Dec 02, 2009 3:51 PM EDT |
> What is so untrustworthy about Google as compared to any other such service? Pobox.com doesn't store your mail, except as you direct (how long it keeps the spam, etc.) and as needed for forwarding. Google stores your mail on their servers, pretty much forever. Whether Google is trustworthy or not, that gives them more power to be abused. If all you want is a permanent address, pobox.com is a better choice. If you want more than that (say, easy web access to your mail), then maybe not. |
| cabreh Dec 02, 2009 4:15 PM EDT |
For me I really want an IMAP server for my mail, but I no longer want to run a server to do that. Including my office computer and home systems as well as my laptop I really don't want just a pop account. It can also be that I will be travelling sans my own computer so the web mail feature is also a plus for me. I don't generally have anything on Google that I consider sensitive other than people's e-mail addresses. So, for me it works. |
| tracyanne Dec 02, 2009 4:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:@Sander and jdixon: OK, I'll bite. What is so untrustworthy about Google as compared to any other such service? Why trust any other provider? Also, why pay some other equally untrustworthy, in-the-cloud provider when I can have the same for free? My answer, Sander's might be different, Nothing, but I don't use Email services, or Cloud providers, and for the same reason I don't use Google. Trust and control. Which is why I've been looking at encrypting my data before placing it on such services as Ubuntu One. Yes they are already encrypted. But if I encrypt my data first, I control the keys, not them. |
| jdixon Dec 02, 2009 4:51 PM EDT |
> For me I really want an IMAP server for my mail, but I no longer want to run a server to do that. Then you don't want just "a consistent E-mail address for all my contacts", do you? |
| tracyanne Dec 02, 2009 5:44 PM EDT |
I've got several My own domain, for starters. I just changed hosting providers recently as a matter of fact, and my email hasn't changed, unfortunately the spammers can still get me on my "old" email address. I also use Spamgourmet, for anonymous email addresses, so I can sign up for things when I don't want to be spammed by the company in question. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 02, 2009 6:03 PM EDT |
@Tracyanne: Instead of spamgourmet you could also use sub-addressing on your own mailserver. I know that Dovecot and Postfix have full support for subaddressing, including the Sieve plugin. For those who don't know what sub-addressing is, it's a way to add tags to your e-mail address. E.g instead of joe@example.org you'd subscribe to a spammy service with joe+spammyservice@example.org. Postfix, Dovecot and Sieve can split off the part after the + sign and use it to (re-)route or even bounce e-mail. It's a little more work than Spamgourmet but may be a nice alternative for those who dont like relying on outside services. |
| tracyanne Dec 02, 2009 6:14 PM EDT |
Thanks Sander, I didn't know that. I've used Spamgourmet for almost as long as I've used Linux. BTW I've synced my address book with Ubuntu One, but NOT the way they wanted me to. Once again, my way, I get to control the encryption. |
| zenarcher Dec 02, 2009 8:10 PM EDT |
tracyanne, as a matter of practice, for several years now, even before using any sort of cloud or gmail, I've always encrypted my personal files using PGP, or GPG. And, if I'm really concerned about keeping data out of obvious reach, I also use steghide. My hard drives are also encrypted (except for the boot sector). I agree with you completely about controlling your keys. I figure if anyone is responsible for protecting my data, it has to begin with me. |
| gus3 Dec 02, 2009 8:44 PM EDT |
Encrypted /home. Encrypted /rsync/home. And they each use different filesystems. |
| cabreh Dec 03, 2009 4:09 AM EDT |
@jdixon:
> Then you don't want just "a consistent E-mail address for all my contacts", do you? No, because I use more than one computer. However, because that isn't all I want doesn't mean that isn't part of what I want. :) My very first post, quoted by you stated I use IMAP. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 03, 2009 7:32 AM EDT |
Arch, I had a reply all written up for this but forgot to press "Send" and subsequently went to bed.Quoting:Why trust any other provider? I don't. All my e-mail and calendaring is done by a machine not six feet away from me. E-mail and calendaring ate vital to me so the only one I trust with it is me. |
| jdixon Dec 03, 2009 11:13 AM EDT |
> My very first post, quoted by you stated I use IMAP. "The only reason I have GMail is so no matter how many ISPs I switch to or what country I end up in I have a consistent E-mail address for all my contacts." Lots of providers offer IMAP, not just gmail. However, gmail seems to meet you needs, so... |
| cabreh Dec 04, 2009 3:17 AM EDT |
@jdixon Well, then I'm still waiting to hear why any other provider is better/more secure/more trustworthy than Google. As I noted earlier I don't want to have it at home (just got rid of that to save some money on energy). So, if I need to keep my mail somewhere I'd still like to know why Google should be trusted less than anyone else. This seems to be a normal assumption by some people and I'm curious to know if there is any reality behind this or just fear of the big corporation. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2009 4:29 AM EDT |
@cabreh: Google has an insane amount of data. The potential for abuse is staggering. They know your e-mail. They know what you search for. They know a large number of websites that you visit (thanks to AdSense and Analytics). With their new DNS they will know all the websites that you visit. Google makes money from profiling and ads. Their incentive is to keep all this data as long as possible. Anonymising that data does not help (think about the AOL search database release). Google's products are not free. You pay for them with privacy. And even if you believe that Google does not do evil, remember that all this data is just a subpoena or a clever crack away. In terms of privacy, you're better off with a paid-for provider that is not supported by ads. They have no incentive to keep your data around. |
| gus3 Dec 04, 2009 4:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:And even if you believe that Google does not do evil...do the rest of us a favor and stop using the Internet. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2009 5:06 AM EDT |
How shallow, gus. |
| cabreh Dec 04, 2009 6:55 AM EDT |
@Sander: I don't doubt much of what you say. BUT, do you really believe that any other such provider does any differently? I don't. Perhaps the scale varies, but I doubt the actions do. My point being I can get the same abuse from anyone. So, why pick on just one of them? Again keeping in mind I don't want to do this at home. It is only my e-mail and not my data files. And I won't be using their DNS system. Should I switch my search engine to Bing so I don't get abused? ;) |
| tracyanne Dec 04, 2009 8:20 AM EDT |
Cabeh, just do what you want. Just don't say you were never warned. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 04, 2009 8:33 AM EDT |
Quoting: [insert name / alias], just do what you want. Just don't say you were never warned.But when it happens, will you even know? "Insert name / alias" might be suspicious, but unequivocal proof will be elusive, NOT conclusive*. YBT * Am I being serious or do I just like the sound pattern? |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2009 9:59 AM EDT |
> Well, then I'm still waiting to hear why any other provider is better/more secure/more trustworthy than Google. Because you're paying them for the service and have a legally binding agreement with them, perhaps? You described a problem, and I offered what I considered a better solution. It turns out my proposed solution doesn't meet all your needs, and gmail does. That's fine. I have no problem with you using it. And I don't consider Google any more untrustworthy than any other large company. |
| cabreh Dec 04, 2009 10:09 AM EDT |
Actually I never had any problem related to using GMail. My issue in this thread was people saying that Google couldn't be trusted. Yet, no evidence of wrong doing was offered. I didn't see any reason why any other organization would be more trustworthy. That's all I was saying. And I don't have any connection to GMail or Google other than as a user. So, I'm not trying to push Google/GMail for any reason other than it works for me. In any case let's all use what works for us. |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2009 10:19 AM EDT |
> My issue in this thread was people saying that Google couldn't be trusted. There are a few axioms which, while not absolute, tend to be very useful in life. A couple of them are that no one is completely trustworthy and that the more power someone has, the less trustworthy they become. They're as applicable to companies as they are to people, possibly even more so. I think that's what you're getting from the folks here. Most of us have seen the evil companies can do all too often in our lives. > In any case let's all use what works for us. Agreed. |
| gus3 Dec 04, 2009 4:29 PM EDT |
@Sander: I won't argue that. Yes, it's a shallow comment, but I stand by it. That kind of naïvété is dangerous, whether applied to Google or to Microsoft, Yahoo!, blah blah blah. In the words of Blaze Starr's mother, "Never trust a man who says, 'Trust me.'" |
| tracyanne Dec 04, 2009 4:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Never trust a man who says, 'Trust me.'" When a woman says it it's ok. |
| gus3 Dec 04, 2009 4:53 PM EDT |
The best part of that was when she went to the city, and was making a living as a burlesque dancer. When Gov. Earl Long showed up off-stage and asked her to dinner, she said, "Can I trust you?" To which he replied, "Trust me? H*ll, no!" Points for honesty. And they lived happily ever after... |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2009 7:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:BUT, do you really believe that any other such provider does any differently? Yes. A provider that is not supported by ads but for which you pay a monthly fee has no reason to harvest so much data. Quoting:That kind of naïvété is dangerous Eh? I think I'm misinterpreting your posts or you are misinterpreting mine. |
| gus3 Dec 04, 2009 8:19 PM EDT |
@Sander: I simply latched onto part of your statement, and then ramped it up. Any attempts to understand what I said, should go no further than that. Having seen the damage that results from misplaced trust, which nearly included someone else getting fired for infecting the corporate gateway, I don't have much sympathy for people who see no need for caution on the Internet. Quoting:A provider that is not supported by ads but for which you pay a monthly fee has no reason to harvest so much data.Everyone has their price. Even Google retracted their anti-censorship stance when they expanded into China. http://gus3.typepad.com/photos/googles_shame/googleusedtosho... (screenshot retrieved from, of all places, Google cache) |
| gus3 Dec 05, 2009 1:27 AM EDT |
@cabreh:Quoting:My issue in this thread was people saying that Google couldn't be trusted. Yet, no evidence of wrong doing was offered.http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4037372.htm |
| cabreh Dec 05, 2009 8:33 AM EDT |
@gus3: That was obviously for their search engine. So, what do you use instead of Google? Is there a search engine that isn't ad supported and therefore doesn't do the same thing? I'd say my logging in via IMAP to get/send my e-mail doesn't give much chance of doing any of the stuff that link was all about. However, doing a search does. The only way to avaoid that issue is to never use a search engine on the web. @: I never stated I trusted Google. In fact I said I distrusted all of them. Therefore the only features I'm really using are e-mail related. And this is just for cost reasons. I have always adhered to the trust no one principal. I'm a pessimist by default. But I do believe in not picking on one particular organization when there are several to point fingers at. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2009 8:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:I simply latched onto part of your statement, and then ramped it up. I think you misread my statements then. I don't trust Google. From your comments I gather that you think I do. |
| gus3 Dec 05, 2009 11:23 AM EDT |
@Sander: No, you were making a rational, well-constructed argument about their lack of trustworthiness. I agree with you, but my snark was aimed at the other side of the coin. @cabreh: There may be several, but how many of them made such a big deal of "Don't be evil" or similar? (Excluding Cuil, which was a flash in the pan.) Like I said, everyone has their price. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2009 4:11 PM EDT |
Ah. I missed the fact that it was a snark then :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!