Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: > >Well I hate to be a party pooper but I suggest that you > >at least try gmail, browser interface and all, before > >you go to the troubleof rolling your own.
I think you /love/ going against the grain. ;-D That's not a bad thing. > > I don't do gmail because it doesn't do IMAP. Period. > > At this point, IMAP is a deal breaker. I *like* having my email > archived on the server *and* on the machine I'm using. It has already been mentioned elsewhere, but gmail can forward messages to an address that is managed by IMAP. I do this myself, so none of my e-mail is on Google's servers. > I never really trusted Google but, I don't like the direction Google is > going at this point. Having ideals really gets in the way, doesn't it? It assures that some kind of sacrifice will be necessary. And explaining it to others mostly just gets them to roll their eyes. Google forwards my e-mail, but there isn't really any guarantee that they don't gather statistics or retain any data. I really only use that address for non-personal e-mail that requires no replies, though. As long as I keep the personal e-mail out of their hands, I think the risk is mostly akin to HTTP cookies. Sure, they can gather statistics. But, it's not clear that the statistics are useful at a personal level... plus there are other places they can get related information. An example would be that my father-in-law refuses cookies whenever he can, but ignores me when I tell him how much information is sent in the HTTP header without /any/ cookies. And similarly, I don't think that Google could learn more about me from the mail I send through them than they could by just searching the Web for my name. In fact, quite the opposite, so I'm willing to stick with this strategy for a while. Wade Curry syntaxman -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
