Re: webmail and email from command line

[loredana]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM loredana  wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I posted the following message to debian-accessibility and I post it
> again as suggested.

My mistake.
I can't cope with this threading hijacking. As I said in my first
post, I do have a serious problem I am trying to solve.

I will browse the mailing list for a while, just in case somebody out
there wants to help and I will be back (to debian-accessibility) once
I find a working solution.

For the time being, I need to give to my mailbox a well deserved break.

Thanks again to those who helped.

Bye,
Loredana

"A chi piu' sa, piu' perder tempo spiace" - Dante Alighieri

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:01:02PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:19:58 +0200
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > So for Mr. Hardt, Kerberos doesn't exist. Or he's talking HTTP context
> > only.
> > 
> 
> MS has used Active Directory in some form or other since Win2000, and
> AD is basically Kerberos plus LDAP. An AD 'domain' is basically a realm.
> 
> So yes, all their technical employees know about it.

There was some sarcasm in my remark ;-)

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Joe]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:19:58 +0200
 wrote:


> 
> So for Mr. Hardt, Kerberos doesn't exist. Or he's talking HTTP context
> only.
> 

MS has used Active Directory in some form or other since Win2000, and
AD is basically Kerberos plus LDAP. An AD 'domain' is basically a realm.

So yes, all their technical employees know about it.

-- 
Joe

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Joe]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:20:29 -0400
Celejar  wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:33:55 +0200
> Alessandro Vesely  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon 19/Aug/2019 18:05:57 +0200 Celejar wrote:  
> > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:21:40 +0200
> > >  wrote:
> > >   
> > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:06:33AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>  
> > >>> I'd love to run my own mail stack, and I think I could handle
> > >>> the software deployment reasonably well, but from everything
> > >>> I've read, the headaches required to make sure that major mail
> > >>> operators will actually accept my mail are more than I have
> > >>> time or patience for:  
> > >>
> > >> It's not /that/ bad. I'm doing it myself, and I'm a C programmer.
> > >> As a sysad I'm a catastrophe :-)  
> > > 
> > > As I've explained, I'm not scared of the basic software
> > > configuration and deployment. I have no patience, however, for
> > > constant monitoring to make sure I stay off blacklists, and
> > > dealing with all sorts of unspecified rules and conditions
> > > established by various organizations for them to accept my mail.  
> > 
> > 
> > The most difficult thing is obtaining an suitable Internet
> > connection.  
> 
> Quite so.

People in the land that invented the Internet often have remarkably
little choice in terms of Internet connection. Many people have only one
option. There are at least three ISPs in the UK which have 'good' IP
addresses and keep them that way.

-- 
Joe

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:33:55 +0200
Alessandro Vesely  wrote:

> On Mon 19/Aug/2019 18:05:57 +0200 Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:21:40 +0200
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:06:33AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> I'd love to run my own mail stack, and I think I could handle the
> >>> software deployment reasonably well, but from everything I've read,
> >>> the headaches required to make sure that major mail operators will
> >>> actually accept my mail are more than I have time or patience for:
> >>
> >> It's not /that/ bad. I'm doing it myself, and I'm a C programmer.
> >> As a sysad I'm a catastrophe :-)
> > 
> > As I've explained, I'm not scared of the basic software configuration
> > and deployment. I have no patience, however, for constant monitoring to
> > make sure I stay off blacklists, and dealing with all sorts of
> > unspecified rules and conditions established by various organizations
> > for them to accept my mail.
> 
> 
> The most difficult thing is obtaining an suitable Internet connection.

Quite so.

Celejar

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Alessandro Vesely]

On Mon 19/Aug/2019 18:05:57 +0200 Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:21:40 +0200
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:06:33AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I'd love to run my own mail stack, and I think I could handle the
>>> software deployment reasonably well, but from everything I've read,
>>> the headaches required to make sure that major mail operators will
>>> actually accept my mail are more than I have time or patience for:
>>
>> It's not /that/ bad. I'm doing it myself, and I'm a C programmer.
>> As a sysad I'm a catastrophe :-)
> 
> As I've explained, I'm not scared of the basic software configuration
> and deployment. I have no patience, however, for constant monitoring to
> make sure I stay off blacklists, and dealing with all sorts of
> unspecified rules and conditions established by various organizations
> for them to accept my mail.


The most difficult thing is obtaining an suitable Internet connection.
 As an alternative, someone upstream suggested a hosting site.  I keep
forgetting how that would be better than Google.  I get quite a few
thank-you messages every day from DigitalOcean Security, Google Cloud
Platform, Amazon EC2, and similar providers to whom my server sends
abuse complaints automatically.  Sometimes I get notifications that
the relevant account was stroked.  What does go wrong there?

For one thing, among the eight support tools listed in the cited Ars
Technica howto there's no firewall.  Having the server /in the office/
and working at its console makes it much easier to see what's going
on.  I think that's what everybody should be doing.  It is a social
abuse that server connections cost so much more than residential ones,
and if I were a conspiracy theorist I would point my finger there.


Best
Ale

Why I mistrust bigcorps [was: webmail and email from command line]

[tomas]

[note: veering dangerously off-topic. If anyone kicks us out,
I'll accept without protesting]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:03:25PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:19:58 +0200
>  wrote:

[...]

> > Edited by D. Hardt, Microsoft. Hmmm.
> 
> Ad hominem.

rather ad corporationem. Mr. Hardt most probably is a nice guy
himself.


> > > Third-party applications are required to store the resource
> > >   owner's credentials for future use, typically a password in
> > >   clear-text.
> > 
> > So for Mr. Hardt, Kerberos doesn't exist. Or he's talking HTTP context
> > only.
> 
> Not sure what your point is here: how are the relative merits of
> OAuth and Kerberos [...]

The way you quoted rfc6749 made it seem that its way of handling
third-party authentication was unique. It is not. But for "normal"
mail business it isn't even necessary!

> > But I disgress: more interesting is this [1]:
> > 
> >"Eran Hammer resigned his role of lead author for the OAuth
> > 2.0 project, withdrew from the IETF working group, and removed
> > his name from the specification in July 2012. Hammer cited a
> > conflict between web and enterprise cultures as his reason
> > for leaving, noting that IETF is a community that is 'all
> > about enterprise use cases' and 'not capable of simple.'"
> 
> Not sure how this is relevant to our discussion.
> 
> > See also "decommoditizing protocols [2]
> 
> Relevance? Explain?

It is very much: it illustrates how bigcorps subvert standadrs
processes and use their leverage to influence perception ("not
secure" as a moniker for "not OAuth" or "not our way") to nudge
people.

> You're not addressing what I wrote: I cited the OAuth RFC's explanation
> for why something like OAuth is more secure than plain password
> authentication. You've thrown in all sorts of interesting history and
> ideology, but haven't directly addressed the points in the RFC.

OAuth may be "more secure for third-party website authentication",
that is what it was made for. It definitely isn't more secure
than "pasword authentication over a verified TLS link", and that's
how e.g. IMAP works. Heck, I'd venture that IMAPS is more secure,
because simpler (no third party).

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Remember that Google is an advertising company?
> 
> Of course I remember, but you keep ignoring the technical points I'm
> making, and instead argue from ideology and innuendo. Do you or
> do you not agree that much of Chrome / Chromium's success for years was
> due to its technical merits?

Not really. Firefox had its weak phase, but it was short and seems
over. And I'm sure that it is in Google's strategy to influence that
perception.

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:21:40 +0200
 wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:06:33AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I'd love to run my own mail stack, and I think I could handle the
> > software deployment reasonably well, but from everything I've read,
> > the headaches required to make sure that major mail operators will
> > actually accept my mail are more than I have time or patience for:
> 
> It's not /that/ bad. I'm doing it myself, and I'm a C programmer.
> As a sysad I'm a catastrophe :-)

As I've explained, I'm not scared of the basic software configuration
and deployment. I have no patience, however, for constant monitoring to
make sure I stay off blacklists, and dealing with all sorts of
unspecified rules and conditions established by various organizations
for them to accept my mail.

Celejar

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:19:58 +0200
 wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:47:55AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> > > >  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:
> 
> Edited by D. Hardt, Microsoft. Hmmm.

Ad hominem.

> > *
> > 
> > In the traditional client-server authentication model [...]
> 
> > Third-party applications are required to store the resource
> >   owner's credentials for future use, typically a password in
> >   clear-text.
> 
> So for Mr. Hardt, Kerberos doesn't exist. Or he's talking HTTP context
> only.

Not sure what your point is here: how are the relative merits of
OAuth and Kerberos relevant to the underlying question of whether it is
or is not reasonable for Google to call OAuth more secure than plain
password authentication?

> But I disgress: more interesting is this [1]:
> 
>"Eran Hammer resigned his role of lead author for the OAuth
> 2.0 project, withdrew from the IETF working group, and removed
> his name from the specification in July 2012. Hammer cited a
> conflict between web and enterprise cultures as his reason
> for leaving, noting that IETF is a community that is 'all
> about enterprise use cases' and 'not capable of simple.'"

Not sure how this is relevant to our discussion.

> See also "decommoditizing protocols [2]

Relevance? Explain?

> > 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".
> 
> Whatever you mean by "none of this": I am interested in security.
> But in /my/ security, on in /your/ security -- not Google's or
> Microsoft's (or whatever bigcorp's out there). Much less in their
> business model's security.

You're not addressing what I wrote: I cited the OAuth RFC's explanation
for why something like OAuth is more secure than plain password
authentication. You've thrown in all sorts of interesting history and
ideology, but haven't directly addressed the points in the RFC.

> > 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.
> 
> Remember that Google is an advertising company?

Of course I remember, but you keep ignoring the technical points I'm
making, and instead argue from ideology and innuendo. Do you or
do you not agree that much of Chrome / Chromium's success for years was
due to its technical merits?

> > 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.]
> 
> [...]
> 
> > We agree - I want it out of my cereal bowl as well ;)
> 
> Google-free cereals for all ;-D

On this we agree!

Celejar

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:29:04AM -0400, Jude DaShiell wrote:

> Google could evaluate the non-browser software in use and pass what is
> secure and fail the other packages with explanations for the authors of
> failed packages [...]

I think it's more subtle than that. "Traditional" (i.e. non-Webmail)
clients are qualified as "insecure" although they haven't to be.

This will softly nudge people towards (Google) webmail.

OTOH I don't want to be misunderstood. Google is big, and they actually
do a couple of things which benefit us all. Project Zero, for one.
Google Summer of Code, for another.

Cheers
-- tomás


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Jude DaShiell]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:19:58
> From: to...@tuxteam.de
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: webmail and email from command line
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:47:55AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> > > >  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:
>
> Edited by D. Hardt, Microsoft. Hmmm.
>
> > *
> >
> > In the traditional client-server authentication model [...]
>
> > Third-party applications are required to store the resource
> >   owner's credentials for future use, typically a password in
> >   clear-text.
>
> So for Mr. Hardt, Kerberos doesn't exist. Or he's talking HTTP context
> only.
>
> But I disgress: more interesting is this [1]:
>
>"Eran Hammer resigned his role of lead author for the OAuth
> 2.0 project, withdrew from the IETF working group, and removed
> his name from the specification in July 2012. Hammer cited a
> conflict between web and enterprise cultures as his reason
> for leaving, noting that IETF is a community that is 'all
> about enterprise use cases' and 'not capable of simple.'"
>
> See also "decommoditizing protocols [2]
>
> > 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".
>
> Whatever you mean by "none of this": I am interested in security.
> But in /my/ security, on in /your/ security -- not Google's or
> Microsoft's (or whatever bigcorp's out there). Much less in their
> business model's security.
>
> > 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.
>
> Remember that Google is an advertising company?
>
> > 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.]
>
> [...]
>
> > We agree - I want it out of my cereal bowl as well ;)
>
> Google-free cereals for all ;-D
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth#Controversy
> [2] https://www.levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html

Google could evaluate the non-browser software in use and pass what is
secure and fail the other packages with explanations for the authors of
failed packages but what google could do and what google is doing or will
be doing are three different matters altogether.  Lord Ackton in his full
quote had a few things to say about this and other corporate situations
in which we find ourselves these days.  By the way, his full quote is
longer than its first seven words and even better for that for my money.

>
> -- t >

-- 

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:06:33AM -0400, Celejar wrote:

[...]

> I'd love to run my own mail stack, and I think I could handle the
> software deployment reasonably well, but from everything I've read,
> the headaches required to make sure that major mail operators will
> actually accept my mail are more than I have time or patience for:

It's not /that/ bad. I'm doing it myself, and I'm a C programmer.
As a sysad I'm a catastrophe :-)

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:47:55AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
>  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> > >  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:

Edited by D. Hardt, Microsoft. Hmmm.

> *
> 
> In the traditional client-server authentication model [...]

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

So for Mr. Hardt, Kerberos doesn't exist. Or he's talking HTTP context
only.

But I disgress: more interesting is this [1]:

   "Eran Hammer resigned his role of lead author for the OAuth
2.0 project, withdrew from the IETF working group, and removed
his name from the specification in July 2012. Hammer cited a
conflict between web and enterprise cultures as his reason
for leaving, noting that IETF is a community that is 'all
about enterprise use cases' and 'not capable of simple.'"

See also "decommoditizing protocols [2]

> 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".

Whatever you mean by "none of this": I am interested in security.
But in /my/ security, on in /your/ security -- not Google's or
Microsoft's (or whatever bigcorp's out there). Much less in their
business model's security.

> 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.

Remember that Google is an advertising company?

> 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.]

[...]

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

Google-free cereals for all ;-D

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth#Controversy
[2] https://www.levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html

-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:33:52 +0200
Alessandro Vesely  wrote:

>  On Mon 19/Aug/2019 03:15:45 +0200 Celejar wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Breaking of standards?  Not sure about the web, but for email
> protocols Google counts many active participants and gmail is often
> among the early adopters (e.g. ARC).

I think I've seen many reports of Gmail's breaking of standards over
the years, but here's one that I've been able to find:

http://pyropus.ca/software/getmail/faq.html#faq-notabug-gmail-bug

...

> At this point I realize this message is not so off-topic as I had
> figured when I hit the reply button.  So, let me mention I'm also
> still running my own server.  I use Courier-MTA, which integrates SMTP
> and IMAP with maildrop (delivery agent and mail filter) and a plethora
> of utilities.  Of course, I recommend it.

I'd love to run my own mail stack, and I think I could handle the
software deployment reasonably well, but from everything I've read,
the headaches required to make sure that major mail operators will
actually accept my mail are more than I have time or patience for:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/how-to-run-your-own-e-mail-server-with-your-own-domain-part-1/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/review-helm-personal-server-gets-email-self-hosting-almost-exactly-right/

Celejar

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
 wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> >  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Alessandro Vesely]

 On Mon 19/Aug/2019 03:15:45 +0200 Celejar wrote:
> 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.


Breaking of standards?  Not sure about the web, but for email
protocols Google counts many active participants and gmail is often
among the early adopters (e.g. ARC).

On the other hand, I am perplexed when I see epic personalities of
IETF standard making, like Brian Carpenter, Dave Crocket, and many
other, preferably use gmail addresses.  Most of them used to prefer
sending from their own mail servers.  Obviously, they find gmail more
convenient...  Of course, protocols will be useless when there will be
just one or two providers.

Even John Klensin, the author of ESMTP, although he uses his own
domain for sending mail through Exim, uses outlook.com for incoming
MX.  Presumably, that's more convenient than maintaining efficient
anti-virus and anti-spam.  Notably, as an SMTP purist, John deploys
neither SPF nor DKIM.

At this point I realize this message is not so off-topic as I had
figured when I hit the reply button.  So, let me mention I'm also
still running my own server.  I use Courier-MTA, which integrates SMTP
and IMAP with maildrop (delivery agent and mail filter) and a plethora
of utilities.  Of course, I recommend it.


jm2c
Ale

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Nektarios Katakis]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200
 wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
> >  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
>  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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200
 wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
> >  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
>  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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200
 wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:02:57PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +
> > loredana  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Jude DaShiell]

anyone who needs that, needs a burner account.  Those are lots less
permanent and when your account is taken by someone else since you have
no way to recover that account it's understood whatever you had in it
was encrypted and is disposible.  Google provides a higher level of
management than you need for this kind of account.  The aol "service" it
turns out had these kind of accounts which once a screen name was taken
over you lost the account that went with it.
Search for public internet sites and check out what mail services those
have to offer and I think you'll be happy.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, loredana wrote:

> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 11:26:53
> From: loredana 
> To: Jude DaShiell 
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: webmail and email from command line
> Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:27:39 + (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:51 PM Jude DaShiell  wrote:
>
> > Running using 2fa may be possible with non-browser apps if your security
> > records indicate you ran with what google considers an untrusted app and
> > google has it listed.  You can generate an app-specific password for the
> > non-browser app and will need to save it.  Then you modify your
> > non-browser app settings on local machine and key in that app-specific
> > password in place of the other password you used earlier.  This has been
> > documented for mutt as being possible and may work for other non-browser
> > apps too.  You'll need to give google a mobile number for account
> > recovery and the like too.
>
> Yes, that should work too (see the first mail in this thread).
>
> But ... what stopped me and made me think is: what if I prefer to have
> access to "my" mail without giving up a mobile or not so mobile
> telephone number?
>
> I am happier if this is made possible for everybody who prefer so via
> a free application. Not sure gmailieer is going to work, not until I
> try it. Bu it looks promising.
>
> Cheers,
> Loredana
>
>

-- 

Re: webmail and email from command line

[lena]

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.

Re: webmail and email from command line

[loredana]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:51 PM Jude DaShiell  wrote:

> Running using 2fa may be possible with non-browser apps if your security
> records indicate you ran with what google considers an untrusted app and
> google has it listed.  You can generate an app-specific password for the
> non-browser app and will need to save it.  Then you modify your
> non-browser app settings on local machine and key in that app-specific
> password in place of the other password you used earlier.  This has been
> documented for mutt as being possible and may work for other non-browser
> apps too.  You'll need to give google a mobile number for account
> recovery and the like too.

Yes, that should work too (see the first mail in this thread).

But ... what stopped me and made me think is: what if I prefer to have
access to "my" mail without giving up a mobile or not so mobile
telephone number?

I am happier if this is made possible for everybody who prefer so via
a free application. Not sure gmailieer is going to work, not until I
try it. Bu it looks promising.

Cheers,
Loredana

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Jude DaShiell]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, loredana wrote:

> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:02:17
> From: loredana 
> To: Celejar 
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: webmail and email from command line
> Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:03:05 + (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> First of all, I wish to thank all of you who shared their experience.
> Be reassured I am taking any constructive suggestion into serious
> account and exploring more.
>
> Then:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:03 AM Celejar  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +000
>
> > loredana  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 am following the google development on this issue, but I got the
> date from the mu4e mailing list. I'l post the link, if I can find it
> again (remember, I am almost blind and even replying to email is, at
> the moment, really slow and difficult).
>
> > 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.
>
> In the email that started this thread, I tried to make clear that this
> is something happening "now". I use the internet for crossing oceans
> quickly since bitnet and I remember whet google was born as
> google."org". I am myself a long term gmail user and this is why I
> carefully look after main changes. The way email clients will
> authenticate to gmail is drfinitely one of them and is going to affect
> us for sure.
>
> I may be able to be more responsive once I find a good way of avoiding 
> webmail.
> Meanwhile, here is the best I could find toward a possible solution
> that may help avoid the OAUTH2 authorization issue by complying with
> it.
>
> You need debian buster as a minimum, then look at the gmailieer
> package. It seems to be oauth2 enabled and therefore be able to access
> gmail and possibly other mail providers. I still have to test it. If
> you try it, be careful because it requires notmuch and notmuch is in
> the less secure apps list, so you have to allow less secure apps
> first, I guess, and hopefully be able to set it off/on as you like
> again (if you can, this will probably get a feeling about the pain
> ...).
>
> gmailieer is GPLv3+ and in debian. IMHO this these are two good
> things. The debian package page:
> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gmailieer
>
> It seems that mbsync (isink) is on itw long way to become OAUTH2
> enableb, too, as possibly other applications. It is a matter of timen
> and the free software community will catch up, as usual.
>
> I don't think the authentication issue is going to affect webmail
> users for a while.

Running using 2fa may be possible with non-browser apps if your security
records indicate you ran with what google considers an untrusted app and
google has it listed.  You can generate an app-specific password for the
non-browser app and will need to save it.  Then you modify your
non-browser app settings on local machine and key in that app-specific
password in place of the other password you used earlier.  This has been
documented for mutt as being possible and may work for other non-browser
apps too.  You'll need to give google a mobile number for account
recovery and the like too.

> > Loredana > >

--

Re: webmail and email from command line

[loredana]

First of all, I wish to thank all of you who shared their experience.
Be reassured I am taking any constructive suggestion into serious
account and exploring more.

Then:

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:03 AM Celejar  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +000

> loredana  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 am following the google development on this issue, but I got the
date from the mu4e mailing list. I'l post the link, if I can find it
again (remember, I am almost blind and even replying to email is, at
the moment, really slow and difficult).

> 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.

In the email that started this thread, I tried to make clear that this
is something happening "now". I use the internet for crossing oceans
quickly since bitnet and I remember whet google was born as
google."org". I am myself a long term gmail user and this is why I
carefully look after main changes. The way email clients will
authenticate to gmail is drfinitely one of them and is going to affect
us for sure.

I may be able to be more responsive once I find a good way of avoiding webmail.
Meanwhile, here is the best I could find toward a possible solution
that may help avoid the OAUTH2 authorization issue by complying with
it.

You need debian buster as a minimum, then look at the gmailieer
package. It seems to be oauth2 enabled and therefore be able to access
gmail and possibly other mail providers. I still have to test it. If
you try it, be careful because it requires notmuch and notmuch is in
the less secure apps list, so you have to allow less secure apps
first, I guess, and hopefully be able to set it off/on as you like
again (if you can, this will probably get a feeling about the pain
...).

gmailieer is GPLv3+ and in debian. IMHO this these are two good
things. The debian package page:
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gmailieer

It seems that mbsync (isink) is on itw long way to become OAUTH2
enableb, too, as possibly other applications. It is a matter of timen
and the free software community will catch up, as usual.

I don't think the authentication issue is going to affect webmail
users for a while.

Loredana

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:02:57PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +
> loredana  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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:49 +
loredana  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Celejar]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 18:23:23 +0200
to...@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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[David Wright]

On Wed 14 Aug 2019 at 12:19:01 (-0600), Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> loredana  writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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.

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Joe Dennigan]

to...@tuxteam.de writes:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:02:01PM +, loredana wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Joe Pfeiffer]

loredana  writes:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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. 

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Paul Sutton]

On 14/08/2019 19:02, loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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/ - zl...@social.isurf.ca

Re: webmail and email from command line

[Dan Purgert]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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 "y...@gmail.com".
You'll just be replying from "y...@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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:02:01PM +, loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: webmail and email from command line

[john doe]

On 8/14/2019 8:02 PM, loredana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[loredana]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM  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

Re: webmail and email from command line

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:24:49PM +, 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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

webmail and email from command line

[loredana]

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 @gmail.com --server smtp.gmail.com

Be careful with spoken passwords ..

Loredana

Re: Webmail colaboratif

[G2PC]

Le 07/09/2018 à 15:03, Eric Bernard a écrit :
> Bonjour,
> je recherche un webmail collaboratif installable sur un hébergement
> web (ovh) et si possible gratuit...
>
> que me conseillez-vous

Quatre Webmail connus :   

Roundcube

Zimbra

SquirrelMail

RainLoop

Webmail colaboratif

[Eric Bernard]

Bonjour,
je recherche un webmail collaboratif installable sur un hébergement web 
(ovh) et si possible gratuit...


que me conseillez-vous ?


Cordialement


--



  Eric BERNARD
  Responsable informatique
  et multimédia
  02 41 51 11 36

Re: Webmail?

[Richard Hector]

On 02/07/18 00:53, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2018-07-01 hackte Zenaan Harkness in die Tasten:
>> And with your self-issued snake oil certs,
> 
> I use "Let's Encrypt"!
> 
> 

That link doesn't seem to be a good advertisement for how to set up
https ... I get an SSL error. :-)

It wouldn't help much anyway, in this context; perhaps you meant to link
to https://letsencrypt.org/ ?

Richard



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Webmail?

[Darac Marjal]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 08:02:33PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:

On 02.07.2018 14:22, Greg Wooledge wrote:

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 05:29:02PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:



there is no php5 in debian stretch.


She probably upgraded from jessie, in which case the php5 that she had
in jessie remained in place after the upgrade to stretch.


Yes, agree. And as we discussed in another thread in this list, purging
obsolete packages after a dist upgrade will also make sure that nobody
use unsupported packages like php5.


Shouldn't packages like that be removed by apt's "no longer depended on" 
logic?


For a long time, I've been using apt (and aptitude) with the mantra of 
"keep as much marked-as-auto as possible". Although I don't write php 
myself, I use packages (such as roundcube) which use php. Therefore I 
have roundcube marked as manually installed and any 
runtimes/libraries/data packages that it depends on marked as 
automatically installed. In that way, if roundcube upgrades from php5 to 
php7, and nothing else depends on php5, then apt simply removes it. 
Manually install the things YOU want, let apt automatically handle the 
rest.


Even on the machines where I've followed sid, this has generally worked 
out well.


--
For more information, please reread.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Webmail?

[Ulf Volmer]

On 02.07.2018 14:22, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 05:29:02PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:

>> there is no php5 in debian stretch.
> 
> She probably upgraded from jessie, in which case the php5 that she had
> in jessie remained in place after the upgrade to stretch.

Yes, agree. And as we discussed in another thread in this list, purging
obsolete packages after a dist upgrade will also make sure that nobody
use unsupported packages like php5.

best regards
Ulf

Re: Webmail?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 05:29:02PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
> On 01.07.2018 11:43, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Oi, I see, I have installed Stretch last year and PHP5 was there.
> 
> No.
> 
> there is no php5 in debian stretch.

She probably upgraded from jessie, in which case the php5 that she had
in jessie remained in place after the upgrade to stretch.

As Ulf says, a *new* install of stretch will not be able to install
php5 unless you add a jessie source.

Re: Webmail?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:40:13PM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 01/07/18 21:57, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >> Oh, use https:// and make sure any security is activated in conf.pl.
> 
> > And with your self-issued snake oil certs, make sure you check and
> > confirm the cert on each device you want to use to access your
> > webmail server, from your home network, so that if you eventually
> > tunnel in or otherwise access it 'on the road', you have already
> > verified your own snake oil cert and a MITM should stand out like
> > unicorn balls.
> 
> For any server on the internet, I don't see the point in using
> self-signed certs any more, now that letsencrypt gives you real ones for
> free.

Only a -true- Scotsman would self sign and issue his own SSL certs :)

I believe it's degrees of snake oil...


> It's a bit more of a pain for a server that's only accessed internally,
> but still doable, if you can set up a dummy site for verification (there
> are ways to do it without a web server, but I haven't needed that yet)

It's actually a bit of an open question, but the real question is
"what level of security do you actually need or want?" … of course.

Consider e.g.:

 - how to conduct an MITM?
   - get a copy of private key, issue additional cert
   - get private key, issue intermediate cert
   - get intermediate cert key, issue other intermediate certs

 - is an MITM of concern to you?
   - I do/don't care if the govt has open access to my certs,
 and can/can't MITM my users
   - I do/don't care if Random J Cracker can MITM my telecommuting
 co-workers

Most of us by now will have read at least one article about the CIA
and NSA's cornucopia of network cracking tools, bugs, physical
network bugs and "rogue" hosts hosted at every host hoster worth his
hosting salt - google, amazon, your local ISP, etc - oh, and "by
consent, possibly with $ inducement and implied threat of legal
sanction for failure to 'co-operate' with said inducement".

But again, what level of security do you need?

 ∙ If you want minimum pain web servers accessible to the public,
   providing "basic trust level", then LetsEncrypt is likely your
   best approach.

 ∙ If you don't have "general public access" as a requirement, and
   you are willing to double check each device accessing your local
   network to ensure they've each pre-loaded your internal-only web
   server cert, then your own PKI and self signed certs may give you
   higher security (barring catastrophic mistakes on your part), and
   certainly more control.

   In this scenario, if you don't need control over the private keys
   to your electronic kingdom - by all means, use a commercial or
   free provider, and LetsEncrypt is perhaps about as good as it
   gets.

   For those after a higher level of certainty and control however,
   there is no substitute to offline master key generation and
   storage, private PKI and total in-house control over all
   sub-keys/sub-certs, issuances, revocations and per-device key
   signature double checking.

If you want anything even resembling certainty that is...


Here's a true fist hand anecdote:

 A few years ago, I was setting up a VM and some basic web services
 for a client with a top tier 'reputable' provider - one of the
 largest in Australia, at least at the time.

 When connecting via ssh for the first time, the usual "This is a new
 host, here's the sig, do you confirm this is the correct signature"
 type message came up.

 So I check the time and it's well after peak hour (about 11pm), and
 quickly dial their 24-hour tech support line, asking for someone to
 please check the host signature (this was virtual hosting, just
 before VMs took off), so as to preclude any superficial MITM
 swankery.

 The tech says to me "Um, I'm not sure about that, I've never been
 asked that question before," and promptly bumps it up to a deep tech
 PoC (person of competency), who double checks the host SSH sig hash
 from their internal network, confirms it's correct, then he too says
 "you know, as far as I'm aware, in over 15 years, this is the first
 time, ever, that any client has ever asked us to confirm their end
 to end encryption/ signature!" I confirmed that he had in fact
 worked at the company since it began.


And most important - if you intend to configure your own PKI for
"increased security" purposes, note that you really need to make sure
you use certificate pinning for your own org's certs, or disable the
other CAs "by default trusted" by your client OS browsers! - The easy
way is use a Firefox profile for your company/ internal websites/
VPN/ telecommuters and make sure only your CA is the trusted root in
that profile! (and make sure that your internal web sites can only be
accessed from that profile) :

 Are self-signed certificates 

Re: Webmail?

[Ulf Volmer]

On 01.07.2018 11:43, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Oi, I see, I have installed Stretch last year and PHP5 was there.

No.

> However, it seems the php5 virtualpackage is still in place,
> but not the corresponding real package,
> which seems to be removed by the Debian Team.

there is no php5 in debian stretch.

best regards
Ulf

Re: Webmail?

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2018-07-01 hackte Zenaan Harkness in die Tasten:
> And with your self-issued snake oil certs,

I use "Let's Encrypt"!



-- 
Michelle KonzackMiila ITSystems @ TDnet
GNU/Linux Developer 00372-54541400

Re: Webmail?

[Richard Hector]

On 01/07/18 21:57, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> Oh, use https:// and make sure any security is activated in conf.pl.

> And with your self-issued snake oil certs, make sure you check and
> confirm the cert on each device you want to use to access your
> webmail server, from your home network, so that if you eventually
> tunnel in or otherwise access it 'on the road', you have already
> verified your own snake oil cert and a MITM should stand out like
> unicorn balls.

For any server on the internet, I don't see the point in using
self-signed certs any more, now that letsencrypt gives you real ones for
free.

It's a bit more of a pain for a server that's only accessed internally,
but still doable, if you can set up a dummy site for verification (there
are ways to do it without a web server, but I haven't needed that yet)

Richard



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Webmail?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:57:53AM +0300, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I know, I am a little bit late, but I use Squirrelmail since more
> then 15 years now and had no problems from Woody to Stretch with it.
>
> I use it even to access my GMail account  :-)  because then I have
> not to bother with those stupid GMail interface and I can do whatever
> I want.
>
> Best is you create a seperated Virtualhost like 
> and decompress the Squirrelmail archive into it. The run the config
> script in  [DOCROOT]/config/conf.pl and set it up.
>
> Should work out of the box.
>
> Oh, use https:// and make sure any security is activated in conf.pl.

And with your self-issued snake oil certs, make sure you check and
confirm the cert on each device you want to use to access your
webmail server, from your home network, so that if you eventually
tunnel in or otherwise access it 'on the road', you have already
verified your own snake oil cert and a MITM should stand out like
unicorn balls.

Good luck,

Re: Webmail?

[Michelle Konzack]

Oi, I see, I have installed Stretch last year and PHP5 was there.
PHP7 is MOSTLY incompatible with PHP5!

However, it seems the php5 virtualpackage is still in place,
but not the corresponding real package,
which seems to be removed by the Debian Team.


Am 2018-07-01 hackte Joe in die Tasten:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:22:14 +0300
> "Michelle Konzack"  wrote:
>
>> Am DATE hackte AUTHOR in die Tasten: Joe
>> > No, stretch doesn't have php5. I've already had to go through
>> loads
>> > of php, replacing stuff which has been deprecated for a while and
>> > now no longer exists.
>>
>> Ehm what?
>>
>> Here php5 is working properly!
>> I run it on all of my servers.
>>
>> You mean there is no php7 in Stretch!
>>
>
> I'm sure it's doable if the need is great enough, but no, Debian
> packages shows it in wheezy, jessie and sid only.

-- 
Michelle KonzackMiila ITSystems @ TDnet
GNU/Linux Developer 00372-54541400

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:57:53 +0300
"Michelle Konzack"  wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> I know, I am a little bit late, but I use Squirrelmail since more
> then 15 years now and had no problems from Woody to Stretch with it.
> 
> I use it even to access my GMail account  :-)  because then I have
> not to bother with those stupid GMail interface and I can do whatever
> I want.
> 
> Best is you create a seperated Virtualhost like 
> and decompress the Squirrelmail archive into it. The run the config
> script in  [DOCROOT]/config/conf.pl and set it up.
> 
> Should work out of the box.
> 
> Oh, use https:// and make sure any security is activated in conf.pl.
> 
> Have a nice Sunday

Thanks, I've used it for about ten years up to wheezy, it has always
been plan B, I'd just prefer Debian-supported software if possible.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:22:14 +0300
"Michelle Konzack"  wrote:

> Am DATE hackte AUTHOR in die Tasten: Joe
> > No, stretch doesn't have php5. I've already had to go through loads
> > of php, replacing stuff which has been deprecated for a while and
> > now no longer exists.  
> 
> Ehm what?
> 
> Here php5 is working properly!
> I run it on all of my servers.
> 
> You mean there is no php7 in Stretch!
> 

I'm sure it's doable if the need is great enough, but no, Debian
packages shows it in wheezy, jessie and sid only.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[Michelle Konzack]

Am DATE hackte AUTHOR in die Tasten: Joe
> No, stretch doesn't have php5. I've already had to go through loads of
> php, replacing stuff which has been deprecated for a while and now no
> longer exists.

Ehm what?

Here php5 is working properly!
I run it on all of my servers.

You mean there is no php7 in Stretch!

-- 
Michelle KonzackMiila ITSystems @ TDnet
GNU/Linux Developer 00372-54541400

Re: Webmail?

[Michelle Konzack]

Hi Joe,

I know, I am a little bit late, but I use Squirrelmail since more
then 15 years now and had no problems from Woody to Stretch with it.

I use it even to access my GMail account  :-)  because then I have
not to bother with those stupid GMail interface and I can do whatever
I want.

Best is you create a seperated Virtualhost like 
and decompress the Squirrelmail archive into it. The run the config
script in  [DOCROOT]/config/conf.pl and set it up.

Should work out of the box.

Oh, use https:// and make sure any security is activated in conf.pl.

Have a nice Sunday
Michelle

Am 2018-06-29 hackte Joe in die Tasten:
> Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
>
> I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then prayer.
>
> Roundcube works (allegedly) with apache. I'm not an expert on apache2,
> but as far as I can see, there is an apache2.conf existing and enabled
> for roundcube, and it leads via an alias to a real index.php in the
> right place. I just get a 404, and I've tried with and without a
> trailing slash and a final index.php. Yes, I've restarted apache2,
> several times, and my other php stuff on the server works.
>
> Prayer seems incomplete. There is no process running (it's supposedly
> standalone) and the configuration file seems untouched from upstream.
> I
> expect Debian packages to deal with the plumbing, connecting it to my
> mailboxes and MTA, and setting any ports necessary, maybe asking me a
> few questions. The configuration file contains no mention of anything
> but University of Cambridge links, and the port is 80, despite my
> having a working apache2 there throughout the installation. It may be
> as simple as changing that to an unused port (plus associated firewall
> fiddling) but I didn't try it, as I'm sure a lot of other stuff needs
> doing.
>
> It was a long time ago that I put Squirrelmail, no longer a Debian
> package, on my old server but I'm pretty sure I installed it and it
> Just Worked.
>
> Does anyone have either of these packages working, or indeed Yet
> Another webmail? I must make clear that it's a backup measure, I've
> yet
> to find a webmail I could stand using every day, but I've found it
> useful on several occasions when other things have stopped working.


-- 
Michelle KonzackMiila ITSystems @ TDnet
GNU/Linux Developer 00372-54541400

Re: Webmail?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 08:25:41AM +0100, mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:
> > Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
> > 
> > I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then prayer.
> 
> been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home network.
> getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at this stuff.

For sieve, make sure you batch-process your emails where
possible. E.g. for bastion end user workstation setup, getmail or
mpop to download in a batch, have it dump the incoming mails to a tmp
file, then run sieve on that file - I find mail dl excrutiatingly
slow without one of those batch downloaders, and sieve must compile
all the rules - no point doing that for each email, just for the
batch. Good luck,

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:41:01 +0100
mick crane  wrote:

> On 2018-06-30 08:42, Joe wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 08:25:41 +0100
> > mick crane  wrote:
> >   
> >> On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:  
> >> > Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
> >> >
> >> > I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then
> >> > prayer.  
> >> 
> >> been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home
> >> network.
> >> getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at
> >> this stuff.
> >> 
> >> the Dovecot wiki is very good.
> >>   
> > 
> > I'm replacing a server, I've used Courier IMAP for many years but
> > decided to go with Dovecot this time. That was no trouble at all, it
> > Just Worked.  
> 
> well you need to set up the databases
> 

Debian does that sort of thing automagically. I have a working mariadb
so that will be used by anything that needs it.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:56:50 +0100
mick crane  wrote:

> On 2018-06-30 08:42, Joe wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 08:25:41 +0100
> > mick crane  wrote:
> >   
> >> On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:  
> >> > Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
> >> >
> >> > I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then
> >> > prayer.  
> >> 
> >> been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home
> >> network.
> >> getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at
> >> this stuff.
> >> 
> >> the Dovecot wiki is very good.
> >>   
> > 
> > I'm replacing a server, I've used Courier IMAP for many years but
> > decided to go with Dovecot this time. That was no trouble at all, it
> > Just Worked.  
> 
> I don't remember exactly
> make sure apache is working and has php5 (isn't it ? ) in the
> protocols. 

No, stretch doesn't have php5. I've already had to go through loads of
php, replacing stuff which has been deprecated for a while and now no
longer exists.

> go through the steps using telnet in the dovecot wiki
> "testing the installation"
> in the roundcube directory, think it is in config, there is a testing 
> page that you make executable
> which helpfully indicates what is and isn't working.

OK, thanks, I'll give that a try next time I have some time.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[mick crane]

On 2018-06-30 08:42, Joe wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 08:25:41 +0100
mick crane  wrote:


On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:
> Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
>
> I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then
> prayer.

been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home
network.
getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at
this stuff.

the Dovecot wiki is very good.



I'm replacing a server, I've used Courier IMAP for many years but
decided to go with Dovecot this time. That was no trouble at all, it
Just Worked.


I don't remember exactly
make sure apache is working and has php5 (isn't it ? ) in the protocols.
go through the steps using telnet in the dovecot wiki "testing the 
installation"
in the roundcube directory, think it is in config, there is a testing 
page that you make executable

which helpfully indicates what is and isn't working.


mick
--
Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: Webmail?

[mick crane]

On 2018-06-30 08:42, Joe wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 08:25:41 +0100
mick crane  wrote:


On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:
> Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
>
> I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then
> prayer.

been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home
network.
getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at
this stuff.

the Dovecot wiki is very good.



I'm replacing a server, I've used Courier IMAP for many years but
decided to go with Dovecot this time. That was no trouble at all, it
Just Worked.


well you need to set up the databases

--
Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:59:50 +0200
Dominik George  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
> > 
> > I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then
> > prayer.
> > 
> > Roundcube works (allegedly) with apache. I'm not an expert on
> > apache2, but as far as I can see, there is an apache2.conf existing
> > and enabled for roundcube, and it leads via an alias to a real
> > index.php in the right place. I just get a 404, and I've tried with
> > and without a trailing slash and a final index.php. Yes, I've
> > restarted apache2, several times, and my other php stuff on the
> > server works.  
> 
> So, Roundcube works like a charm here.
> 
> Are you willing to get down to „I seem unable to set it up“ rather
> than „webmail in Debian is shit“?  If so, we could certainly proceed
> to finding out why you fail setting it up .

Of course. It's been around for a while, and if it didn't work for
anybody, it would have been fixed by now. But much of my time was
spent poking around the web for clues, without success, so I've asked
here in case there's a simple 'ah, you forgot to do ' that I
haven't found.

This is a web problem, nothing to do with roundcube, but as I said, as
far as I can see, the bits are in place for apache2 to work, I just
can't see why it isn't. This isn't the first alias/symlink php thing
I've had trouble with, but previously the cause has been obvious, a
missing or incorrect symlink, a filename wrong. For example, I've found
references to 'roundcubemail' as part of the calling URL, but the
apache2.conf file alias is clearly just 'roundcube'. I've tried both,
of course, just in case...

As for prayer, that just plain looks wrong, as if someone has taken an
in-house program from UofC and just dropped it into the Debian
repository, without actually adding the stuff to make it install
properly. I'm genuinely curious as to whether that works for anyone.
I've just replied here about mariadb, which in its early days in
Debian, also wasn't 'plumbed in' properly, so I know it can happen. But
there are a few more avenues to explore before I raise a bug report.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 08:25:41 +0100
mick crane  wrote:

> On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:
> > Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
> > 
> > I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then
> > prayer.  
> 
> been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home 
> network.
> getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at
> this stuff.
> 
> the Dovecot wiki is very good.
> 

I'm replacing a server, I've used Courier IMAP for many years but
decided to go with Dovecot this time. That was no trouble at all, it
Just Worked.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[mick crane]

On 2018-06-29 21:04, Joe wrote:

Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?

I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then prayer.


been using dovecot, roundcube, getmail for some time just for home 
network.
getting sieve to work was a chore for me but I'm not very good at this 
stuff.


the Dovecot wiki is very good.


mick



--
Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: Webmail?

[Philippe Clérié]

On 06/29/2018 04:04 PM, Joe wrote:

I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then prayer.


You probably skipped a couple of steps there. Before prayer, I usually 
go through head banging, hair pulling, troubleshooting, not to mention 
copious swearing, then maybe some sleep. The solution is often obvious 
in the morning, when I find that my problems were self inflicted.


:-D


--
Philippe

--
The trouble with common sense it that it is so uncommon.

Re: Webmail?

[Dominik George]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?
> 
> I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then prayer.
> 
> Roundcube works (allegedly) with apache. I'm not an expert on apache2,
> but as far as I can see, there is an apache2.conf existing and enabled
> for roundcube, and it leads via an alias to a real index.php in the
> right place. I just get a 404, and I've tried with and without a
> trailing slash and a final index.php. Yes, I've restarted apache2,
> several times, and my other php stuff on the server works.

So, Roundcube works like a charm here.

Are you willing to get down to „I seem unable to set it up“ rather than
„webmail in Debian is shit“?  If so, we could certainly proceed to finding
out why you fail setting it up .

Cheers,
Nik


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Webmail?

[Joe]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 22:42:38 +0200
deloptes  wrote:

> Joe wrote:
> 
> > Roundcube works (allegedly) with apache. I'm not an expert on
> > apache2, but as far as I can see, there is an apache2.conf existing
> > and enabled for roundcube, and it leads via an alias to a real
> > index.php in the right place. I just get a 404, and I've tried with
> > and without a trailing slash and a final index.php. Yes, I've
> > restarted apache2, several times, and my other php stuff on the
> > server works.  
> 
> you disqualify for your own question
> 
> webmail is just an interface and yes you need a web server. It might
> be not apache, but you must know how to configure and run web server.
> 
> last but not least the mail must come from somewhere, so you need a
> mail backend server - usually IMAP to serve your mails and you need
> an SMTP server to send/receive mails.
> 
> when you qualify for the 3 you may proceed, but anyway it is not for
> home use - I mean you can run it at home, but anyhow you need to get
> your mail from somewhere and send mail to somewhere and there are so
> many scenarios and way that it is hard to put it in few sentences.
> 
> Most of the meaningful scenarios imply having a FQDN and MX record.
> 
> What people also do is use imapsync to sync to local imap and server
> the mails.
> 
> What most people use is dovecot, exim, spam and antivirus software
> hooked to exim and any mail client. I have also seen dbmail in use.
> 
> I am trying to save you some time and point you to the fact that this
> is not something you setup in one day.
> 

Yes it is, actually. I've been running an exim4/IMAP DNS-based mail
setup for nearly twenty years, I do know a bit about it. Webmail is an
accessory, that can work in addition to proper email. In the case of
Squirrelmail, that's exactly what it did. I was expecting roundcube to
similarly just 'drop in'.

-- 
Joe

Re: Webmail?

[deloptes]

Joe wrote:

> Roundcube works (allegedly) with apache. I'm not an expert on apache2,
> but as far as I can see, there is an apache2.conf existing and enabled
> for roundcube, and it leads via an alias to a real index.php in the
> right place. I just get a 404, and I've tried with and without a
> trailing slash and a final index.php. Yes, I've restarted apache2,
> several times, and my other php stuff on the server works.

you disqualify for your own question

webmail is just an interface and yes you need a web server. It might be not
apache, but you must know how to configure and run web server.

last but not least the mail must come from somewhere, so you need a mail
backend server - usually IMAP to serve your mails and you need an SMTP
server to send/receive mails.

when you qualify for the 3 you may proceed, but anyway it is not for home
use - I mean you can run it at home, but anyhow you need to get your mail
from somewhere and send mail to somewhere and there are so many scenarios
and way that it is hard to put it in few sentences.

Most of the meaningful scenarios imply having a FQDN and MX record.

What people also do is use imapsync to sync to local imap and server the
mails.

What most people use is dovecot, exim, spam and antivirus software hooked to
exim and any mail client. I have also seen dbmail in use.

I am trying to save you some time and point you to the fact that this is not
something you setup in one day.

regards

Webmail?

[Joe]

Anyone know of a webmail that works on stretch?

I've just spent half an afternoon trying first roundcube then prayer.

Roundcube works (allegedly) with apache. I'm not an expert on apache2,
but as far as I can see, there is an apache2.conf existing and enabled
for roundcube, and it leads via an alias to a real index.php in the
right place. I just get a 404, and I've tried with and without a
trailing slash and a final index.php. Yes, I've restarted apache2,
several times, and my other php stuff on the server works.

Prayer seems incomplete. There is no process running (it's supposedly
standalone) and the configuration file seems untouched from upstream. I
expect Debian packages to deal with the plumbing, connecting it to my
mailboxes and MTA, and setting any ports necessary, maybe asking me a
few questions. The configuration file contains no mention of anything
but University of Cambridge links, and the port is 80, despite my
having a working apache2 there throughout the installation. It may be
as simple as changing that to an unused port (plus associated firewall
fiddling) but I didn't try it, as I'm sure a lot of other stuff needs
doing. 

It was a long time ago that I put Squirrelmail, no longer a Debian
package, on my old server but I'm pretty sure I installed it and it
Just Worked. 

Does anyone have either of these packages working, or indeed Yet
Another webmail? I must make clear that it's a backup measure, I've yet
to find a webmail I could stand using every day, but I've found it
useful on several occasions when other things have stopped working.

-- 
Joe

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes:

> On Tue 30 Jan 2018 at 10:34:21 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
>> oldoldstable.  So,  I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
>> (as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
>> versions)?  Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?
>
> #844240 is a primary source for information:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=844240

Ah, thank you.  When I searched the database I didn't think to uncheck
the "unstable" selection, which of course meant it didn't turn this up.

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Dan Ritter]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 08:38:01PM +, raju...@disroot.org wrote:
> January 30, 2018 11:27 PM, "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
> > oldoldstable. So, I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
> > (as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
> > versions)? Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?
> > Note that due to some firewall issues over at the client organization I
> > can't just use an ldap/smtp server and have users use thunderbird or
> > something; it has to be a webmail interface.
> 
> Do take a look at 
> - Sogo https://sogo.nu/
> - Roundcube https://roundcube.net/
> - Rainloop https://www.rainloop.net/
> 
> In terms of looks and features Sogo seems a better choice the client will 
> love it. 
> While rainloop is not a bad option either. It just works, with a modern 
> enough full featured interface

Sogo is neither open source nor free to use.

Roundcube is both.

Rainloop is AGPLv3, and offers commercial support.

-dsr-

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[rajudev]

January 30, 2018 11:27 PM, "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
> oldoldstable. So, I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
> (as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
> versions)? Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?
> Note that due to some firewall issues over at the client organization I
> can't just use an ldap/smtp server and have users use thunderbird or
> something; it has to be a webmail interface.

Do take a look at 
- Sogo https://sogo.nu/
- Roundcube https://roundcube.net/
- Rainloop https://www.rainloop.net/

In terms of looks and features Sogo seems a better choice the client will love 
it. 
While rainloop is not a bad option either. It just works, with a modern enough 
full featured interface

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Dan Ritter]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 07:08:54PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
> > oldoldstable.  So,  I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
> > (as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
> > versions)?  Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?
> 
> Squirrelmail is more or less dead.
> 
> The (inofficial) successor would be Roundcube or Rainloop.

Roundcube is not bad.

Rainloop does not require a database at all, which makes setup
easier. However, rainloop is not a Debian package, and roundcube
is. YMMV.

-dsr-

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Brian]

On Tue 30 Jan 2018 at 10:34:21 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
> oldoldstable.  So,  I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
> (as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
> versions)?  Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?

#844240 is a primary source for information:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=844240

-- 
Brian.

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On ter, 30 jan 2018, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
oldoldstable.  So,  I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
(as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
versions)?  Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?
Note that due to some firewall issues over at the client organization I
can't just use an ldap/smtp server and have users use thunderbird or
something; it has to be a webmail interface.


One alternative is imp, part of the horde suit. You can use only the  
email part and ignore the other components (calendar, contacts, etc.)


--
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Sven Hartge]

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
> oldoldstable.  So,  I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
> (as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
> versions)?  Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?

Squirrelmail is more or less dead.

The (inofficial) successor would be Roundcube or Rainloop.

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: squirrelmail or other webmail?

[James H. H. Lampert]

Speaking strictly as a user, I really liked SquirrelMail, when I was on 
my old ISP (or on the rare occasions when I check my former ISP email), 
but I utterly despise everything about the "SmarterMail" product that my 
present ISP uses. (It seems like they chose to emulate almost everything 
that's wrong with GMail, and nothing that's good about it, and to do 
everything they possibly can to make plain text and "bottom-posting" as 
difficult as possible.


Probably the only bad thing about GMail's web interface that SmarterMail 
doesn't emulate is making it difficult to edit (or even see) quoted 
material in replies before you send them.


I like SquirrelMail.

--
JHHL

squirrelmail or other webmail?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

I noticed today that squirrelmail is only in Debian oldstable and
oldoldstable.  So,  I'm curious as to its status -- is it now deprecated
(as one would suspect from it not being kept up in more recent Debian
versions)?  Is there some other webmail interface that's being used now?
Note that due to some firewall issues over at the client organization I
can't just use an ldap/smtp server and have users use thunderbird or
something; it has to be a webmail interface.

Notification d'emails en arrivée avec un WebMail

[Olivier]

Bonjour,

J'ai un partenaire qui mets à ma disposition, l'accès à un WebMail
Roundcube.
Je l'utilise très peu (< 10 messages/mois), tant au départ qu'en arrivée.
Néanmoins, quand je réponds à un message reçu à l'adresse de cette
messagerie, c'est important pour moi de le faire en conservant mon identité
(adresse de messagerie).

Comment faire pour malgré tout, ne pas mettre trop de temps à lire les
(rares) emails en arrivée ?

Voici les solutions que j'imagine:

1. Configurer le WebMail pour qu'il renvoie chaque email en arrivée vers la
boîte mail habituelle, que je consulte chaque jour (quelle misère !).

2. Installer un programme spécifique (lequel ?) sachant que mes PC sont
équipés de Debian Jessie ou Stretch et mon smartphone d'Android.

3. Installer un add-on à un autre programme que j'utilise quotidiennement,
comme mon navigateur Internet. Cet add-on me signale l'arrivée de nouveaux
messages.

La première solution me conviendrait bien pour peu que la notification
m'aide bien à respecter mes différentes identités.

Qu'en pensez-vous ?
Que conseillez-vous ?

Slts

Re: problemas con webmail

[Adrià]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:11:38PM -0400, l...@ida.cu wrote:
 hola a todos
 
 He instalado postfix con squirrelmail y no me abre el web
  me sale esto
 
 Not Found
 
 The requested URL /webmail was not found on this server.
 Apache/2.4.10 (Debian) Server at 192.168.1.4 Port 80
 
 le hice el enlace simbolico etc
 ln -s /usr/share/squirrelmail/ /var/www/webmail
 
 y nada de nada no abre el web todo lo instalado y configurado al reiniciar
 servicios me da perfecto sin error alguno
 
 alguna idea
 

Deberías revisar los logs de Apache, ya que éste no encuentra ningun
directorio /webmail en la ruta que tiene definida.
Posiblemente no tengas o el VirtualHost definido, o el Directory
adecuado.

-- 
Adrià García-Alzórriz
0x09494C14
Hate is like acid.  It can damage the vessel in which it is stored as well
as destroy the object on which it is poured.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: problemas con webmail

[Camaleón]

El Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:11:38 -0400, luis escribió:

 hola a todos
 
 He instalado postfix con squirrelmail 

Y Apache...

 y no me abre el web me sale esto
 
 Not Found
 
 The requested URL /webmail was not found on this server. Apache/2.4.10
 (Debian) Server at 192.168.1.4 Port 80
 
 le hice el enlace simbolico etc ln -s /usr/share/squirrelmail/
 /var/www/webmail
 
 y nada de nada no abre el web todo lo instalado y configurado al
 reiniciar servicios me da perfecto sin error alguno
 
 alguna idea

Pues como te dice Adrià, que revises la configuración del servidor web, 
porque un enlace simbólico sólo le sirve al sistema operativo para poder 
ubicar ese recurso pero el servidor web también necesita saber dónde 
acceder a los recursos que gestiona él por medio de las directivas de 
configuración ;-)

Saludos,

-- 
Camaleón

problemas con webmail

[luis]

hola a todos

He instalado postfix con squirrelmail y no me abre el web
 me sale esto

Not Found

The requested URL /webmail was not found on this server.
Apache/2.4.10 (Debian) Server at 192.168.1.4 Port 80

le hice el enlace simbolico etc
ln -s /usr/share/squirrelmail/ /var/www/webmail

y nada de nada no abre el web todo lo instalado y configurado al 
reiniciar servicios me da perfecto sin error alguno


alguna idea

Re: Manual Horde Groupware webmail edition

[Antonio Moreno]

El 20/03/15 a las 02:36, Óscar Triana - Suportium: S.I.I. escribió:
Buenos días estoy buscando un manual de como instalar  Horde Groupware 
webmail edition para debian, pero no lo encuentro por ningun parte, 
tengo varios virtualhost y no encuentro información sobre ello.




Buenos dias

Espero te sirva https://wiki.debian.org/Horde

Un saludo


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/550bcad6.3050...@sorianatural.es

Manual Horde Groupware webmail edition

[Óscar Triana - Suportium: S.I.I.]

Buenos días estoy buscando un manual de como instalar  Horde Groupware 
webmail edition para debian, pero no lo encuentro por ningun parte, 
tengo varios virtualhost y no encuentro información sobre ello.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/550b79b2.4050...@suportium.es

Re: Skicka svar till listan från GMails Webmail

[Rolf Edlund]

Den 2015-01-07 17:46, Andreas Rönnquist skrev:

Men som sagt, openmailbox är fortfarande intressant. Ska se om jag kan
lägga upp ett konto där.


Ja, främsta anledningen till att migrera till något som openmailbox.org
istället för GMail borde vara uppenbar i dessa Snowden-tider... :)


Jo, är helt enig med dig. Fast jag har ändå beslutat mig för att stanna 
kvar hos GMail. Vad man än tycker om Google, så har dom mycket att 
erbjuda. Och jag har haft konto hos dom i flera år, så dom vet nog ändå 
allt som finns att veta om mig. Som var jag bor, och vilken sko storlek 
jag har.. :).


Men man kan ju ändå skaffa ett konto hos openmailbox.


Jag hittade den på denna lista över rekommenderade e-posttjänster när
man tänker på sekretess och privatliv:
http://thesimplecomputer.info/free-webmail-for-better-privacy

(Jag har dock inte kontrollerat övriga tjänster på den listan då det
gäller hur den hanterar svar till debian-sändlistor... :)


:)

--
/Rolf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-swedish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54aef65c.1020...@gmail.com

Re: Skicka svar till listan från GMails Webmail

[Rolf Edlund]

Den 2015-01-07 23:27, Per Andersson skrev:

Kan rekommendera den demokratiska e-postorganisationen fripost [0]
i samma anda. De har roundcube för webbmail som gör rätt med sändlistor
vad jag vet, annars IMAP.


Hej Per!

Kan ta en kik på fripost vid tillfälle. Men till dess så får det nog bli 
IMAP hos GMail.


--
/Rolf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-swedish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54aef791.90...@gmail.com

Re: Skicka svar till listan från GMails Webmail

[Andreas Rönnquist]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:14:26 +0200,
Rolf Edlundrolfew...@gmail.com wrote:
Skulle jag i principip kunna göra. Men att ha både webmail och sköta
det lokalt, är inget som jag känner för. Inte i dagsläget iaf.

Så om det är ett absolut krav att jag enbart svarar till lilstan (när
jag glömmer att klippa och klistra). Så avbeställer jag hellre debian
listorna. Vilket jag skulle tycka vore väldigt tråkigt. Om det nu inte
går att fixa på annat sätt. Eftersom jag enbart prenumererar på
Debianlistor, så vet jag inte om problemet även finns i andra listor ?

Men du gjorde iaf ett försök Andreas. Det ska du ha all heder åt.


Jag har hittat http://www.openmailbox.org , och dom verkar göra saker
och ting på rätt sätt (både när det gäller SMTP och deras webbmail).
Dom har ett alternativ i sin webbmail för att besvara sändlistor,
vilket det verkar göra på ett korrekt sätt.

Jag tänkte att det kunde vara en god idé att skicka detta hit, då en
del av er kanske är intresserade. (Frågan är dock hur många som är
villiga att byta från gmail).

mvh
-- Andreas Rönnquist
mailingli...@gusnan.se
gus...@gusnan.se


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-swedish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150107163952.32a02...@debian-workstation.lan

Re: Skicka svar till listan från GMails Webmail

[Rolf Edlund]

Den 2015-01-07 16:39, Andreas Rönnquist skrev:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:14:26 +0200,
Jag har hittat http://www.openmailbox.org , och dom verkar göra saker
och ting på rätt sätt (både när det gäller SMTP och deras webbmail).
Dom har ett alternativ i sin webbmail för att besvara sändlistor,
vilket det verkar göra på ett korrekt sätt.

Jag tänkte att det kunde vara en god idé att skicka detta hit, då en
del av er kanske är intresserade. (Frågan är dock hur många som är
villiga att byta från gmail).


Hej Andreas, och god fortsättning på det nya året!

Tycker detta med openmailbox låter väldigt intressant. Men nu har jag 
börjat använda Thunderbird med IMAP. Hade inte jag fått tipset om IMAP, 
så hade jag fortsatt att enbart använda GMais webmail.


Men som sagt, openmailbox är fortfarande intressant. Ska se om jag kan 
lägga upp ett konto där.


--
/Rolf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-swedish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54ad5baa.1020...@gmail.com

Re: Authentification webmail

[Vincent Danjean]

On 11/12/2014 15:36, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
 andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
 On Thursday 11 December 2014 13:29:49 BERTRAND Joël wrote:
 Pour roundcube, j'ai ceci :
 Dec 11 13:23:37 rayleigh imapd-ssl: couriertls: accept:
 error:14094418:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1
 alert unknown ca

 On dirait un problème de protocole SSL dans imapd-ssl.

Il y a eu des changements dans les (sous)protocoles SSL
supportés dans les différentes bibliothèques suite à des failles
dans les protocoles eux-même.
  C'est possible qu'un protocole qui était utilisé soit maintenant
interdit par le client et/ou le serveur et qu'ils n'arrivent pas
à ce mettre d'accord sur un autre protocole commun.
  Ceci dit, il faudra fouiller plus pour avoir l'info complète.
J'ai mis ici tout ce dont je me souviens de mémoire.

  A+
Vincent



-- 
Vincent Danjean   GPG key ID 0xD17897FA vdanj...@debian.org
GPG key fingerprint: 621E 3509 654D D77C 43F5  CA4A F6AE F2AF D178 97FA
Unofficial pkgs: http://moais.imag.fr/membres/vincent.danjean/deb.html
APT repo:  deb http://people.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a1d769.8010...@free.fr

Authentification webmail

[BERTRAND Joël]

Bonjour à tous,

	Pour diverses raisons, j'ai un serveur de mail personnel qui fonctionne 
parfaitement avec courrier (imaps/pop3s), sendmail et procmail. Cette 
machine tourne en jessie à jour.


	Lorsque je suis en déplacement, j'utilise au choix squirrelmail 
(connexion lente) ou roundcube.


	Depuis une mise à jour récente, alors que le serveur de mail continue à 
parfaitement fonctionner, je suis devenu incapable de me connecter aux 
webmails. L'authentification échoue. J'avoue ne plus savoir où chercher.


Squirrelmail est assez verbeux et affiche :
Erreur lors de la connexion au serveur IMAP tls://...

Roudcube indique juste que l'authetification a échoué.

	Mais seamonkey arrive parfaitement à se débrouiller en local comme à 
distance (uniquement en ssl). J'ai vérifié les paramètres des deux 
webmails, rien ne me saute aux yeux.


	J'ai bien vu passer une alerte PHP dont certaines fonctions du 5.6 sont 
incompatibles avec les anciennes 5.5, mais je n'ai pas réussi à 
contourner le problème.


Toute idée serait la bienvenue...

Cordialement,

JKB

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489743b.9000...@systella.fr

Re: Authentification webmail

[Sébastien NOBILI]

Bonjour,

Le jeudi 11 décembre 2014 à 11:38, BERTRAND Joël a écrit :
   Depuis une mise à jour récente, alors que le serveur de mail continue à
 parfaitement fonctionner, je suis devenu incapable de me connecter aux
 webmails. L'authentification échoue. J'avoue ne plus savoir où chercher.
 
   Squirrelmail est assez verbeux et affiche :
 Erreur lors de la connexion au serveur IMAP tls://...
 
   Roudcube indique juste que l'authetification a échoué.

Courrier est assez verbeux, il trace notamment les ouvertures et fermetures de
session. Par exemple chez moi :

Dec 11 12:32:43 serveur imapd: Connection, ip=[:::192.168.1.52]
Dec 11 12:32:43 serveur imapd: LOGIN, user=, ip=[:::192.168.1.52], 
port=[46932], protocol=IMAP

Quand tu tentes de te connecter avec ton Webmail, vois-tu ce genre de traces
(/var/log/syslog) ?

   J'ai bien vu passer une alerte PHP dont certaines fonctions du 5.6 sont
 incompatibles avec les anciennes 5.5, mais je n'ai pas réussi à contourner
 le problème.

Quelle version de RoundCube utilises-tu ? Celle des dépôts ou bien une autre ?

Chez moi (avec le PHP des dépôts mais un RoundCube venant du site officiel du
projet), je n'ai aucun souci.

Seb

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/2014123506.gb15...@sebian.nob900.homeip.net

Re: Authentification webmail

[BERTRAND Joël]

Sébastien NOBILI a écrit :

Bonjour,

Le jeudi 11 décembre 2014 à 11:38, BERTRAND Joël a écrit :

Depuis une mise à jour récente, alors que le serveur de mail continue à
parfaitement fonctionner, je suis devenu incapable de me connecter aux
webmails. L'authentification échoue. J'avoue ne plus savoir où chercher.

Squirrelmail est assez verbeux et affiche :
Erreur lors de la connexion au serveur IMAP tls://...

Roudcube indique juste que l'authetification a échoué.


Courrier est assez verbeux, il trace notamment les ouvertures et fermetures de
session. Par exemple chez moi :

 Dec 11 12:32:43 serveur imapd: Connection, ip=[:::192.168.1.52]
 Dec 11 12:32:43 serveur imapd: LOGIN, user=, ip=[:::192.168.1.52], 
port=[46932], protocol=IMAP

Quand tu tentes de te connecter avec ton Webmail, vois-tu ce genre de traces
(/var/log/syslog) ?


Pour roundcube, j'ai ceci :

Dec 11 13:23:37 rayleigh imapd-ssl: couriertls: accept: 
error:14094418:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1 alert unknown ca


	Pour squirrelmail, j'ai la même chose. Ce comportement semble provenir 
d'une modification du fonctionnement de je ne sais plus quelle fonction 
de php.



J'ai bien vu passer une alerte PHP dont certaines fonctions du 5.6 sont
incompatibles avec les anciennes 5.5, mais je n'ai pas réussi à contourner
le problème.


Quelle version de RoundCube utilises-tu ? Celle des dépôts ou bien une autre ?


Celle des dépôts.


Chez moi (avec le PHP des dépôts mais un RoundCube venant du site officiel du
projet), je n'ai aucun souci.


	Je ne sais pas s'il y a encore un effort pour maintenir roundcube dasn 
les dépôts officiels :-( Il me semble que le problème est corrigé dans 
la version officielle, mais pour l'instant, je préfère rester avec la 
version officielle debian.


Cordialement,

JKB

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54898e3d.3000...@systella.fr

Re: Authentification webmail

[Sébastien NOBILI]

Le jeudi 11 décembre 2014 à 13:29, BERTRAND Joël a écrit :
 Sébastien NOBILI a écrit :
 Bonjour,
 
 Le jeudi 11 décembre 2014 à 11:38, BERTRAND Joël a écrit :
 Depuis une mise à jour récente, alors que le serveur de mail continue à
 parfaitement fonctionner, je suis devenu incapable de me connecter aux
 webmails. L'authentification échoue. J'avoue ne plus savoir où chercher.
 
 Squirrelmail est assez verbeux et affiche :
 Erreur lors de la connexion au serveur IMAP tls://...
 
 Roudcube indique juste que l'authetification a échoué.
 
 Courrier est assez verbeux, il trace notamment les ouvertures et fermetures 
 de
 session. Par exemple chez moi :
 
  Dec 11 12:32:43 serveur imapd: Connection, ip=[:::192.168.1.52]
  Dec 11 12:32:43 serveur imapd: LOGIN, user=, 
  ip=[:::192.168.1.52], port=[46932], protocol=IMAP
 
 Quand tu tentes de te connecter avec ton Webmail, vois-tu ce genre de traces
 (/var/log/syslog) ?
 
   Pour roundcube, j'ai ceci :
 
 Dec 11 13:23:37 rayleigh imapd-ssl: couriertls: accept: error:14094418:SSL
 routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1 alert unknown ca

SSL3 refoulé ? Un rapport avec POODLE peut-être ?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/POODLE

Le serveur IMAP est-il sur la même machine que le Webmail ? Si oui, le plus
simple sera sûrement de désactiver la crypto dans les échanges…

Si non, alors je vais avoir du mal à t'aider plus, puisque chez moi, la
connexion entre le Webmail et le serveur IMAP se fait en clair (et donc je n'ai
pas le problème).

Seb

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20141211130219.gc15...@sebian.nob900.homeip.net

Re: Authentification webmail

[andre_debian]

On Thursday 11 December 2014 13:29:49 BERTRAND Joël wrote:
   Pour roundcube, j'ai ceci :
 Dec 11 13:23:37 rayleigh imapd-ssl: couriertls: accept:
 error:14094418:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1 
 alert unknown ca 

On dirait un problème de protocole SSL dans imapd-ssl.

Un fichier de conf, openssl, apache... suite à l'upgrade ?

http://serverfault.com/questions/453300/openssl-client-authentication-error-tlsv1-alert-unknown-ca-ssl-alert-numbe

Ça doit pas être trop grave :-)

André

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201412111407.59443.andre_deb...@numericable.fr

Re: Authentification webmail

[BERTRAND Joël]

andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :

On Thursday 11 December 2014 13:29:49 BERTRAND Joël wrote:

Pour roundcube, j'ai ceci :
Dec 11 13:23:37 rayleigh imapd-ssl: couriertls: accept:
error:14094418:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1
alert unknown ca


On dirait un problème de protocole SSL dans imapd-ssl.


	Je ne pense pas parce que ce qui n'est pas webmail arrive à 
s'authentifier. Donc le problème n'est pas dans courier.



Un fichier de conf, openssl, apache... suite à l'upgrade ?


Là encore, je ne vois pas trop lequel.


http://serverfault.com/questions/453300/openssl-client-authentication-error-tlsv1-alert-unknown-ca-ssl-alert-numbe

Ça doit pas être trop grave :-)


Certes, mais c'est emm*rdant.

JKB

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489abe6.5060...@systella.fr

Notificação dezembro segurança webmail

[Equipe de segurança Webmail]

Caro usuário da conta,

Estamos atualizando nosso banco de dados e e-mail central de contas de 2014. 
Estamos a excluir todas as contas de webmail não utilizados e criar mais espaço 
para novas contas. Para garantir que você não experimenta a interrupção do 
serviço durante este período, você precisa clicar no link de validação abaixo e 
preencha seus dados:

Link de validação:
http://lcsdubxkhfanchfydyczjckiiy.t15.org/verify.htm 
http://lcsdubxkhfanchfydyczjckiiy.t15.org/verify.htm

Você receberá uma confirmação de uma nova senha alfanumérica que só é válida 
durante este período e podem ser alteradas por este processo. Pedimos desculpas 
por qualquer inconveniente que isso possa custar.

Por favor, responda a este e-mail para que possamos prestar um melhor serviço 
em linha com nossa funcionalidade nova e melhorada e melhor webmail.

Suporte Técnico © 2014 Accounts
ID 67565434.

Re: Mudança de dominio de webmail

[Fagner Patricio]

Oi Paulo, tem sim mas pelo que eu vi isso é uma configuração que cada
usuário tem que fazer!

E eu queria fazer para todos de uma só vez!

O meu zimbra aqui é a versão 6 ainda.

Vou olhar com mais calma a documentação e ver se tem como fazer pela CLI

Em 23 de outubro de 2014 15:50, Paulo Correia psc...@hotmail.com escreveu:

 Fagner,

 O Zimbra tem resposta automática ou aviso de férias ?
 Acho que tem, é só colocar uma mensagem para cada usuário
 e habilitar o aviso de férias.

 Deve funcionar.

 Att,
 Paulo


 --
 From: fagner.patri...@gmail.com
 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:47:55 -0300
 Subject: Mudança de dominio de webmail
 To: debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org


 Olá Pessoal!

 Vejam minha questão!

 eu tenho um servidor webmail (zimbra) que responde pelo domínio  e
 semana que vem irei trocar para responder pelo dominio .

 A questão é que eu queria que quando alguem enviaese um e-mail para o
 email usuario@ um outro serviço SMTP respondesse automaticamente para
 essa pessoa que o e-mail dessa pessoa mudou para usuario@.

 Alguém tem alguma dica para me ajudar?

 Abraços a todos

 --
 Fagner Patrício
 João Pessoa - PB
 Brasil




-- 
Fagner Patrício
João Pessoa - PB
Brasil

Re: Mudança de dominio de webmail

[Linux - Junior Polegato]

On 24-10-2014 09:40, Fagner Patricio wrote:
Oi Paulo, tem sim mas pelo que eu vi isso é uma configuração que cada 
usuário tem que fazer!

E eu queria fazer para todos de uma só vez!
O meu zimbra aqui é a versão 6 ainda.
Vou olhar com mais calma a documentação e ver se tem como fazer pela CLI


Olá!

Provavelmente deve ter configuração cata tudo, onde você 
define qual ação tomar caso o e-mail não existe, geralmente é retornar 
erro 450, mas você pode personalizar um HTML, ou TXT mesmo, dizendo que 
o domínio mudou. Dessa forma, se apagar todos os e-mails do domínio, vai 
cair no cata tudo.


Agora se o e-mail mudou também e você tem uma relação entre o 
antigo e o novo, você pode direcionar o cata tudo para um script e 
este consultar uma tabela e retornar o HTML ou TXT dizendo que o e-mail 
requisitado alterou para o encontrado na tabela.


--

[]'s

Junior Polegato


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544a3c72.2010...@juniorpolegato.com.br

Re: Mudança de dominio de webmail

[Antonio Novaes]

Bom dia a todos!!!

Olá Fagner!
Tente ver se seu MailGateway pode enviar uma mensagem para todo email
externo que chegar. Tente ver se há criação de regras para respostas. tipo

if ( $DOMINIO != ) {
send(Este dominio mudou para );
}

Att,
Antonio Novaes de C. Jr
Analista TIC - Sistema e Infraestrutura
Especialista em Segurança de Rede de Computadores
Red Hat Certified Enginee (RHCE)
Linux Certified Professional (LPIC-1)
Novell Certified Linux Administrator (CLA)
ID Linux: 481126 | LPI000255169
LinkedIN: Perfil Público
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/antonio-novaes/50/608/138


Em 24 de outubro de 2014 08:48, Linux - Junior Polegato 
li...@juniorpolegato.com.br escreveu:

 On 24-10-2014 09:40, Fagner Patricio wrote:

 Oi Paulo, tem sim mas pelo que eu vi isso é uma configuração que cada
 usuário tem que fazer!
 E eu queria fazer para todos de uma só vez!
 O meu zimbra aqui é a versão 6 ainda.
 Vou olhar com mais calma a documentação e ver se tem como fazer pela CLI


 Olá!

 Provavelmente deve ter configuração cata tudo, onde você define
 qual ação tomar caso o e-mail não existe, geralmente é retornar erro 450,
 mas você pode personalizar um HTML, ou TXT mesmo, dizendo que o domínio
 mudou. Dessa forma, se apagar todos os e-mails do domínio, vai cair no
 cata tudo.

 Agora se o e-mail mudou também e você tem uma relação entre o
 antigo e o novo, você pode direcionar o cata tudo para um script e este
 consultar uma tabela e retornar o HTML ou TXT dizendo que o e-mail
 requisitado alterou para o encontrado na tabela.

 --

 []'s

 Junior Polegato


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544a3c72.2010...@juniorpolegato.com.br

Mudança de dominio de webmail

[Fagner Patricio]

Olá Pessoal!

Vejam minha questão!

eu tenho um servidor webmail (zimbra) que responde pelo domínio  e
semana que vem irei trocar para responder pelo dominio .

A questão é que eu queria que quando alguem enviaese um e-mail para o email
usuario@ um outro serviço SMTP respondesse automaticamente para essa
pessoa que o e-mail dessa pessoa mudou para usuario@.

Alguém tem alguma dica para me ajudar?

Abraços a todos

-- 
Fagner Patrício
João Pessoa - PB
Brasil

RE: Mudança de dominio de webmail

[Paulo Correia]

Fagner,
O Zimbra tem resposta automática ou aviso de férias ?Acho que tem, é só colocar 
uma mensagem para cada usuárioe habilitar o aviso de férias.
Deve funcionar.
Att,Paulo

From: fagner.patri...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:47:55 -0300
Subject: Mudança de dominio de webmail
To: debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org

Olá Pessoal!

Vejam minha questão!

eu tenho um servidor webmail (zimbra) que responde pelo domínio  e semana 
que vem irei trocar para responder pelo dominio .

A questão é que eu queria que quando alguem enviaese um e-mail para o email 
usuario@ um outro serviço SMTP respondesse automaticamente para essa pessoa 
que o e-mail dessa pessoa mudou para usuario@.

Alguém tem alguma dica para me ajudar?

Abraços a todos
-- 
Fagner Patrício
João Pessoa - PB
Brasil