Re: webmail and email from command line
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
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
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
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
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
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]
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
