3 ms·
The one thing I'll want is what we'll never get which is just making it easier to delete e-mails in bulk. And less crap spam filtering. And less sharing my e-
by techblueberry 10mo ago
The one thing I'll want is what we'll never get which is just making it easier to delete e-mails in bulk. And less crap spam filtering. And less sharing my e-mails with third parties.
- baal80spam 10mo ago> less crap spam filtering Interesting. For me, Google Mail spam filter is pretty much impeccable.
- dotcoma 10mo agoYou need Tuta or Proton or Hey for that.
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoFastmail is also nice imho. (no affiliation, just a happy family plan customer paid far into the future)
- rvnx 10mo agothe only minuses of these services, is that because they are not trusted, they are rejected by some websites, and they are flagged as spam :/ For example fastmail.com is considered as a fake account registration provider, because of the masked email feature, that allows you many times to register to a free trial. It's the only reason I stay with Gmail, despite their terrible practices
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- stavros 10mo agoMy strong advice would be to buy your own domain, otherwise you're letting a third party own a lot of your digital life.
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoStrongly agree with this, I own my own domain for mail and service routing (with services hanging off of subdomains).
- asterix99 10mo agoI have been using Mailfence and Zoho (paid plans as well as free plans) for almost a decade. Never had any issues. Support is actually reachable and good. (no affiliation). IMAP works only on paid plans
- techblueberry 10mo agoI’m moving to Proton as we speak :-)
- romanows 10mo agoI gotta say I'm skeptical of Gmail sharing emails with third parties without permission. Was there a breach? Govt court order?
- techblueberry 10mo agoMaybe this is a nuance that makes it “better” but I’m 99% sure that Google login means if so visit a site that supports it, Google will share my email with that site even if I don’t explicitly speaking login. Maybe there’s a workaround these businesses are using to get it? But either way my inbox is littered with emails I didn’t sign up for,
- romanows 10mo agoAh, you meant "sharing my e-mail addresses". Not the actual emails (the email contents) themselves.
- omnimus 10mo agoGoogle may not share the emails themselves but they for sure read those emails and sell data analysis of those emails to third parties. That's why other companies like amazon never sends emails with lists of what you bought.
- avar 10mo ago> The one thing I'll want is what we'll never > get which is just making it easier to delete > e-mails in bulk. This already "exists", go to a label, tick the top checkbox above all the rows, then "Select all 5,192 conversations in 'ThisLabel'", then "Delete". "Exists" in scare quotes because their own interface is absolutely atrocious for doing this, as on e.g. a label with ~50k messages (I was mass-deleting some large mailing lists recently) there's maybe a 5-10% change the operation will eventually finish, and not just leave it at ~45k or whatever. But you can do this by setting up a local IMAP client and doing mass-deletes that way. Perhaps the easiest on e.g. *nix systems is to use isync (the "mbsync" command) to "sync" between two folders locally and remotely, with a rule saying "anything deleted locally, delete it on the remote too". Then just sync between an empty local folder and your remote target folder, and it'll slowly grind through it. You can also use a local GUI E-Mail client, but most of those become slow/unresponsive with a mass-delete operation, whereas you can spin up multiple "mbsync" commands with retries. Beware that GMail has (or did, last I tried this) some sort of per-account I/O limit or similar, so if you're doing background operations like this you might find the web interface (even on an unrelated computer/network connection) becomes slow or unresponsive.
- Izkata 10mo ago> This already "exists", go to a label, tick the top checkbox above all the rows, then "Select all 5,192 conversations in 'ThisLabel'", then "Delete". Also works with any search. > "Exists" in scare quotes because their own interface is absolutely atrocious for doing this, as on e.g. a label with ~50k messages (I was mass-deleting some large mailing lists recently) there's maybe a 5-10% change the operation will eventually finish, and not just leave it at ~45k or whatever. I've found it to work fairly reliably with that much or more, if you leave the tab open and just wait. It seems to do an initial UI update with those ~5k or so, then continue deleting in the background. Feels like it's done entirely in the frontend, where it deletes a batch, grabs the next, delete, grab next, delete, etc etc etc.