4 ms·
Not to be reductive but isn't IMAP the protocol to use for that? Although I don't fancy the idea of legislating that e-mail providers must use IMAP (and if I pi
by garblegarble 13y ago
Not to be reductive but isn't IMAP the protocol to use for that? Although I don't fancy the idea of legislating that e-mail providers must use IMAP (and if I picked a mail provider without it I'm assuming they'd have a compelling security feature or something...)
- belorn 13y agoSome webmail services, notable hotmail, do not offer an IMAP interface. That service is exclusively a premium option, which is required if you ever want to transfer your emails away from their service. I actually done such transfer once, which felt eerily like paying a ransom. Thankfully, gmail do not keep your emails hostages like that, and users can transfer their property away into a private servers if they ever get tired of the constant spying-for-profit.
- garblegarble 13y agoMy understanding is that Outlook.com (which I think is their rebranding of hotmail?) supports IMAP at no additional cost starting this year (although take that with a grain of salt, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing about that but I don't use the service myself)
- ihsw 13y agoI think the parent was suggesting a consumer-friendly method of that -- for example Gmail.com would provide a button that lets the user download a single file, and Outlook.com would accept such a file.
- garblegarble 13y agoYeah, that's why I was wary of being reductive/dismissive - but there's a lot to be said for a protocol that exists and has traction (and where the quirks are known). Although you could probably say (quite reasonably) that some Mbox variant would meet that definition also. I certainly wouldn't object to such a thing!