Searching \ for '[OT] Email Religion' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=email+religion
Search entire site for: 'Email Religion'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Email Religion'
2010\05\20@124917 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
[hatless]

> sorry,

Don't be.

> but gmail is primarily  SERVICE like hotmail or yahoo

Compulsory mouth washing out follows :-).

>  (but with less privacy),

Obviously a new meaning of 'private' :-).
But, yes, GMail tells you that it's not private.

You should read the " " privacy statement " " from the Gates
Foundation. !!!!!!! :-)

" ... your information ... your email address ... and for any legal
purpose for which it ..."

> primarily intended for Web Client.

Have you used it lately?
It's constantly growing in capability.
By the week and often by the day.
There MAY be a document somewhere that tells you what's been changed
today, but I just wander round finding new capabilities.
FWIW.

> Thunderbird, Acorn, Outlook, Outlook Express etc are email clients.
>
> I like all my email archived on my server and my laptop, and thus can be
> read offline.

I like that too.
BUT I also like my email form the last x years accessible from half
way around the world.
My mixing systems you can have both.

OR just enable the GMail POP3 access - did you know it could do POP3 ?


             R

2010\05\20@130051 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 04:48 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> I like that too.
> BUT I also like my email form the last x years accessible from half
> way around the world.
> My mixing systems you can have both.
>
> OR just enable the GMail POP3 access - did you know it could do POP3 ?

Even better: Gmail also supports IMAP.

As for me, I run my own IMAP server at home, which fetches mail from my
various addresses, including my gmail one.

The benefit is I have access to a single inbox from anywhere in the
world, and as a backup my important stuff can of course still be
accessed through the Gmail GUI.

TTYL

2010\05\20@131359 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> Have you used it lately?
> It's constantly growing in capability.
> By the week and often by the day.
> There MAY be a document somewhere that tells you what's been changed
> today, but I just wander round finding new capabilities.
> FWIW.
>
>  
I can't purchase enough tinfoil anymore. I also had to change the PHP
code on email banning because of google's creative use of email aliasing.

I still use their search. I removed their advertising banners from my
sites as the behaviour of the "advertising bot" was unetheical IMO with
regard to privacy of my members. I'm not a google fan anymore.

If I had to chose between Android and Apple iPhone, I'd feel unhappy.
I'll stick with my old Nokia for a while longer.

{Quote hidden}

I do use gmail too. I also have hotmail, yahoo, previous ISP and current
ISP email accounts as well as six domains of my own (excluding
subdomains with mail too) with suitable hosted email servers. I did have
also email on domain of my Mobile provider. But they deleted the account
due to inactivity (idiots).
I have used POP3 with gmail, currently my gmail account forwards.

I use VPN to my own server to do email away from home. A really good
idea at a WiFi hot spot of unknown providence.

Or use my own hosted webmail if I'm at kiosk or someone else's computer.


... gone out to Supermarket for more tinfoil. :D

2010\05\21@023701 by Marechiare

picon face
> I have used POP3 with gmail, currently my gmail account forwards.

Yes, that's the religion what to prefer POP3 or just mail forwarding;
the Google's idea that the email address to receive forwarded mail
should be authorized is good, BTW.

2010\05\21@032746 by Russell McMahon
face picon face
> Yes, that's the religion what to prefer POP3 or just mail forwarding;

That's only denominational.

But

> the Google's idea that the email address to receive forwarded mail
> should be authorized is good, BTW.

now *that's* true religion :-).

It's probably 'a good idea' for the same reasons that US permissible
cryptographic systems must have federal accessible trapdoors, and that
I can no longer buy sensible quantities of Isopropyl alcohol locally,
and that DVDs received from overseas have ostentatious "Address
Recorded" labels added, and that I must give my extra can of Coke away
to a stranger at the Customs checkpoint, or trash it* (the onlooking
crowd cheers). . ie the world must be protected [tm] from bad men and
putatively bad men and we all suffer the consequences. I understand
the need, although I'm variably happy with the way the "authorities"
respond in each case.

(That could have been dereligionated to some extent by using IMHOBTW)

I find it a great nuisance, as it stops me integrating  feeds from
similar services into a similar 'free' mailbox. And,the webmail access
used by my ISP was rejected by Noah when he write the RFP for the Ark.
I can do a double redirect via an "authorised" service, which is just
unnecessary double handling technically.

Also, "authorised" largely  only means "paid for" in practice. You can
get accounts which Gargoyle will accept for email forwarding which are
essentially untraceable.

* The airline/customs practice of restricting liquid containers tyo
100 mls at the security check BUT of then allowing containers of drink
of any size to be bought in the departure lounge is beyond laughable.
The Ozzies aren't laughing. On several recent flights they had their
own XRay machines at the aircraft gate and were re-confiscating
unopened soft drinks bought in the departure lounge after the security
check. Somebody's got to take these rules seriously :-).





      R

2010\05\21@043320 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face

> * The airline/customs practice of restricting liquid containers tyo
> 100 mls at the security check BUT of then allowing containers of drink
> of any size to be bought in the departure lounge is beyond laughable.
> The Ozzies aren't laughing. On several recent flights they had their
> own XRay machines at the aircraft gate and were re-confiscating
> unopened soft drinks bought in the departure lounge after the security
> check. Somebody's got to take these rules seriously :-).

That's the problem, make a rule and some people follow it to the absolute
letter, regardless of what common sense might dictate - in fact it could be
argued that they enjoy doing so.. OT again, but around here (UK), we had an
elderly lady get one of those criminal tag thingies on her ankle for selling
a goldfish to a child??  I'm sure just a quiet word would have done.. :-)


2010\05\21@080000 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechnzTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> * The airline/customs practice of restricting liquid containers tyo
> 100 mls at the security check BUT of then allowing containers of drink
> of any size to be bought in the departure lounge is beyond laughable.
> The Ozzies aren't laughing. On several recent flights they had their
> own XRay machines at the aircraft gate and were re-confiscating
> unopened soft drinks bought in the departure lounge after the security
> check. Somebody's got to take these rules seriously :-).
>
>

While I think that many of the so-called security precautions are
silly, I don't understand why you consider this one to be "beyond
laughable." Isn't the idea that a container brought from outside might
have ANY kind of liquid in it but if purchased in the "sterile" area,
it is much less likely to be anything other than what it claims to be?
(i.e. it would require an additional effort to smuggle bomb-making
chemicals in through one of the shops in the sterile area)

Sean

2010\05\21@085907 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
2010/5/21 Sean Breheny <.....shb7KILLspamspam@spam@cornell.edu>:

> Isn't the idea that a container brought from outside might
> have ANY kind of liquid in it but if purchased in the "sterile" area,
> it is much less likely to be anything other than what it claims to be?
> (i.e. it would require an additional effort to smuggle bomb-making
> chemicals in through one of the shops in the sterile area)

But what about still being able to use the container (ie. a glass
bottle for a parfum or scotch whiskey)  as a life threatening device
inside the plane?

Regards,

Carlos.

2010\05\21@091341 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Hatless.
Marginal topic.
In OT.
Take due care that it does not stray too far into unnacceptable waters.

{Quote hidden}

No.
Apparently it's not absolute volume of material but the absolute
container size that they are targeting.

A nice lady customs officer was silly enough to explain this to me on
one of the many occasions when I have made suitable noises. They have
been told that 100cc represents a safish volume below that needed to
get a bit of containment going. ie if you wanted to make an aircraft
disabling bmob with the current liquids of choice then you would
apparently much the rather choose a container substantially larger
than 100 ml. [[I reckon that I could make do with 100 mL, but that's
another story]].

You are allowed to carry through n x 100 ml liquids, and there is
nothing to stop Y people combining their materials latterly, so
absolute volume is hard to control. The Australians seem to be
targeting this with their own checkpoints at the 'gate', and taking
bottles off people again - even unopened ones just bought in the local
stores at horrendous prices.

I am able to easily carry strong containers (at least as strong as
those that they confiscate) of arbitrarily large size in my carry on
luggage (and, no, I'm not going to say how) so it would be trivially
easy for others to do so as well.

Based on relatively extensive travel experience in  recent years, with
subsequent repeated 1st hand looks at the security systems,   I
believe that a determined intelligent attacker would have a very good
chance of being able to carry 'the makings' of any of a number of
'devices' through current security systems. "Bad" luck would be liable
to be the main factor in failure.  I think the fact that this is not
happening is liable to relate almost solely to a current lack of
desire to do such things, rather than any effect of the security
systems.

There is substantial discussion in the public domain literature of
newer systems which are liable to be somewhat effective against the
"baddies". I only rail publicly against stupid ineffective make work
systems - I'll not be discussing real systems that work in public
forum :-).


           R

2010\05\21@110623 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On May 21, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Apparently it's not absolute volume of material but the absolute
> container size that they are targeting.

Not in the US, that I can tell.  I actually flew recently, and LOTS of  
people carried empty soda bottles through security, to be refilled  
from water fountains or whatever after being "secure", not to mention  
the assorted beverages sold on the secure side of the barrier...

BillW

2010\05\21@130104 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> Apparently it's not absolute volume of material but the absolute
>> container size that they are targeting.

> Not in the US, that I can tell.  I actually flew recently, and LOTS of
> people carried empty soda bottles through security, to be refilled
> from water fountains or whatever after being "secure", not to mention
> the assorted beverages sold on the secure side of the barrier...

That's extremely interesting.
Between NZ & Asia there is a 100 cc upper limit per container that is
very rigorously enforced. That includes NZ, Australia, Singapore,
China, Brunei.

  Russell

2010\05\21@183014 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

The loss of freedom and privacy is appaling, and the measures seem arbitrary
and utterly ineffective.

Vitaliy

2010\05\21@231244 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> You are allowed to carry through n x 100 ml liquids, and there is
>> nothing to stop Y people combining their materials latterly, so
>> absolute volume is hard to control.

>> The Australians seem to be
>> targeting this with their own checkpoints at the 'gate',

> The loss of freedom and privacy is appaling, and the measures seem arbitrary
> and utterly ineffective.

< hat = devilsadvocate>

If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I agree, there can surely be no greater breach of privacy than to have
all your internal components plus all your luggage components
distributed publicly at 30,000+ feet along with everyone else's who
are travelling with you. The shame!. Such breaches of decorum are
worth going to any length to avoid.
<or>
There are no significant privacy breaches involved in the sense that
would usually be understood by the term. If you don't shop in shops
that have signs that say your bag may be searched on leaving because
of the signs and the policy, then you may have problems with airline
security people wanting to be sure of what's in your bag. But, other
than concerns of that level there are no great privacy issues.
Carrying and using an international passport is a personally agreed to
privacy 'breach' that makes most others pall.

The "losses of freedom", as noted in a previous email, are balanced by
social contract with the losses which would or might occur to  others
if 'my' freedoms' were  not limited by mutual social assent. ALL such
restrictions are carried out as an assenting part of using an
essentially private for-profit system where the rules are set with the
intention of maximising profitable outcomes. ie market forces have
established  this system. (What the market will bear: Too many dead
customers, travel drops off. Too many restrictions, travel drops off.)
Because the system uses a 'common good' governments get involved in
the regulations as well, but that's still apart of the market forces
mix. Some carriers are more careful than others and it is not obvious
that this is not by choice.

Airline security has been tight for a long time. Especially so for the
last 8 years 8 months or so. I have no problem with that. What I
dislike is inconsistent and unintelligent application.

Despite my having argued for the ineffectivesnesss of current methods,
there have been extremely few successful and an apparently few
unsuccessful (don't ask, don't tell, these are not the ones you want,
move along please ...) attempts to do nasty things to aircraft in
flight in the last 7 years or so.

SEEMING arbitrary is good, if those you are attempting to forestall do
not understand the reasons for your actions. The measures may not be
arbitrary, but are inconsistently and non rigorously applied. Allowing
US passengers to carry empty bottles aboard with capacities > 100 cc
seems strange.

In Shanghai "the tower" has signage*  which disallows the carrying of
fluids over 100 cc. Also tinder, exploder, restsricted cutter,
articles which can destroy and pollute, dangerous germs, pests,
baleful biology, articles from epidemic areas, contraband, carrying of
animals, articles which disturb common sanitation including the
peculiar smell of effluvium. Such restrictions of freedom are unheard
of elsewhere :-)


      R


* Photo  available. Too large to attach without shrinking too small.
Rushing ...

< hat = party>

2010\05\23@194704 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I think the problem we have is not so much that security is "tight" its
mainly that there are so many holes in it that I have no doubt 80% of
the people on this list could down a plane with a few weeks of effort,
and as such provides no benefit for the harm imposed.
The only way to be "Secure" is to have everybody handcuffed naked into
the plane after going through a full body scan (think MRI/CT) oh yeah,
and no luggage at all, buy new clothes at your destination (even then I
can think of a method or two that might work).

All these security measures they have in place seem to do is make people
nervous and then an alert guard will pick up on that and pull the person
out for a more through inspection, that's what happened with the start
of all this liquid stuff and the shoe bloke, before they were
specifically banned.
Personally I feel a better security system would be standing in single
file against a wall inspection style and getting eyeballed by a group of
security people, presumably with biometric monitoring of all passengers
to look for undue nerves or relief when they are passed over. It means
security takes 5 minutes, there are no stupid restrictions on what you
can take on a plane. I also feel the security people should be trained
in what a bomb actually looks like and what goes into making one so you
don't get things like http://www.natch.net/stuff/TSA/ happening.

2010\05\24@023712 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: Personally I feel a better security system would be standing in
:: single file against a wall inspection style and getting eyeballed
:: by a group of security people

Hmm that falls down if someone gets serious enough to imbibe or suture
in sudden wind and noise devices - literally a walking meringue and
ice cream.

Colin
--
cdb, colinspamKILLspambtech-online.co.uk on 24/05/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359








2010\05\24@152841 by Marechiare

picon face
>> the Google's idea that the email address to receive forwarded
>> mail should be authorized is good, BTW.
>
> now *that's* true religion :-).

Sure it is, at least I'm about to accept it :-)

2010\05\25@055145 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

Do you include the full body scanners into the above?  Frankly I think
they are a gross invasion of privacy, and should not be permitted.

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2010\05\25@060829 by RussellMc

face picon face
Just restumbled on this thread:

Michael said:
>> but gmail is primarily  SERVICE like hotmail or yahoo
Russell said:
> OR just enable the GMail POP3 access - did you know it could do POP3 ?

& Michaels' answer made it very clear that he had had more to do with
complex email systems than I will have any time this lifetime. Nice
answer :-)

 Russell

2010\05\25@061609 by RussellMc

face picon face
> > There are no significant privacy breaches involved in the sense that
> > would usually be understood by the term.

> Do you include the full body scanners into the above?  Frankly I think
> they are a gross invasion of privacy, and should not be permitted.

I was thinking of systems typically in use so far.
I must admit that the mm wavelength full body systems do push the
limits somewhat.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner

They are not at all widely deployed so far. I don't think I've met one yet.

Note from the above article that, unless they get clever with the
software when integrating systems (easy to do) that a device carried
in the mouth may well be missed. Also something moulded into 'certain
other areas' - due to image blurring added by the systems. Easily
addressed if they want to. Does seem liable to deal with 'box cutters'
and similar.



Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...