[d00d]

Quote:

---

But until then, in spite of the fact that your list looks like an ad for .mac account along the lines of bid requirements by the government offices for granting contracts, which are nothing more than heavy duty ads for the specifc product they want to buy

---

1. I had these needs before I got .Mac. Heck, I wanted them before I even had an IMAP account.
2. Was the government contract analogy necessary?

Quote:

---

did you try netscape account? I know that they used to support imap and I also know that their current capacity is now the mythical 2GB.

---

I'll have to check that out. Last time I checked, IMAP access wasn't offered for Netscape or AIM accounts. It looks like it is now. Their webmail interface (for AIM mail at least) isn't horrendous (even if it is filled with ads). Do they still slap ads onto the bottom of your emails? As for mythical, until you pointed out Netscape/AOL, I had not heard of a free IMAP account of that size. I'm glad to see someone stepping up to the plate. I'll have to see if they allow SSL protected connections.

Quote:

---

There was also some talk about Google contemplating the imap support in future but I don't know when it will happen.

---

Interesting, I'd be curious about how they'd map that semantically considering they don't have folders per se and individual conversations can belong to several labels.

[jmincey]

"Last time I checked, IMAP access wasn't offered for Netscape..."
I have a staff person who uses personal IMAP account with Netscape and has done so for several years -- free of charge.

[d00d]

Ok, well, I couldn't find the configuration information.

[jmincey]

This has led me to recheck it and it appears that the damned new program of "free" e-mail by AOL has coopted the Netscape accounts. I'll have to ask Russ (the staff person I mention above) about this and see if he is grandfathered in or whether he has run into difficulty.
A pity, because the Netscape IMAP mail accounts worked very well.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

2. Was the government contract analogy necessary?

---

Judging from the tone and contents of your post, obviously not as necessary as your comments below but I think that it makes for a good analogy in the present context.

Quote:

---

Edit: Just so it's clear my feelings on this, let me say I am sick and tired of the very tired "but Gmail gives you 2GB+ and it's free" argument. It's not clever anymore. ...
It's smart alecky and irritating to me personally.

---

Whatever is it you perceive in my post beyond my own words, is entirely your own doing and frankly, not a very big concern for me. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Last time I checked, IMAP access wasn't offered for Netscape or AIM accounts. It looks like it is now.

---

It has been this way for quite a while (I am tempted to state for years) but it used to be only 100MB for years, followed by 250MB and finally 2GB only recently but now the AOL has it and made it slow. But of course, according to your needs, 100MB would have already been ample... need to check more and be on the edge less. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Whatever is it you perceive in my post beyond my own words, is entirely your own doing and frankly, not a very big concern for me. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

---

To be quite frank, I find your tone patronizing, particularly when add in the smilies. I just can't tip toe around it anymore. Your points are usually very cursory and tend to miss a lot of nuance. Personal opinion of course.

Quote:

---

But of course, according to your needs, 100MB would have already been ample

---

if you'd read what I wrote, no, it's not.

Quote:

---

need to check more and be on the edge less.

---

Not really sure what you mean by this.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

I'll have to see if they allow SSL protected connections.

---

It does, just checked to confirm!

Quote:

---

To be quite frank, I find your tone patronizing, particularly when add in the smilies. I just can't tip toe around it anymore. Your points are usually very cursory and tend to miss a lot of nuance. Personal opinion of course.

---

Sorry to not meet your stringent requirements on not catching many of the subtleties of your wonderful writings and obviously not many can be as brilliant and thorough as those you approve, perhaps including yourself. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I did, however, find your previous post that was very close to a tantrum (apparently brought about by someone who dared to have a different opinion than yours) rather intriguing- well, actually amusing. If you wish to view that reaction as patronizing, that is up to you.

Quote:

---

Not really sure what you mean by this.

---

Must be one of those nuance things. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
_
Addendum: All your personal quips and enlightening remarks about me aside, on the subject of email accounts, netscape.net email (now aim.com) meets every single requirement you listed in one of your previous posts... and yes, it offers 2GB of free storage space. Some of us don't find it to be such a bad deal.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

netscape.net email (now aim.com) meets every single requirement you listed in one of your previous posts

---

Except for the whole address book syncing thing.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Except for the whole address book syncing thing.

---

Mail will obviously readily use the address book from the machine that is in use. If you have different sets of address books on various machines and like to update/consolidate them, it is obviously not a standard part of this email account but as I mentioned earlier, (with a little creativity) there are simple but different ways to achieve that goal. In my case, I use a 2GB micro USB drive, smaller than my car key, that stays with my key chain and it contains considerably more than my address book files (I am sure you know where they normally live in the user library). Such useful devices now cost no more than $35; I have seen 500MB versions for as little as $12.
From my perspective, the price/performance and convenience ratio is quite favorable in the opposite direction of .mac thingy. Mind you, I am not trying to sell you anything! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Mail will obviously readily use the address book from the machine that is in use. If you have different sets of address books on various machines and like to update/consolidate them, it is obviously not a standard part of this email account but as I mentioned earlier, (with a little creativity) there are simple but different ways to achieve that goal. In my case, I use a 2GB micro USB drive, smaller than my car key, that stays with my key chain and it contains considerably more than my address book files (I am sure you know where they normally live in the user library). Such useful devices now cost no more than $35; I have seen 500MB versions for as little as $12.

---

That doesn't help me when I'm on the road using the webmail interface on someone else's machine or a Unix/Windows box. Further, synchronizing this way assumes that you never forget to grab the latest version of the file before going to the other computer or else you might end up losing changes. I don't need to make working with the computer harder. It's supposed to make things easier.

[Nobody]

Since I do not wish to miss any more subtleties of this complex issue so let me think aloud, as it were, to make sure that I am not being superficial.
The initial discussion on this email topic, as far as my involvement in it is concerned, started with your comment indicating that the newly declared changed in .mac account may help it become a premier email provider to which I pointed out the obvious caveat of its high cost versus already existing free alternatives. You proceeded to condescend and claimed certain things that can only be done by .mac, listing 4 specific things that free accounts cannot do. Perhaps to make the exchange, shall we say more interesting, you enlightened me with your personal observations as to the value of my contribution in this discussion?
From my perspective, this was never about you personally and only about the accuracy of information. Suffice to say that thus far, I think it should be obvious to any reader that of the 4 claims you made, 3 have unequivocally been proven incorrect. The 4th and the last is the only one remaining. This is where I would like you to remember what I initially posted:
With a slight forethought and creativity (well, not much really /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif), virtually all the limitations you listed could be overcome.
I believe that I have provided an inexpensive ($12 one time cost versus $100/year), decent, yet simple enough solution to the 4th requirement in your original list. Id agree that it is slightly less convenient in comparison to .mac when it comes to address book synchronization but some readers may find paying $100/year equally or even more inconvenient for half the storage at .mac. If the solution is not to your personal liking, dont use it (to use your own enlightening words to another poster not so long ago, or perhaps it was another esteem moderator, no one is holding a gun to your head /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) but do refrain from making false claims because in your position as a moderator, in spite of all disclaimers in rules including absolutions from damage etc by following your advise, your assertions come across as firm facts to those readers who may be slightly less than well-informed and that is a disservice to your readers. It has the potential of steering them in the wrong direction, unless that is deliberate but then in that case, being a forum open to public, some one will challenge your assertions.
From my perspective, this is the end of this story. However, if your remarks about the quality of information in my posts were global (your post can be taken either way), do feel free to quote examples and I will see if I can justify them at least as well as in this incidencefailing that, you will have my apology, the only right thing to do.

[d00d]

I dropped all that side stuff two posts ago. If you really want to keep talking about it with me, I'm perfectly willing in PMs. I shouldn't have let myself drift off-topic in the first place. I apologize for that.
As for the topic, I was unaware of Netscape/AOL's IMAP access. I listed a few aspects of .Mac that I find invaluable and previously could not find elsewhere (especially not with the big three: Yahoo, Hotmail, and Gmail). There are other distinguishing attributes. However, when I called .Mac's email premier, I'm talking about the whole package. Could a free email solution be sufficient for many users? Yup. I never claimed or suggested otherwise.
I still believe .Mac has a terrific email component, particularly when you consider its synergy with the other components. I still believe there is no free alternative that completely matches it. The new improved web interface will really set it apart in my opinion (do I have to attach IMO to everything as a moderator?). For $6.67/month (Amazon sells .Mac subscriptions for $80), it may be expensive to use exclusively for email, but it's not just an email provider. Now, I didn't qualify my earlier statement by speaking about the other services, but then I've never recommended .Mac for just email use, I've only commended the email component as being top notch, which I think is still true with the caveat of storage space (which I did note right off the bat mention).
I would not qualify your solution as decent, or even really appropriate for what I wrote: "Have my local Address Book synced with the service". You certainly described a low cost method of pseudo syncing your address book between multiple Macs, but it didn't touch the heart of what I wrote. Full stop. I did not balk at your suggested solution because I didn't want to use it, but because it didn't match up with what I said.
I did not assert that no free service had the four things that listed. I asked for the free service that did. You came very close to the requirements I listed, a fact that I did admit and was actually happy to see. As for advice, no one has asked for advice in this thread. I'm not steering anyone in a faulty direction. I asserted an opinion about Apple's service. I queried for a free service that could match up because you suggested there was. This is a discussion. I'm a member here first, moderator second. I've never claimed I'm infallible. You seem to have some issue with status (something I'll gladly discuss with you over PM).
I stand by what my original assertion was. .Mac's email component will be very strong once this new web interface is released. The one weakness will be storage space. I still have not found an email service that matches its feature set. Some of those features may not be important to some people, but for some more demanding users, they are.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

You seem to have some issue with status....

---

Not really!
However, I have found your personal behavior considerably less than professional but fortunately, it is irrelevant from my perspective. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Since we are making predictions, I am fairly certain of my (implicit) initial idea in thinking that addition of web based features to .mac email will increase its value to its current users. It may even encourage some new users but I doubt that there will be any major changes in patterns. Those who find .mac accounts useful for a variety of reasons, already use them but majority of those who do not, are unlikey to change their minds. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Those who find .mac accounts useful for a variety of reasons, already use them but majority of those who do not, are unlikey to change their minds.

---

Probably not. Considering the number of people that stick with Hotmail, it seems most people's needs aren't that demanding.