On 24.06.15 09:00, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> When there are too many folders with new mail, the buffy notification
> mechanism truncates the list and replaces the rest with "...". But not
> all folders are equally important, and it so happens that for me the
> folders that make it to the visible list
On 24-06-2015 ,22:48:37, Ben Fitzgerald wrote:
> Hi
>
> I recently updated my google preferences and limited set "allow
> unsecure apps" to "off".
>
> Later I tried to login to gmail with mutt and found it no longer
> worked as imap attempted AUTHENTICATE PLAIN over port 993 (SSL).
Can you confi
Hi Mick,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:28:16AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> On 24-06-2015 ,22:48:37, Ben Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> > I'm a little confused about why google consider this unsafe. I'd like
> > to understand this better so if anyone has pointers to reading up do
> > please post, however my primary
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Mick wrote:
> On 24-06-2015 ,22:48:37, Ben Fitzgerald wrote:
> I don't know why this is happening in your case. I have Google's
> "Access for less secure apps" turned On and I have no problem (yet)
> connecting to their IMAP4 server. I hope this continues to be
On 2015-06-25, Ben Fitzgerald wrote:
> I recently updated my google preferences and limited set "allow
> unsecure apps" to "off".
>
> Later I tried to login to gmail with mutt and found it no longer
> worked as imap attempted AUTHENTICATE PLAIN over port 993 (SSL).
>
> I'm a little confused about
On Thursday 25 Jun 2015 16:13:35 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-06-25, Ben Fitzgerald wrote:
> > I recently updated my google preferences and limited set "allow
> > unsecure apps" to "off".
> >
> > Later I tried to login to gmail with mutt and found it no longer
> > worked as imap attempted AUTHE
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 03:05:21PM +0200, bastian-muttu...@t6l.de wrote:
> > This is wrong. The file permissions are what they are quite
> > specifically and intentionally for security reasons. If you want to
> > make the files less secure, you are required to make a conscious
> > decision on a c
* On 25 Jun 2015, Derek Martin wrote:
> to secure it. That is a massive security failure. If other people
> are on your system and have access to the directory where your
> attachments are stored, YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. And if not, YOU DO NOT
> NEED THIS. So practically speaking there's no good
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:48:57AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> * On 25 Jun 2015, Derek Martin wrote:
> > to secure it. That is a massive security failure. If other people
> > are on your system and have access to the directory where your
> > attachments are stored, YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. And
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:25:19PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:48:57AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> > I generally agree with Derek but I want to point out one exception to
> > this. There are use cases for allowing specific roles/service accounts
> > access to your un
10 matches
Mail list logo
