Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook
On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 12:36:12 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 14 September 2017 11:55:34 Reco wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Begin rant:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping
> > > > agencies, this exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times
> > > > longer (If I do it once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail
> > > > pulling and deleting it every 3 minutes.
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the
> > > ISP's system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers
> > > napping/ on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however
> > > the agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar
> > > strategy for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then
> > > sprinting across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll
> > > booths are located.
> >
> > While it's a legitimate point, the better one would be the following:
> >
> > How can you be sure that deleting mail at your ISP server actually
> > deletes it?
> >
> > It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
> > stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
> > second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.
> >
> > Reco
>
> Given todays $50/terrabyte of storage, it sure isn't the resource problem
> it was 10 years ago. So I'd expect its being done. Scary ain't it.
I didn't think this thread was about resources, but mechanism of
delivery and the issue of colocation of backups. Moving emails
from a remote server to home and immediately deleting them on the
server means that you now have a single point of failure. That's
why I asked whether it's simple to deliver to two unrelated places
at once before deleting the server's copy. I don't know how to do
this, nor think it's necessarily going to be simple.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: