Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Back That Gmail Up

blog.jerodsanto.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#51

Post by crdoconnor »

jarofgreen wrote: post #38
sneak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am baffled at how people continue using such a service for something as important as e-mail in 2012 It's free and works PERFECTLY 99.9%+ of the time, for 99.9%+ of users. The edge case (being shut off) can be easily worked around by having backups and changing your MX records to some other email provider ifwhen you find yourself without service from Google. This risk is acceptable when weighed against "worst-case…

Of course that only applies to Google Apps and not @gmail.com addresses. But good point, and I reckon that's another good reason for anyone using email for professional purposes to get their own domain and use it. (One of my pet peeves is seeing businesses advertise a www.mycompany.co.uk website and a bob@aol.com address. Small places do it a lot - why would you buy a domain and not use it fully? Why?)

Inertia.

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#52

Post by DigitalSea »

People were raving about it on a forum - well I'm sold on the idea. In all serious though, if you assume that your email service will be around forever you probably shouldn't be on the Internet. Cudos to the author, I haven't really seen the point stressed enough that you should backup your email, especially on a service as large as Gmail.

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#53

Post by MikeW »

sneak wrote: post #13

On most stock OSes, this will show your password to anyone who views the list of processes on the machine. Try 'imapsync' [1] instead, as it uses a config file for your credentials instead of command-line arguments, keeping the secret(s) out of the process list. Also, the author of this blog post is showing his inexperience: > BaGoMa's output is pretty informative so I send it to log a file in case I ever want to che…

imapsync doesn't work perfectly with gmails imap server. There are multiple scripts out there just to work around as many edge cases as possible.

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#56

Post by danbmil99 »

"X It's hosted on SourceForge, just kidding that was weird and scary"

It is hosted on SF, and that IS weird and scary. In this day and age, why would your new cutting-edge FOSS offering be delivered on SF rather than github?

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#57

Post by cynwoody »

sneak wrote: post #13

On most stock OSes, this will show your password to anyone who views the list of processes on the machine. Try 'imapsync' [1] instead, as it uses a config file for your credentials instead of command-line arguments, keeping the secret(s) out of the process list. Also, the author of this blog post is showing his inexperience: > BaGoMa's output is pretty informative so I send it to log a file in case I ever want to che…

> Try 'imapsync' [1] instead, as it uses a config file for your credentials instead of command-line arguments, keeping the secret(s) out of the process list.

Given where he said the box resides, I'd say he's got a major problem if unfriendlies are in s position to run ps -eF on it, no matter what is in the command strings, LOL!

And, if they can run ps, they can more than likely read the config files, too!

> Instead, use a cronjob wrapper script (e.g. [2]) that is silent on success and outputs on error, so the "cronjob-output-as-email" feature works to notify you when it breaks.

Excellent suggestion.

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#58

Post by chuckbot »

sneak wrote: post #13

On most stock OSes, this will show your password to anyone who views the list of processes on the machine. Try 'imapsync' [1] instead, as it uses a config file for your credentials instead of command-line arguments, keeping the secret(s) out of the process list. Also, the author of this blog post is showing his inexperience: > BaGoMa's output is pretty informative so I send it to log a file in case I ever want to che…

gmvault opens a browser window, where you confirm you want to give an auth token to gmvault. All without a password anywhere.

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#59

Post by replax »

icebraining wrote: post #31
there wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shit happens, but with nearly every other provider, you can at least talk to someone to find out what happened and get your service restored, or at least get your data.

You can always get your data if you do backups - like you should in any case - so that point is moot. So, you're paying and giving up on a nice webmail client with two-factor auth (how many providers offer this?) for "finding out what happen". I don't think it's a great deal. I'm not a Gmail apologist, by the way - I think there are valid reasons not to use it, like not giving Google a copy of your whole life - but I…

You do not have to give GMail up, not sure where you read that...

The point was, that exclusively relying on it is not smart, if email is important to you. You can easily use the full benefits of your gmail convenience while still having a fully working fallback. There are even two ways of doing it, one would be to simply forward your email, or using your own domain on google apps.

Re: Back That Gmail Up

#60

Post by replax »

snowwrestler wrote: post #45
there wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the backdoor to nearly every online account you have, by way of 'reset password' links.

That would be a problem if your Gmail was hacked. The GP is talking about Google themselves blocking access. I'm not worried that Google will reset my passwords in other accounts.

The problem is, that it prevents you from resetting passwords, too. Which could very well lock you out of your own accounts.
Post reply on HN