I do indeed have ISP email - which is what I use by default. I use Gmail very little - but have found it useful sometimes when away from home, when I haven't been able to use my ISP's SMTP server. I also use it as a "throw-away" account for posting to a few forums - so that if it gets seriously spammed, I can junk it and create another one.
It was in this connection - trying to post to a forum - that I discovered that it no longer works.
Maybe because you haven't used it is what is causing the problem. I have been using two gmail accounts with Outlook 2010 for a long while. My settings in Outlook are the same as yours and I have not encountered any problem (as yet). I do go on to each account on the web about every three months and clear out all the junk as I have Outlook set to leave messages on server. Perhaps it is that action that keeps it alive.
I did the quickest check possible.
While the word appears in the code, we have no way (immediately) of knowing it is wired up.
And this issue has apparently raised quite a stink... I'm not going to try to summarize this.
Paul
The link that led to that one.
"gmail says Thunderbird not safe" Go to Allow less secure apps and choose "Allow"
Paul
I don't *think* it's that. I do receive frequent emails in the account from one particular forum -even though I don't send very often. I have a rule set up which forwards incoming emails to a non-Gmail account and then deletes them. [Long story, but related to the fact that the rather old version of Mailwasher which I use to screen my emails can't handle servers which use SSL]
If you have previously setup 2FA, you will have been using App Passwords. Your last used App Password for this client has probably expired.
FWIW I've got an gmail IMAP/SMTP setup on Outlook 2010. Different incoming port (993) but exactly same outgoing setup (587/TLS) as above. Sending works fine.
Of course they were using Windows, for most people that is all there is. Brian
No I've not had to change anything and use gmail for some mailing lists. I use a secure connection as usual though Outlook Express and live mail and not seen any issues. Maybe its just some users? Brian
Secure against what? E-Mail is insecure. Authenticating yourself when reading/writing mail is all very well but doesn't prevent anyone either impersonating you or intercepting your mail on its way to you or from you.
pebkac error....
Almost anything else; Evolution, Thunderbird, Eudora ...
I wouldn't pay much attention to that.
No, I haven't set up 2FA.
Just tried changing 995 to 993 on my POP/SMTP setup to no avail.
That wouldn't be expected to work.
Perhaps google want to enforce the use of 2FA but they are not exactly being clear about it.
I'd recommend enabling it, but that's just me.
however using ssh does make man in the middle attacks harder.
But unless you're using a text mode client such as mutt (which I do by the way) then ssh doesn't come into it. You don't use ssh with thunderbird, eudora or any of the GUI clients. (OK, you *could* be using 'ssh -X' to run a GUI remotely but that's usually too slow to be practical).
| Secure against what? E-Mail is insecure.
There are different kinds of login. The most common types are to pass the name and password as either plain text or base-64, which is easily deciphered, on a non-secure connection.
It used to be that anyone could send an email without authentication. That was only needed for receiving. Later there were minimal checks. For instance, some ISPs used to check that email was at least coming from their network.
That was changed because of spammers, mainly, rather than security or privacy concerns. Over time it's become standard to require login for sending and now it's becoming common to use SSL and encrypted passwords. There's also a push on to encrypt web traffic in general.
But I wouldn't argue with your point, especially where GMail is concerned. While a secure connection might save your email being hijacked while hanging out in Starbucks on their wireless connection, even with all possible security there's still Google reading your email, claiming co-rights to your email and retaining copies even if you delete them, all *as part of your alleged agreement with them*. That means your email is also available to any employees with access to Google servers, and probably to the NSA. It also means you've given implied consent to the notion that you don't care and don't expect private email. (That's the argument that Google likes to use legally: You can't complain because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, because Google is dishonest and everyone already knows that before they sign up. It's sort of like, "Of course I robbed him, your honor, but he gave me his implied consent by letting me into his house to fix the drain. And he agreed to that on page 17 of the liability disclaimer he signed before I did the work."
There was an interesting analysis of expectation of privacy awhile back:
The gist of the idea being that one's expectation of privacy, in a legal sense, is affected in part by one's expectation. If we don't make an effort to keep email private, through lack of security, use of corporate webmail, etc, then we could lose the right. In other words, in a way, Google's logic is correct: Anyone who trusts Google should have known that Google can't be trusted. Therefore, if you use GMail you've already agreed to let Google rob you. And by extension you've agreed that the NSA, Google's business partners, and any Tom, Dick, or Harry, for that matter, are doing nothing wrong in the simple act of reading your email. You "left it out on the table", so to speak. Maybe you didn't mean to, but you should have known that anyone could just break into your house and look at what's on the table. :)
The NSA has been trying to use the argument that Microsoft should give them access to customer files on their European servers with an even more far-fetched claim, which is that customer files are not private property but are, rather, Microsoft business records, which the US govt has a right to access. There's already some precedent for that, in a sense. If you get arrested and the court gets a warrant (or subpoena?) to access your GMail, they'll demand it from Google, not from you. So where *is* your ownership?
Arguably one of the greatest threats to privacy is the glib and lazy pronouncement by many people that, "Hey, there's no online privacy anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it."
Yes, but that's *only* from you to your E-Mail provider. The E-Mail then gets sent across multiple networks using simple SMTP protocols in general so is basically 'not private'.
Yes, the passwords you need to connect to your E-Mail account are mostly there to stop spam generators using your account, there's no intent to make your E-Mail private.
Not to mention that as soon as it gets sent anywhere every intermediate server can see the E-Mail, not just Google.
I have the same with outlook 2013 and it works fine. My AV software is doing a man in the middle on it so it can check the contents.
Which is not needed.
That would be why none of the recent "invoice" emails got through without the attachment being sterilised?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.