E-mail, IMAP and Accessing Mail from Anywhere
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC? Web mail services seem to be very popular these days. Another solution that occurs to me is to use IMAP. I have already set up a local IMAP server so I can easily switch mail clients without having to worry about changes to their mailbox formats. On the subject of mail clients, has anyone had any success at persuading any of mail clients that they should not attempt to access any mail directly, with the exception of any cache, i.e. not attempt to read the default mail spool and keep the "Inbox", "Sent" and "Drafts" folders on an IMAP server? Regards, Steve.
On 29 Feb 11:20, Steve Fosdick wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Same thing I do when I'm at my "normal" PC... ssh through to the box that handles my mail, run mutt, rejoice. When I wasn't doing that I was using IMAP. Cheers, -- Brett Parker
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:18:27PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
On 29 Feb 11:20, Steve Fosdick wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Same thing I do when I'm at my "normal" PC...
ssh through to the box that handles my mail, run mutt, rejoice.
... a man after my own heart! :-) -- Chris Green
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:18:27 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
On 29 Feb 11:20, Steve Fosdick wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Same thing I do when I'm at my "normal" PC...
ssh through to the box that handles my mail, run mutt, rejoice.
When I wasn't doing that I was using IMAP.
Cheers,
The problem with that approach is that it assumes you can get ssh access. My experience of airports, web cafes, hotels etc is that you are pretty much limited to web access (or if you are really lucky POP/IMAP). I don't like using clear text protocols for remote access to my mail when I'm in untrusted environments (for obvious reasons) so I tend to use SSL enabled webmail. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:57:16PM +0000, mbm wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:18:27 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
On 29 Feb 11:20, Steve Fosdick wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Same thing I do when I'm at my "normal" PC...
ssh through to the box that handles my mail, run mutt, rejoice.
When I wasn't doing that I was using IMAP.
Cheers,
The problem with that approach is that it assumes you can get ssh access. My experience of airports, web cafes, hotels etc is that you are pretty much limited to web access (or if you are really lucky POP/IMAP).
I don't like using clear text protocols for remote access to my mail when I'm in untrusted environments (for obvious reasons) so I tend to use SSL enabled webmail.
MindTerm is a pretty good browser based ssh client which you can run from any old browser. -- Chris Green
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:06:00 +0000 Chris G <cl@isbd.net> allegedly wrote:
MindTerm is a pretty good browser based ssh client which you can run from any old browser.
Chris Thanks for that - I'd never heard of Mindterm before. I'll give it a try (though not for mail). The only issue I can see at a quick glance is that the free java applet is not signed. There is also the larger problem of course that I'd have to run it on a webserver which also gave access to my mail. Since I do not routinely run a server on my home network and my mail is held on my provider's server, then the use of Mindterm becomes moot. :-) Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 06:08:47PM +0000, mbm wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:06:00 +0000 Chris G <cl@isbd.net> allegedly wrote:
MindTerm is a pretty good browser based ssh client which you can run from any old browser.
Chris
Thanks for that - I'd never heard of Mindterm before. I'll give it a try (though not for mail). The only issue I can see at a quick glance is that the free java applet is not signed.
There is also the larger problem of course that I'd have to run it on a webserver which also gave access to my mail. Since I do not routinely run a server on my home network and my mail is held on my provider's server, then the use of Mindterm becomes moot. :-)
You don't necessarily have to run it yourself, there are free to use mindTerms floating around on the internet, some are dedicated to accessing specific systems but not all, you can use them to access anywhere. -- Chris Green
On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 18:43 +0000, Chris G wrote:
You don't necessarily have to run it yourself, there are free to use mindTerms floating around on the internet, some are dedicated to accessing specific systems but not all, you can use them to access anywhere.
Unless it is someone totally and completely trusted wouldn't that defeat the whole point of encrypting the session in the first place ?
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:27:42 +0000 Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 18:43 +0000, Chris G wrote:
Unless it is someone totally and completely trusted wouldn't that defeat the whole point of encrypting the session in the first place ?
Yep - Man-in-the-middle attack made easy. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 07:27:42PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 18:43 +0000, Chris G wrote:
You don't necessarily have to run it yourself, there are free to use mindTerms floating around on the internet, some are dedicated to accessing specific systems but not all, you can use them to access anywhere.
Unless it is someone totally and completely trusted wouldn't that defeat the whole point of encrypting the session in the first place ?
I don't think so, no, the encryption means that even the 'owner' of the MindTerm can see what you're typing. -- Chris Green
On 01 Mar 21:53, Chris G wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 07:27:42PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 18:43 +0000, Chris G wrote:
You don't necessarily have to run it yourself, there are free to use mindTerms floating around on the internet, some are dedicated to accessing specific systems but not all, you can use them to access anywhere.
Unless it is someone totally and completely trusted wouldn't that defeat the whole point of encrypting the session in the first place ?
I don't think so, no, the encryption means that even the 'owner' of the MindTerm can see what you're typing.
Well, given that MindTerm just creates an outbound ssh connection from the machine that the APPLET is running on... if the ssh port is blocked it's going to be of little to no use anyways. Also, I'm assuming that you meant "can't", now if mindterm worked in the way of the content travelling over https then going back out via ssh, you'll realise the your statement would be incorrect, because the "end point" would be the webserver, it'd then need to re-encode for the ssh session, which means that you end up with the content in plain text at that transition. There is (somewhere) a nasty fastcgi -> ssh gateway, but that would then work as described above, and so you'd *only* want to run it on *completely* trusted hosts (i.e. the cgi should run somewhere that only trusted people have access to). Cheers, -- Brett Parker
mbm <mbm@rlogin.net> wrote: [...]
[...] pretty much limited to web access (or if you are really lucky POP/IMAP).
I don't like using clear text protocols for remote access [...]
If you have POP or IMAP, your client should be able to send STLS or STARTTLS and avoid clear text before login. Lots of phones now seem to run ssh clients, which is handy and doesn't depend on the rubbish wifi at airports and so on (depends on the rubbish 3G coverage instead). Over on planet.alug.org.uk, Andrew Savory recently described corkscrew for getting ssh out over https when you're limited to web access. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Generally I have never had a problem getting ssh out on public wifi, Certainly it is possible on the The Cloud and Purple Patch systems which seem quite common in pubs and bars. In fact it is even possible to get ipsec or PPTP working over them. The main problem with ssh on phones is limited keyboards make the shortcuts you are used to hard/impossible, also if you are doing this then I would throw screen into the mix to save frustration on disconnected sessions halfway through composing mail etc Even in the cases where you are encountering blocks on the ssh ports I wouldn't mind betting this is not based on any packet inspection and simply running an ssh server on port 443 or something would get around it. Might be an issue if they are pushing you through an intercepting proxy though I guess and of course you would have to preempt the restriction being in place to get your sshd on an allowed port.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:19:05 +0000 Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
Generally I have never had a problem getting ssh out on public wifi,
Unfortunately I have. The last time I tried (as recently as two weeks ago) at Schipol, I couldn't get past the webproxy at all. And in the hotel in Brussels I was similarly stuck. But anyway, for personal mail, the SSL protected webmail my provider offers gives me all I need when away from my home machine. If I need to handle anything urgent, I can read and send from my browser. The rest I can deal with when I get home. Office mail is handled by a VPN to the corporate system (which is a different kettle of microsoft fish entirely) Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk> wrote:
The main problem with ssh on phones is limited keyboards make the shortcuts you are used to hard/impossible, also if you are doing this then I would throw screen into the mix to save frustration on disconnected sessions halfway through composing mail etc
I don't find the keyboard a problem, although some of the keyboard shortcuts are a bit tedious to enter in midpssh, using the More menu. Disconnected sessions are a real pain and disappointingly frequent, so the suggestion of screen is a really good idea. Other thing that I'd add to this mix is: test the set-up of your ssh phone system's TERM and the mail client on the server before you go. The server doesn't understand vt320, I keep forgetting to set up mailx until it's too late and I seem to keep botching my mutt From line. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:20:10 +0000 MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> allegedly wrote:
If you have POP or IMAP, your client should be able to send STLS or STARTTLS and avoid clear text before login.
Lots of phones now seem to run ssh clients, which is handy and doesn't depend on the rubbish wifi at airports and so on (depends on the rubbish 3G coverage instead).
Over on planet.alug.org.uk, Andrew Savory recently described corkscrew for getting ssh out over https when you're limited to web access.
Hope that helps,
And I hadn't heard of corkscrew either - I'll play with it. Thanks Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 29 Feb 20:57, mbm wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:18:27 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
On 29 Feb 11:20, Steve Fosdick wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Same thing I do when I'm at my "normal" PC...
ssh through to the box that handles my mail, run mutt, rejoice.
When I wasn't doing that I was using IMAP.
Cheers,
The problem with that approach is that it assumes you can get ssh access. My experience of airports, web cafes, hotels etc is that you are pretty much limited to web access (or if you are really lucky POP/IMAP).
*YAWN* - most don't block port 443, I have a ssh daemon listening on port 443 of one of my VMs, otherwise there's lots of other ways of "getting round" stupid access limits on broken notworks. POP/IMAP is all well and good, but that limits to collection of mail, not sending. You'll most likely find that the SMTP port on these wireless networks is blocked, but you'll generally find port 587 open. Hum ho, -- Brett Parker
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:59:51 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
*YAWN* - most don't block port 443, I have a ssh daemon listening on port 443 of one of my VMs, otherwise there's lots of other ways of "getting round" stupid access limits on broken notworks.
See earlier response. In my experience I've been intercepted by a transparent proxy asking for authentication (and usually a credit card). The network then limits you to 80/443 and sometimes 25/110/143 I confess I've never checked whether the intercept on 443 was a packet filter or a protocol block, but again since I only connect to my mail provider's servers and not to a server I control on my home network it becomes irrelevant whether I can punch ssh through on that port. Of course if, like you, I ran an ssh daemon on 443 at home it might be useful - but I don't. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote: [...]
POP/IMAP is all well and good, but that limits to collection of mail, not sending. [...]
Why would not IMAP not let you send? See: home of the madduck/ blog/ Sending email via IMAP (or not?) http://madduck.net/blog/2007.08.06%3Asending-email-via-imap-or-not/index.htm... Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On 03 Mar 09:09, MJ Ray wrote:
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote: [...]
POP/IMAP is all well and good, but that limits to collection of mail, not sending. [...]
Why would not IMAP not let you send? See:
home of the madduck/ blog/ Sending email via IMAP (or not?) http://madduck.net/blog/2007.08.06%3Asending-email-via-imap-or-not/index.htm...
Because sending e-mail via imap is evil. Yes, you can do it by adding extra rules to the other end, but overall, it's not what the protocol was designed for. -- Brett Parker
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:30:54 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
Because sending e-mail via imap is evil. Yes, you can do it by adding extra rules to the other end, but overall, it's not what the protocol was designed for.
And there are also extensions to POP3 which permit sending email...... Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 03 Mar 20:22, mbm wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:30:54 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
Because sending e-mail via imap is evil. Yes, you can do it by adding extra rules to the other end, but overall, it's not what the protocol was designed for.
And there are also extensions to POP3 which permit sending email......
I was unaware that POP3 supported write other than delete... errr... -- Brett Parker
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:47:59 +0000 Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
I was unaware that POP3 supported write other than delete... errr...
Th eXtnd Xmit extension (found in Qpopper for example) allows sending of mail from a POP3 session. It used to be used in the mid 90s in envronments using Eudora on a PC and Qualcomm's implementation of the POP3D on the server. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Microsoft free zone. Please do not send me Microsoft Word Documents. For some reasons, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Fosdick <lists@pelvoux.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Uncomment a line in my .forward sieve and copy some of it to my mobile phone's webmail. If I need more, I use IMAP from mujMail on the phone.
[...] On the subject of mail clients, has anyone had any success at persuading any of mail clients that they should not attempt to access any mail directly, with the exception of any cache, i.e. not attempt to read the default mail spool and keep the "Inbox", "Sent" and "Drafts" folders on an IMAP server?
Heirloom mailx (formerly nail), GNUMail and mujMail are all fine with that as far as I can tell. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:20:30AM +0000, Steve Fosdick wrote:
What do people here do to access e-mail when away from their normal PC?
Web mail services seem to be very popular these days.
Another solution that occurs to me is to use IMAP. I have already set up a local IMAP server so I can easily switch mail clients without having to worry about changes to their mailbox formats.
Another solution (the one I use) is to read mail using the command line via ssh. I have an ssh login on my hosting service (Gradwell) and I run mutt on their machine and read all my mail there. All that's required to access it is an ssh client.
On the subject of mail clients, has anyone had any success at persuading any of mail clients that they should not attempt to access any mail directly, with the exception of any cache, i.e. not attempt to read the default mail spool and keep the "Inbox", "Sent" and "Drafts" folders on an IMAP server?
Well mutt does this pretty well. I not only use it as my personal mail client (as described above, using ssh) but I also use it as my mail reader at work where it reads mail on an MS Exchange server which has IMAP enabled. It works well and leaves everything on the Exchange server. -- Chris Green
participants (8)
-
Adam Bower -
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
mbm -
mick -
MJ Ray -
Steve Fosdick -
Wayne Stallwood