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.