On Apr 9 Mike Perry wrote:
> 1. Generally less secure
Not when done with SSL, which is IMHO the way to go when you're providing
web-based email. How secure do you think pop3 is anyway? Everything gets sent
over in cleartext, including your username/password. Not much of an issue for
people at home with modems, I suppose, but for people like me who sit on a lan,
it makes us vulnerable to sniffers on the subnet.
> 2. Often Slower
Probably not if he's referring to web-based email provided by his ISP; instead
of waiting for all messages to be retreived at once (pop3), you'll only have a
slight pause when opening the next one. Potentially web-based email can be even
faster, since long attachments don't get downloaded automatically; you have the
choice now.
> 3. Often much more restrictive on attached files
Again: not when it's your ISP's web-based email. It's the same account, so the
same restrictions apply.
> Note: this applies only to my experience with places
> like hotmail and other sites offering "free web based
> email", so maybe I am just talking total bullshit :-)
Nope, when it comes to hotmail/bigfoot/... I couldn't agree more with you. I
hate those too. But not all web-based mail has those disadvantages, although I
prefer mail being forwarded to my box directly (unfortunately impossible when at
home due to high internet fees).
--
Rial Juan <http://nighty.ulyssis.org>
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Belgium tel: (++32) 89/856533
ulyssis system admininstrator <http://www.ulyssis.org>
The little critters in nature; they don't know they're ugly.
That's very funny... A fly marying a bumble-bee...
------------------------------------------------------------
Sign the petition at http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
Help bring us more Linux Drivers
