Another problem with web-based email is reliability: my
mail.com account is down as they 'upgrade the website'. Probably best to
have both web-based and normal email.
dave
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Rial Juan wrote:
> 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).
>
>
