«

I have my email client set up to leave mail on my server for a couple of
days after reading as a backup. However I had lots of wmv files sent this
week and they filled up the puny 30?Mb allocated for webmail and further
mail started 'bouncing'.
However I realised that I can keep old mail in vast quantities on Gmail. (2
Gb?)
I have a domain address which I had redirected to my server - now I direct
it to Gmail which I have set up to _forward_ it to the server where I have
spam and virus settings.
I now find that I can set Gmail to send directly to Outlook (or any other
email client) without going through the server's mailbox and that Gmail
antivirus and spam settings are good.
Can anybody suggest an advantage or disadvantage of doing it that way?
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:20:36 GMT, Jim S <> wrote:

>I have my email client set up to leave mail on my server for a couple of
>days after reading as a backup. However I had lots of wmv files sent this
>week and they filled up the puny 30?Mb allocated for webmail and further
>mail started 'bouncing'.
>However I realised that I can keep old mail in vast quantities on Gmail. (2
>Gb?)
>I have a domain address which I had redirected to my server - now I direct
>it to Gmail which I have set up to _forward_ it to the server where I have
>spam and virus settings.
>I now find that I can set Gmail to send directly to Outlook (or any other
>email client) without going through the server's mailbox and that Gmail
>antivirus and spam settings are good.
>Can anybody suggest an advantage or disadvantage of doing it that way?

The advantage to me is that I can forward my gmail addresses to my
Demon addresses and get Agent to file in the emails in whatever folder
I want. No spam ever gets through the filters even though I make no
effort to hide my addresses.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd http://www.NPSL1.com

Artificial neural networks applications.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:04:08 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> Jim S wrote:
>
>> However I realised that I can keep old mail in vast quantities on
>> Gmail. (2 Gb?)
>
> 7.2G
>
>> I have a domain address which I had redirected to my server - now I
>> direct it to Gmail which I have set up to _forward_ it to the server
>> where I have spam and virus settings.
>
> Gmail can forward and can forward and keep the mail in gmail.
>
>> I now find that I can set Gmail to send directly to Outlook (or any
>> other email client) without going through the server's mailbox and that
>> Gmail antivirus and spam settings are good.
>
> When you say 'send to ... email client' you mean pop or imap as opposed to
> just using gmail's webmail. Gmail is more versatile than some other free
> mails which provide only webmail access. There's a comparison of free
> webmail services here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...mail_providers
>
>> Can anybody suggest an advantage or disadvantage of doing it that way?
>
> One of my gmail accounts is configured to forward to another address and
> keep the gmail on the gmail server. Mail which is handled in that way
> gives me gmail webmail access to things like airline and rental car
> confirmation numbers if I need to access that information using someone
> else's computer while traveling.
>
> There are numerous advantages to IMAP for synchronizing your mail across
> different computers and email clients' inboxes.

Perhaps I'm not sure of the difference.
Since changing I have Gmail set up to forward mail to my server address and
keep a copy on Gmail inbox. My email client then just accepts the email is
coming from my server.
What is the difference if I then enter the Gmail settings into my client
and stop 'telling' Gmail to forward to my server?
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK

Stephen Wolstenholme <> wrote:

>The advantage to me is that I can forward my gmail addresses to my
>Demon addresses and get Agent to file in the emails in whatever folder
>I want. No spam ever gets through the filters even though I make no
>effort to hide my addresses.

Man I have to use Outlook Express to check my Gmail. You can see I'm
using 1.93, it won't do the security thing.

I have Agent 3.2 but never liked it, but will go that route if it will
replace Outlook Express.
--

Untitled
http://pics.livejournal.com/tongodeon/pic/0004xhys/