Post by PaulYou're playing with fire though, right ?
I agree with you Paul.
You hit upon a good analogy, which is that only a fool would use
Thunderbird to download their messages for the purpose of archival, simply
because it's an extremely confusing complex software for such a simple
task.
For example, I can't count the number of times TB has been downloading
messages, where there are all sorts of sync settings and other chances to
destroy your data the moment you delete it off the server (which is the
goal, after all - since Gmail is filled up).
So, having tried the Google Takeout method, and having tried the
download-with-Thunderbird method, I know the answer, emphatically, which is
that, unpless you're an expert with Thunderbird, you're playing with fire
to use Thunderbird as your archival mechanism.
The /best/ you can hope for is to attempt to download as much as you can,
and then archive the directories, which, by default, are in the dumbest
places you can possibly imagine (by default).
Post by PaulPOP3 has the capability of deleting each mail transferred.
That means you have *one* opportunity to get it right.
If there is an option to leave the mail on the server,
you end up putting a great deal of trust in that setting.
I agree with you Paul. I was only asking about Pop3 because people
mentioned it alongside IMAP4, where only a fool would use Thunderbird for
the stated goal of backing up mail prior to deletion.
It's just too risky unless ... unless you're an expert in Thunderbird -
which has so many idiotic settings it's not even funny.
I mean, WTF, why does it force me to argue with it to NOT link NNTP (of all
things, which is nothing like email) and what idiotic programmer decided on
those moronic default directory trees as just two examples of the
non-intuitive nature of the tool.
It has options for cookies, for heavens sake, that you have to deal with,
in a mail user agent, of all things.
Post by PaulIMAP shares mail over multiple client machines.
So I don't think it's opt-out driven. It probably
needs to have the "delete after download" bit turned on.
You have to "opt-in" to invite disaster.
My plan is simple, but I'm convinced, unless you're an expert already in
Thunderbird, it's the /last/ method I'd suggest someone use to archive mail
prior to deletion.
The google method is far more foolproof.
Post by PaulIn any case, I think there is a moderate amount of danger
here, of losing the whole thing. And you should be very
careful about your technique.
Actually, I planned ahead. Remember, I have the Google archive already.
But I do agree with you.
Unless you're /already/ an expert in the intricacies of Thunderbird, it's
the /last/ thing I'd recommend for someone to archive mail prior to
deleting it off the server.
Post by PaulPerhaps you should be creating a test account, testing
your procedures for correctness first, then try it on
the real account. Doing experiments with a real account
is just asking for trouble.
Again, I'm fine because I have the Google archive.
My plan is simple, but I've been playing with the absolutely insane user
interface of Thunderbird for about four or five hours - and it's just like
it's written by a bunch of confused kindergarten kids who got a job as
programmers. It's that bad.
Remember, I had used Thunderbird a lot, when it first came out, and when
Zmail died, but Jesus, did they fuck it up royally. It's a mess. Ten times
more tool than you need. Defaults in the craziest locations.
I mean, do we really need the idiotic browser profile directory tree that
Mozilla fomented upon us years ago, that only coders, who know nothing
about decent design, could imagine?
As just one example of the idiocy that is Thunderbird, look at this
/default/ folder location for heaven's sake!
C:\Users\ultred\AppData\Roaming\Thunderbird\Profiles\83ujpegn.default\Mail\Local Folders
That's just stupid. Nobody with a brain needs to dump mail 10 levels deep!
(Of course it can be changed, but that's my point. And yours. It's so
horridly complex that, unless you're an expert, you'll fuck it up when you
can't afford to fuck it up).
And what's with the idiotic organization of menus?
Why do you need "Tools > Options" to be separate from "Tools > Account
Settings". Did a kindergarten kid design this user interface?
Anyway, it's horrid. It can be learned. But it's horrid. It can be tamed.
But it's horrid. It can be organized. But it's horrid.
In short, I agree with you. Only a fool would use this method alone to
archive mail, if they weren't /already/ an expert in Thunderbird.
Period. It's that bad of a design.