Microsoft is apparently switching off POP/IMAP access

[mikeymikec]

A fair few of my customers have e-mail accounts that have been outsourced to Microsoft (BT Business, Godaddy UK for example), and they're getting their e-mail features cut down without any recourse (short of changing e-mail address/provider). While I haven't been able to find anything online that suggests that outlook.com/hotmail/live accounts will meet the same fate, it seems absurd that MS would take such a step with e-mail accounts that they're actually getting paid to host and no do the same to the free e-mail accounts.

BT Business (a UK ISP) was cheeky enough to characterise the removal of POP/IMAP access as a security enhancement (why not stop customers accessing their e-mail altogether, perfect security then!), and BT Business's traditional free e-mail accounts were POP only with only 1GB mail quota are now only web-only.

A customer using Godaddy UK (for their domain hosting) received an e-mail with this link in:

Email & Office

productivity.godaddy.com

At this point I'm wondering just how many free e-mail providers there are left, and considering how happy Google has been to make the web less open-friendly and more Chrome-friendly, I wonder if gmail's POP/IMAP access will be on the chopping block as soon as they've made their own proprietary protocol.

 

[nakedfrog]

How many people even use POP now, aside from techies? I'd think most average people are fully on with either webmail or mail-specific apps.

 

[Tech Junky]

techies

I use Gmail and if I need more storage just make a new name and go from there.

The only advantage of pop is using a client like outlook vs a web GUI. Even then you can still use a client interface just tweak the settings to interface with the correct ports.

In the grand scheme of things it's good to kill off legacy platforms as they tend to get patched less often than they should. This the security tag line.

 

[Captante]

How many people even use POP now, aside from techies? I'd think most average people are fully on with either webmail or mail-specific apps.

I still HAVE Thunderbird installed and functional on my backup desktop (and maybe laptop too?) but it's been quite awhile since I've actually used it despite it working very well with gmail.

Even so I appreciate having the option available .... but I agree most folks don't even know what IMAP and POP are nevermind still make use of them.

 

[Captante]

The ONLY IRL "advantage" to using POP or IMAP for email is having LOCAL copies of your messages available without a seperate "downloading" step being required. (plus more functional/useful email applications like Outlook)

Otherwise for most folks webmail is just better, especially in terms of security.

 

[lxskllr]

The only time I use webmail is when google starts playing their games, and I have to login to the web interface to deal with it. I'm almost 100% google free, and that'll be a good day when I don't have to have their trash cluttering my mail client.

 

[Captante]

The only time I use webmail is when google starts playing their games, and I have to login to the web interface to deal with it. I'm almost 100% google free, and that'll be a good day when I don't have to have their trash cluttering my mail client.

I can certainly see the attraction.

 

[nakedfrog]

I still HAVE Thunderbird installed and functional on my backup desktop (and maybe laptop too?) but it's been quite awhile since I've actually used it despite it working very well with gmail.

Even so I appreciate having the option available .... but I agree most folks don't even know what IMAP and POP are nevermind still make use of them.

I still have Thunderbird installed for my own hosted server's mail as well, but most of us here at ATOT are outliers from a tech perspective

 

[Torn Mind]

They also reduced the amount of space for email attachments....now its 5GB and combined with your Onedrive...as far as I understand it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Otherwise for most folks webmail is just better, especially in terms of security.

It really isn't.

1: Many webmail systems allow remote content in messages to be downloaded automatically by default, which is a great way to verify with spammers that your e-mail address definitely works and please send more spam. (Gmail for example can be configured not to do this, but it's enabled by default)

2: Web browsers are a lot more likely to be compromised by attackers and unscrupulous data harvesters and can give up a lot more information than e-mail software, and are a lot easier to target than e-mail software.

3: Many webmail systems allow paid advertising banners, which is another attack vector.

 

[mikeymikec]

They also reduced the amount of space for email attachments....now its 5GB and combined with your Onedrive...as far as I understand it.

I'm not sure if this is true, but their storage quota breakdown hardly helps to explain it. It seems to break it down into:

1: Mail (IIRC 15GB on a free account)
2: "Outlook attachments" + OneDrive (5GB on a free account)

Does that mean that mail attachments are automatically saved into OneDrive\e-mail attachments? Does that mean that if the mail containing attachments is deleted, are the attachments cleaned up? If one empties OneDrive\e-mail attachments are the attachments then inaccessible in webmail?

 

[Captante]

It really isn't.

1: Many webmail systems allow remote content in messages to be downloaded automatically by default, which is a great way to verify with spammers that your e-mail address definitely works and please send more spam. (Gmail for example can be configured not to do this, but it's enabled by default)

2: Web browsers are a lot more likely to be compromised by attackers and unscrupulous data harvesters and can give up a lot more information than e-mail software, and are a lot easier to target than e-mail software.

3: Many webmail systems allow paid advertising banners, which is another attack vector.

So.... you think it's preferable to have emails DOWNLOAD directly to a "users" email/device and then just pray they know not to do anything with the malicious ones that slip through ??

Really?

After many years of removing malware and "nuking it from orbit" when that failed, I'm here to tell you that you are mistaken.

Also BOTH of the companies that I'm personally familiar with which were compromised by ransomware got infected via LOCAL email files. Users should N-E-V-E-R be allowed to download ANYTHING!

 

[mikeymikec]

So.... you think it's preferable to have emails DOWNLOAD directly to a "users" email/device and then just pray they know not to do anything with the malicious ones that slip through ??

Really?

After many years of removing malware and "nuking it from orbit" when that failed, I'm here to tell you that you are mistaken.

Also BOTH of the companies that I'm personally familiar with which were compromised by ransomware got infected via LOCAL email files. Users should N-E-V-E-R be allowed to download ANYTHING!

It's interesting how you ignored my counter-arguments then make more of your own.

If the user downloads and runs an attachment from webmail or from an e-mail program, the outcome is the same, no? The only exception I can think of are when some webmail systems allow the user to 'preview' an MSO document, so therefore if it was maliciously designed, the malicious element would have to survive a conversion to whatever format the preview is in. Having said that, web-based office web apps are rarely anywhere near as good as the native clients (even sometimes falling short in the document rendering department), though admittedly the featureset of the web-based apps often is enough for many users' basic needs.

Never allowing users to download anything would stunt or entirely stop productivity in quite a few sectors.

 

[Captante]

Apparently you've dealt with less in the way of (usually well-intentioned) "user-created" mayhem then I have! Let them view it from a browser in a VM.

I prefer to hide the sharp stuff completely! And OBVIOUSLY if downloading files is PART OF YOUR JOB thats different!

For the vast majority of network users however all "downloads" are is a disaster waiting to happen. (especially emails)

 

[Torn Mind]

I'm not sure if this is true, but their storage quota breakdown hardly helps to explain it. It seems to break it down into:

1: Mail (IIRC 15GB on a free account)
2: "Outlook attachments" + OneDrive (5GB on a free account)

Does that mean that mail attachments are automatically saved into OneDrive\e-mail attachments? Does that mean that if the mail containing attachments is deleted, are the attachments cleaned up? If one empties OneDrive\e-mail attachments are the attachments then inaccessible in webmail?

I'm not sure myself. All I know is that I had an account that was barely under 15 GB and then I got the message it was over capacity and couldn't receive anything anymore, and I did begrudgingly pay for it.

(Although, if you cancel with in 30 days, they'll apparently refund.)

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I use SeaMonkey which has a form of Thunderbird built in. It blocks all remote content but allows me to let in what I want. Which is only from known sources.

Vivaldi does the same, but I'm not sure I like their system overall.

 

[Captante]

Vivaldi does the same, but I'm not sure I like their system overall

Vivaldi = Chromium-based now fyi. (sadly)

I gave up on them.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

So are Brave and Opera.

The Duck and AdBlock both have their own too that I use on a phone.

 

[Captante]

I know... nearly impossible to avoid.

 

[WilliamM2]

The ONLY IRL "advantage" to using POP or IMAP for email is having LOCAL copies of your messages available without a seperate "downloading" step being required. (plus more functional/useful email applications like Outlook)

Otherwise for most folks webmail is just better, especially in terms of security.

Don't forget the advantage of checking all your email accounts with outlook or thunderbird. I have four accounts, I don't want to login to four different websites to check mail. Just hit send/receive in Outlook, and all 4 accounts are checked in seconds.

 

[Captante]

Gmail is literally one click to switch between multiple accounts (individually) plus you can set it up as a "consolidator" and receive emails from 2 dozen different email addresses with a single stop if you prefer. You can even have them pre-sort into dedicated "inboxes" for each address very simply .... "local" email suite NOT required.

I find it easier to stay organized keeping them seperate personally though.

 

[WilliamM2]

I hate Gmail, and thier interface, used to have to use it at work. No Gmail for me.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I'm appalled that e-mail is still a necessity.

I look forward to e-mail's demise with great interest and anticipation.

What I would prefer is one single inbox per user in the world that can have unlimited e-mail aliases, unlimited text storage with images/other attachments available for a year and then an option to download all emails with attachments to local storage before they are deleted. Everyone born gets one and only one inbox assigned to them, paid for by the government. But with the crappy way our governments run, I suppose that is too much to ask for.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

SeaMonkey's built in email client (Thunderbird to some of you) is open whenever the browser is and checks each account at intervals I can define. I have most set at about 3 hours. I just go to that window and can see all recent emails on each account in one view.

 

[igor_kavinski]

SeaMonkey's built in email client (Thunderbird to some of you) is open whenever the browser is and checks each account at intervals I can define. I have most set at about 3 hours. I just go to that window and can see all recent emails on each account in one view.

Can you post a screenshot if you don't mind?

I know that would be a bit of work, since you would have to cover up a lot of personal stuff in such a screenshot.