Forbes Reviews Google's Gmail [updated] 456
An anonymous reader submits "Forbes.com has what looks to be the first hands-on review of Google's forthcoming Gmail service. Aside from the 1-gigabyte storage, the searching features sound pretty useful for what the writer calls 'email packrats' which I think fits me pretty well. But I can't say I agree with the writer's opinion that privacy fears, as discussed this Slashdot thread, about the Gmail service are 'overblown.' Still and all, I'm curious to try it myself and see what I think." Update: 04/13 00:55 GMT by T : notEA writes "A California state senator is drafting legislation to block Google from releasing Gmail. Seems kind of silly, since all anti-spam filters read your messages anyway."
Get 1G free email from (Score:1, Informative)
There are better reviews (Score:5, Informative)
Then in two paragraphs he explains what "clear text" means, providing gratuitous analogies of your ISP techs potentially reading your e-mail.
Here're some more interesting first-hand experiences:
GMail review [wholelottanothing.org], about spam filters and all
Another review [wholelottanothing.org] with screenshots
Review from a current user [fury.com] with pictures and information on ads
Mark Pilgrim [diveintomark.org], complaining GMail's JavaScript broke his Firefox shortcuts.
1GB free e-mail already available (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There are better reviews (Score:4, Informative)
Corrected second link [miscoranda.com], so it's not a copy of the first one.
Oops.
Re:Google Backups! (Score:5, Informative)
I think once GMail gets out of the gate, we'll see what clever method they have to keep the warez out. Maybe no binary attachments?
Browser-side Javascript public key encyption (Score:5, Informative)
It should be possible to use public key encryption with inspected outgoing and incoming email gateways to ensure email content privacy.
-Incoming SMTP Email
| Incoming Gateway encrypts plaintext email with User's public Key
- Encrypted Email
| Gmail Web based email server
- Encrypted Email
| User's Web Brower with Javascript decrypt. User supplies/cut-pastes private Key
- Decrypted Email only at user browser side
| User Reads and enters reply into text window
| More Javascript encrypts outgoing content using outgoing gateway's public key
- Encrypted Email
| Outgoing Email gateway decrypts outgoing Email
- Decrypted Email
As long as the Incoming and Outgoing email servers remain seperate,subject to inspection and undergo regular auditing, then the email stored on Gmail will remain unreadable to Google.
1GB email isn't that unique (Score:5, Informative)
I think they started doing it when they saw the demand after the early Apr google announcement and people thought it was an april fools joke.
Disk space is so cheap this isn't an amazing size -- I get 10GB (email+web hosting) for $10/month.
Re:Privacy? Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google Backups! (Score:2, Informative)
Regardless of the "winner", it's clear that having google spend effort on this will drive up the cost of offering the service. One of the earlier news pieces quoted $2/user IIRC. There's no way this figure is going to stay at that if you also have to include the man hours needed to thwart all the possible abuses.
This doesn't mean google will stop offering the service for free. Maybe they'll have a "premium account" deal like other big providers. Maybe they'll increase the advertising dose. Maybe they'll just absorb it and hope to win it back some other way (hey, by the time yahoo and hotmail are drained of all of their paying customers, google can do whatever they please!).
In a way, this is just like how spammers increase email costs for everyone by overloading the servers and pipes. It is a liability which google is knowingly opening themselves up to.
I've got one (Score:5, Informative)
My verdict: it's FAST, most everything seems to be done in javascript, much like Orkut. It's like night and day compared to yahoo, and no obtrusive slow-loading ads.
As for the privacy stuff, Brin is right- it's pretty much gone anyway, complaining about AdSense is just rearranging the deck chairs.. Especially when you sign up for a free email service- how do you expect to have privacy with a free email service? Run your own mail server if you want privacy.
Re:There are better reviews (Score:2, Informative)
Surely that should read:
Mark Pilgrim [diveintomark.org] complaining that Gmail:
Doesn't work in lynx (or any other non graphical browser)
Actively discriminates against the blind
Requires cookies in order to load
Breaks bookmarking
Breaks the back button
Breaks browser keyboard navigation
Summary: "The only way Gmail could be less accessible is if the entire site were built in Flash." Privacy concerns be damned. Anyone who believes that *any* webmail service offers privacy is, at best, deluded. These are the real issues. I'm not prepared to support a service which discriminate against minority browsers or those with disabilities. I use Google for near 100% of my searching needs but, until they get somone with half a clue about web design on board (and I don't just mean the clean layout, I mean clean, functional code) won't go anywhere near Gmail.
No doubt thousands of people will jump on service because it says Google on the tin. Such is life I suppose. Just remember, next tme you hork X and need to access a mailng list using Lynx, you should pay attention to accessibility issues because accessibility is for everyone.
Re:There are better reviews (Score:2, Informative)
Kevin Fox isn't just "a current user". He's a UI designer at Google and works on GMail.
Re:In Google We Trust (Score:4, Informative)
The issue here is not whether Google *could* search a user's email for a keyword; we all know they can. The question is whether or not they *would*. The U.S. District court last year decided that the RIAA could not subpoena ISPs [techtv.com] to reveal the identities of users who have violated copyright laws on the network. I don't see GMail being any different: since GMail is not involved in the communication, but merely the conduit for it, it's not responsible for the content, nor does it have a legal obligation to reveal the identity of a person using the service.
However, I also see 1GB of email storage being highly abused by the mp3 trading community, and as a storage medium. If copyright-infringing files are stored on Google's servers, it would be a different issue. But in that case, the authorities (meaning the police, not the RIAA) would be able to present a valid warrant and Google would have to turn over the contents of that user's account. No searching would be involved... just turn over all the data the warrant requests.
I can't think of a legal instance where Google would be required to search emails for keywords for the authorities, in order to, for example, look for child molestors or potential terrorists. That would be in clear violation of Google's privacy policy and several federal laws, and the authorities would likely have to come up with a specific name and a warrant.
Re:And, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google Backups! (Score:2, Informative)
They probably just won't allow POP access to the 1GB mailbox. It's going to be a webmail service. I seriously doubt you could write a perl script to store and retrieve data from tiny encrypted emails over a webmail service that would involve parsing thousands of html pages to filter out all the ads etc etc etc.
If you want to try good luck.
Re:Other privacy features? (Score:1, Informative)
As soon as they support an IM server (which works reliably with gaim,) I'll drop my yahoo mail account.
Re:In Google We Trust (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. District court last year decided that the RIAA could not subpoena ISPs [techtv.com] to reveal the identities of users who have violated copyright laws on the network.
It's probably nitpicking, but it is not "The" U.S. District Court, it is one U.S. District Court, specifically the Appellate Court for the District of Columbia. The legal decision is not binding on courts outside the jurisdiction of that court.
Re:1GB email isn't that unique (Score:5, Informative)
Just to let you know...
Re:Google Backups! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Of course it's unique! (Score:1, Informative)
And "these guys", Spymac, might very well be around in 5-10 years. They have been around since at least 2001 (probably before that) and they keep growing- up to over 100K members now. In January, Spymac 3 was released and it was a huge upgrade.
Why link to Forbes? Is Slashdot out to lunch? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It isn't forced on us.... (Score:1, Informative)
Google will terminate your account in accordance with Section 9 of the Terms of Use if you fail to login to your account for a period of nine months.
Bottom of this page. [google.com]
Senator's E-mail (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It isn't forced on us.... (Score:3, Informative)