Talk:Gmail/Archive 16

Storage Space
I am rather surprised that this did not com up earlier, but how often should the storage space be updated? Every 100 Megabytes? 10? As often as possible? I would suggest every 50 Megabytes, unless this issue was previously resolved. Laptopdude 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with an update every 50MB. Otherwise, updates would be occuring too frequently. DMW 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Random users have been updating the storage every MB increment lately. This is really unnecessary. I say an update every 10MB is sufficient. 50MB might be a little much, since storage increases so slowly. 10MB seems like a reasonable interval. It keeps the numbers nice and round. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 21:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that. Every 10MB would require 15 updates to the article per year, which seems reasonable. DMW 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A little over once a month is OK. I've been seeing users, mostly anons, actually, updating the storage space sometimes to things like 2858.251235123412 MB (not an actual example, but similar), which is an absurd degree of precision. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a note there (or there used to be, I'll check if it's still there) that it doesn't need updating to be accurate to the megabyte, but when users do choose to update, we have to consider if we want constant reverting to a 'round' number which doesn't imply as much accurency, but means there will be a lot of reverting. Martijn Hoekstra 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note was gone, put it back up.Martijn Hoekstra 10:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know if the claimed storage space per user matches actual total capacity or if it's overstated based on likely % usage (like airlines oversell seats because a % of people don't turn up) as well as the fact that text emails can be heavily compressed. Could every last gmail user pack their inbox to the limit with compressed files without the servers running out of space? The reason I ask is that the article reads as if the limit per user is literal and keeps literally increasing. 15.219.233.70 01:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not read anything indicating that it's an average based on likely usage. I've only read absolutes. Outside of any information to the contrary, it should be taken as a literal limit. -- 12.116.162.162 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that although the article mentions that the rate at which storage is increasing is still at ~5MB an hour, it has now decreased again to just over 1MB an hour, ~310B/s Nonagonal Spider 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DELETED TEXT
WHY USER Adsims2001 HAS DELETED TEXT FROM THE GMAIL ARTICLE ?

89.26.241.36 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the last 50 changes made to the page - I don't see a user named Adsims2001 in the recent history. Can you post a link to the change you're referring to? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 08:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this edit, by any chance? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * THAT IS EXACTLY THE CHANGE I HAVE MENTIONED. SORRY, BUT I FORGOT TO LOGIN THE FIRST TIME. - A41202813@GMAIL.COM 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be that the problem went away, or it went too long without sourcing (note the removed fact tag at the end). Perhaps you should contact Adsims2001 on their talk page and ask directly. Include the link to the edit so they'll know what you're talking about. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Please stop using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Netiquette defines it as a form of shouting (see first item in list), which is often hard on the eyes when reading conversations. Thanks!


 * ALL CAPS IS LEET. STOP BEING A N00B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.90.124 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Talk_page_guidelines, all caps, bold, italic, and the like should be reserved for purposes of emphasis. Such formatting can also undermine an otherwise well-reasoned argument. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:IAR, I hereby grant myself the full right to edit others' comments if there are in caps lock when (I decide) they should not be. --KushalClick me! write to me 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please cite
"When a Gmail mailbox is full, it's not possible to search for emails by size in order to delete the largest ones first. The best the web interface can do is to search for emails with attachments, but it does not indicate what the sizes of those attachments are."

I think we need a citation for the above. What do you think? Has anyone tried it? Please try to answewr here or see if it meets No original research or if it qualifies (according to you) as ignore all rules if you want to edit the article directly. Or maybe, just be bold WP:BOLD! --21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~ --Do not click me! 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) --21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No takers? Does it mean I can start thinking about removing the statement? --KushalClick me! write to me 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is closed because the disputed text no longer exists. --KushalClick me! write to me 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation will Blogspot work?
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/simple-way-to-get-more-storage.html According to our article, Gmail offers just over 2900 megabytes of free storage, with an additional 6 GB available for US$20 per year. .

I made the previous comment and went hunting on google only to find the message is legit. However, I still prefer an illine citation for it. Will the above link work? Can we link to blogs? Please let me know. --Do not click me! 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multipleidentitynumberthree (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding citation, please remove if blogs cannot be cited
 * Official blogs are OK. --Kaypoh 09:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --KushalClick me! write to me 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gmail storage newsflash!
A post on the Official Gmail Blog states that Google is increasing the storage counter rate. In my informal tests, I clocked it at about 4 to 5 MB per hour. The original post is here. The Storage section is definitely going to need to be rewritten to reflect this. I'll do it tomorrow, if nobody else does (though I'd like to, so if you see this... you know...). Late afternoon, after the blogosphere buzz dies down a bit; maybe there'll be some good sources other than the Gmail Blog, too. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot to mention that this happened around 12-1 AM Pacific, today (Oct. 12). As in a little over four hours ago. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 09:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Google storage upgrades upgraded
Also, forgot to mention that Google's paid storage upgrades have been updated. $20 now buys ten gigs instead of six.

I'll just rewrite the relevant sections now. I was going to go to sleep, but I tried and couldn't. Stupid interwebs... ;) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Modifications complete. I don't think I missed anything (who ever does?), but if I did and you catch it, please drop me a line so I know. Thanks! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 10:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now removed
I am removing the word "now" from the storage sentence. Please revert, if you think appropriate. --Kushalt 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Click this button for direct access to the revert tool. (I GUARANTEE that I will not revert your revert within a 24 hour period.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC) --Kushalt 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) |Panic_button
 * Nuh-uh. That's a better way of phrasing it. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

New counter frequency begs slower storage updates
Since Google's new storage algorithm increases the storage about 120 MB per day, the 100 MB increase interval just doesn't work anymore. Having an update every day about the current storage is too frequent. I suggest a 1,000 MB update interval, and have edited the page's comments to reflect that. Feel free to revert if you think daily updates are a good thing. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 11:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gmail uses DomainKeys?
According to , gmail uses SPF records. It seems to suggest that Gmail does not use DomainKeys itself but only encourages it. --Kushalt 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This error was not caused by Gmail, but by a recipient domain using callback verification.

Callback verification is an anti-spam technique used by SMTP (mail server) software. When a domain using this strategy receives a message from a new server, it replies with a blank message to ensure the sending server exists. Because these blank replies may be sent very frequently, it can resemble a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. For these reasons, Gmail does not support sender verification.

Gmail uses Sender Policy Framework (SPF) records (see http://www.openspf.org to specify which hosts are permitted to send email, making it hard to forge 'From:' addresses. We strongly encourage other webmail providers to adopt SPF or DomainKeys as a more effective method of fighting spam.

To fix this problem, we suggest contacting the recipient domain and asking them to whitelist Gmail from callback verification. If this didn't help, please choose another option or visit the Gmail Help Discussion Forum for more information..

This quote is from the option Sender verification failed. --Kushalt 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IMAP
i'm not up to the task of updating the article, but as of tonight, gmail supports imap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I'll add it in as soon as Google gives some clearer feedback about it (but I'm fairly sure someone will beat me to it) Martijn Hoekstra 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

source
Does this source count? It would be good for the version 2 of gmail section. --Kushalt 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC) or this one --Kushalt 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Mashable is just reposting the screenshots from Google Blogoscoped, so I would say to go with the second one, the original source. Citing the Gmail Blog entry couldn't hurt either. I've partially rewritten the section and added the references. As described by our founding principle, the Wiki Way, feel free to change whatever. ;-) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool --Kushalt 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)