Google's Gmail Goes Into Beta for Blogger Users 350
deadpixel writes "Gmail, the 1gb webmail service offered
by Google, has gone into beta. Blogger
(owned by google) users have first crack at the service. Besides the massive
storage, the free service boasts a sophisticated spam filter, no
pop-ups/banners, and gives you search results relevant to the emails you receive
automatically. Bring on those attachments!"
Details? (Score:3, Interesting)
1gig? (Score:3, Interesting)
says google. [google.co.uk]
Re:You need to be an active blogger (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm, it doesn't work with Opera, so I told Opera to fake being IE, but it needs ActiveX enabled on IE.. oh well, better load up Mozilla.
Jealous? Are you serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
So far the only perk I've heard is 1GB storage. My computer has that, and when my broadband goes down, I can still access my stored mail. I'm getting by fine with the <1GB storage my existing free web mail account offers.
What other perks? Ads inserted into e-mails? No thanks. I don't need that intrusion.
Re:You need to be an active blogger (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, I've moved to LJ.
But yes, haven't blogged in a while, merely logged in to get a GMail account, and the ad was there.
Possibilities (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think anyone knows yet what Google does with a new account that holds a single mail with a very large, PGP-encrypted attachment that curiously is accessed and downloaded from a wide range of different IPs, but if so, please tell.
How about those ad? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got a gmail account (thanks to Blogger), and also have a Google AdWords account.
I've been sending mail to my gmail account from another account, and including things that I thought *should* trigger a Google text ad - one of mine, no less and keywords that certainly do trigger a text ad from the main Google search page - dont. I haven't seen one yet.
During the Beta are they inhibiting the textads?
Anyone see an ad in the wild yet?
Gmail vs. Spymac (Score:5, Interesting)
I signed up and read the TOS (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as P2P has been demonized, there is one content that I can think of that is legal, and distrabution is encouraged, and thats concert recordings of bands that allow taping (see etree.org for more info). Each show typically runs between 700MB-> 1.5GB since its done in a lossless compressiong scheme.
So whats stopping me from having people get GMail accounts and then doing a CC to everyone who wants a show and doing a mass mailing (even if its broken into chunks).
I'm not looking for a technical answer, I'm curious about a legal one. (and thus,
They're there (Score:4, Interesting)
Using the text of an entire message for ads requires a bit more computing than just a search query, so maybe they're trying to keep those down while in beta.
They're about as good as the ones for the regular search engine. I'm looking at a conversation i'd been having about jobs and internships and the ads it displayed were related to those.
Safari not supported? (Score:4, Interesting)
Outbound Adverts? (Score:1, Interesting)
Are Google doing this?
Also, if anyone is offered an account that they don't want I'd hate to see it go to waste.
shaun.lownes(a)lycos.co.uk
Re:Possibilities (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if something like this would be possible on GMail. Sure, a gig isn't what it used to be in terms of the sizes of modern games, movies and music, but it's enough for a lot of things.
Re:How about those ad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privacy is not my main concern with Gmail (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether or not PGP will work with gmail is another issue as well..
Disclaimer: I'm not actually bothered by gmail's policies either, just pointing stuff out
Re:Privacy is not my main concern with Gmail (Score:2, Interesting)
See... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kjella
Expectation of Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term which, among other things, influences what the courts allow the government to do when snooping on people without a warrent.
For examples of this, look for instance at the case law surrounding trash [floridadetectives.com].
The courts have ruled that it's perfectly OK for law enforcement agencies to pick through your trash because people do not have an "expectation of privacy" when they throw things away.
The danger with Gmail is that it starts to erode the generally-held idea that it is wrong for anyone to read someone else's email. Sure, it's just software and sure, no one is actually reading it. But the contextual ads may give the impression that the mail is read, therefore allowing the courts to rule later that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in email, and allowing the government to snoop through your mail at will.
This isn't coming tomorrow, but it's one of the main objections privacy advocates have to Gmail. Similar sentiments from other privacy advocacy groups are expressed in this article [msn.com]
Re:Well, when you put it like that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks. It's rare to see someone actually follow through on a statement like that here on slashdot.
The problem the committees tried to solve with their new terminology is a real one, and I don't want to minimise that. Most people using computers these days don't even know what binary means, and as the powers go higher, the difference between the binary and the decimal interpretation increases. The potential for confusion is great. And if their terminology had been used from the start it would make sense. But the fact is it hasn't, we've got over 30 years of tradition using the binary terms, and for some committee to think they can simply redefine them by fiat is irritating to say the least. Given that the the usage is already well supported and entrenched, not to mention that the binary values are the natural groupings of bytes which make sense in the areas where they are used, I would propose instead of trying to redefine kilobyte as 1,000 bytes and make up a new term (kilo-binary-byte aka kibibyte) for what we already call a kilobyte, they should make up new terms for the less useful values instead (perhaps decimal-kilo-byte aka dekilobyte for 1,000 bytes.) As it is, their proposal is being mostly ignored, causing even more confusion than existed before they tried to remedy the situation, and about the only folks that seem to get anything good from it as far as I can see are the hard drive manufacturers, who get a handy excuse to continue inflating their drive capacity numbers.