Talk:Gmail

what does this mean?

Under the Criticism/Privacy section, there is a sentence: "However, since the sender relinquishes ownership to the recipient of the message and any content once sent, there is no applicability of consent." What does this mean? The sender doesn't relinquish ownership of copyright, and presumably only implicitly relinquishes the right to read this private message to the person it's sent to. This could be making an argument that the receiver is then giving the message to GMail machines, but then this argument should be made explicitly. It's often considered a violation of privacy to post an e-mail from someone publicly without asking their permission; but it's not generally considered a violation of privacy to use Mozilla Thunderbird's text-search to search amongst e-mails that have been sent to you and thence downloaded to your computer. The article shouldn't take sides (or at least it should cite someone who's done a detailed analysis like I'm suggesting). —Isaac Dupree^(talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"On this Day" error?

I noticed the "on this day" entry for GMail on the Wikipedia main page states "2004 – Google launched a free Web-based service, providing users an unprecedented 1000 megabytes of storage for spam." Shouldn't the last part read "...of storage for email" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.239.203 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's April Fool's Day. I think the Gmail one was the most clever of them all. 76.10.162.250 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kludges, workarounds for sorting gmail messages alphabetically

What kludges, workarounds are there for sorting gmail messages by subjects alphabetically, sorting by authors alphabetically or sorting by size?...
-- the zak (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

UK Gmail dispute

What is the company google are in dispute with over the name GMail in the UK- should it not deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.128.122 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is already mentioned - see the Trademark Disputes section. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't specifically say who it was, but I've just found a BBC News article about it and I've added it in. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

100MB vs 500MB "edit war"

Xp54321 and Cunard have been engaged in a minor "edit war" over whether or not we should be updating the counter every 100MB or every 500MB. Consensus was reached in November 2007 that it should be 500MB, although Xp54321 seems to think it should be every 100MB. I'm inclined to agree that we should re-consider the intervals between size updates, as the amount that Google is adding has significantly dropped now (back in November it was increasing very quickly, hence the decision for a 500MB update interval).

Can we please agree on a new interval to stop this unnecessary backwards and forwards changing of the size and interval without consensus?

100 MB is a better interval as both Jam and Cunard have admitted the allocation of space has slowed down.Updating at that pace won't mean it's updated every day.It's updated once in a while to keep the article up-to-date.And your opposed to this why?Xp54321 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing it, but significantly altering the page without edit summaries or a mention on the talk page is not constructive - hence my starting this discussion here. The original consensus was 500MB, and at the time, that was good enough. As I said, we need to re-evaluate that limit, and I think that 100MB is now suitable. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, everything is resolved. Agreed, every 100 MBXp54321 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where was everything resolved? Tan | 39 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After the edit war stopped. If you want details ask me on my talkpage.Xp54321 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has technically be agreed. Just because I say it should be 100MB does not mean the case is closed. We really need the feedback from other editors before we can decide which scale to keep. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not over, Xp, nor should it be taken to your talk page. You can't simply declare that we will move forward with 100Mb increment edits without some sort of consensus. Tan | 39 01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only said "I think that 100MB is now suitable" - that was not me condoning that we should go ahead with incremental 100MB changes. I think we need more editors to contribute their opinions before we decide how to proceed. Until that time, the original 500MB limit should remain in place. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But I think the 6600 MB figure should stay that way until then. Oh and contact more editors. This isn't exactly the #1 most edited article.:)Xp54321 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 6600MB figure can stay there for the moment. I've put in a request for comment from the community. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm sort of a 3rd party here; I've only edited this article in the past a few times - mostly vandalism. I think once or twice I upheld the 500Mb increment consensus, so take that into account. Anyway, I think the key piece of information we need here is the rate at which the storage is increasing. I couldn't find a good cite on the gmail site itself, so I did a rather unscientific rough estimate of my own gmail storage, which was at 6667Mb and counting. I timed a 1Kb increase to be 26 seconds, and my catscratch math worked that out to be 100Mb every 30 days. I think 30 days is a completely reasonable interval in which to edit this storage statistic, so I !vote for a new edit interval of 100Mb. Tan | 39 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done the math as I told Tan and came up with the same result.I !vote 100MB edit interval.Xp54321 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Gmail counter goes up only 100 MB every 30 days (as calculated by Tan and Xp54321), I also vote for the new edit interval to be 100 MB. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• No opinion Just wanted to say this is the silliest RFC ever, and should be added to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars if there has been sufficient warring. Mangostar (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)