YutenjiMar 28th, 2007 - 17:32:08

Would be useful to know whether they will also allow POP3 access to clients (e.g. Outlook) which is currently only available to subscribers of Yahoo Mail Plus (~US$20/year)
This feature is free for Gmail.

Report this comment

Rack RoyMar 28th, 2007 - 17:44:09

Does not say anything about the limit on individual emails. Would be nice if you can send more than 10mb

Report this comment

Bill GMar 28th, 2007 - 17:47:02

Damn right, google all the way

Report this comment

ArghMar 28th, 2007 - 21:03:48

Don't you people know that SMTP (Simple MAIL Transfer Protocol) was NEVER meant for transferring files? That's why FTP (FILE Transfer Protocol) exists. All this is going to do is cause Yahoo! even more trouble with the unkeep of their mail servers...

Report this comment

Enough is enough?Mar 28th, 2007 - 21:22:37

Unless you're actually using more than 2.8GB, there's no reason to switch from Gmail to Yahoo...

Report this comment

excitedvulcanMar 29th, 2007 - 02:32:06

gmail all the way, baby. The point about Yahoo! having trouble maintaining servers, etc. is valid. They have trouble w/ that as it is... Plus, google has great calendaring, docs, u name it. (even tho they are evil)

Report this comment

ChubbaMar 29th, 2007 - 03:03:03

No reason to switch from gmail to yahoo? Don't you mean there was never a reason to switch from yahoo to gmail?

Report this comment

Jaob Kasza (London, Ont.)Mar 29th, 2007 - 05:58:50

The 10MB attachment cap is irksome. Having a 'star' (e-mail) option let's you find past e-maails you really want to keep track up. Further more, you can even label them (like 'eBay purchase', or 'e-mails from mom') to select the ones you want for quick review. GMail has the edge in that. But still... spam gets into the inbox, and even mailing lists that you could take or leave (like a clothing brand), I don't know if it's alright just having it there in your inbox like that. Yes, we as a society (((do))) waste a lot of time deleting (((true))) junk (like your monthly e-news letter to Claymates-R-Us), but are we going to become a 'The Time Machine' future-society of do-nothings due to advanced technology. Perhaps we should ponder that.

Report this comment

JacobMar 29th, 2007 - 10:39:31

Be careful with Yahoo. I have had a mailbox with them for more than 6 years, and was very happy with its availability, and considered it to be very reliable. However, after 3-4 months of inactivity I logged in and discovered that they had deleted everything in that box. The problem is that in their TOS they don't put any rules of inactivity. Customer support eventually said that the inactivity period before clearing out the mailbox was 'as they see fit'. Hotmail clearly states 30 days of inactivity limit, so no complaints there. Gmail says 9 months, but I still had me mailbox intact after 13 months of inactivity.
Shame on Yahoo.

Report this comment

BoluwapeMar 29th, 2007 - 11:14:39

quite wonderful,yahoo is doing a good job. very impressive

Report this comment

YvesMar 29th, 2007 - 14:46:42

If these webmail providers were to offer an IMAP feature (where email stored on the server can be read by Outlook, Thunderbird etc), then having mass storage would suddenly become an amazing benefit.

Right now, I don't use yahoo, because they make you pay for POP3 and email forwarding, which are free on gmail.

Report this comment