From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Google's take[edit]

Any information on how Google has reacted on GmailFS? Does it violate their Terms of Use and Program Policies? --Sundae 22:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it does violate their Terms! So... just be careful;)
if it explicitly violates their terms, this should be stated. Also, are there reports of accounts shut down because of use of GmailFS? --dab () 13:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a few. Speaking from personal experience, it is easy to bump into built-in sending limits. --maru (talk) contribs 04:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My account was shut down just now due to use of GmailFS. It's so bad to have it closed at this time. --tony —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google. You specifically agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services through any automated means (including use of scripts or web crawlers)

--Ans (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The "You specifically agree not to" phrase is gone from the TOS at the moment of the writing of this message. It could be part of the "Don't be evil" strategy since it would essentially produce vendor lock-in. Regarding the first sentence, I would expect that IMAP/SMTP would be valid 'interfaces provided by Google' (if the software used them). I looked into the python code of libgmail, and it actually talks directly to the http interface, crafting page and upload requests. While this is a way more sketchy approach, the TOS only says 'interfaces', and indeed the http interface is a perfectly valid interface. So... Theultramage (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the thing though, POP3 and SMTP are quite automated... You don't have to type in every POP3 command into a terminal... No you use an e-mail client, is that not automated? As stated above, it only mentioned Interfaces, and in the TOS it rules out scripts. I say there is a double standard here... If POP3 and SMTP have not been scripted ( and people are not using those scripts ), how is GmailFS any different? The Tech Geek (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The TOS seems generic, not specific to GMail. It doesn't mention GMail. In reference to, "You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google", Google doesn't provide an interface to GMail in the form of a client. Maybe that reference makes more sense when applied to another one of Google's free services and that explains the seemingly strange wording when thinking about it in the context of GMail. Google provides an http server interface and it is up to the user to find a client to talk to that interface. I see no TOS violation through using a custom client which talks to Google's http interface.


Per AfD, some sources that need to be added to the article to show its notability:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slight Non-Neutral POV Issue[edit]

Under Caveats, it says, "Consequently, GmailFS should not be considered reliable for backup purposes." I feel that this statement is not really neutral. Therefore, I am thinking of either removing the sentence altogether or changing it to something like, "Consequently, GmailFS is not considered reliable for backup purposes," but then again, that would be slightly non-neutral. What does the community think? If there's no response in the next week, I'll probably just delete the sentence. --Maximz2005 (Talk) 05:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)