> 1. Rich webmail is an absolute must for me. I use too many different computers from too many different places for anything else to be remotely practical at this point.
That's what IMAP is for. If these are computers you don't directly control, then I'd say any downsides of using gmail pale in comparison to the security implications inherent in your usage model.
[edit] Can't say I understand the negative downvotes. Maybe I inadvertently denigrated people's preference for webmail over mutt/mail.app/etc?
Regardless, the fact is that if you're utilizing webmail for remote e-mail access on shared computers, then there are much more significant risk scenarios at play than those of gmail.
Secure webmail access over HTTPS is in theory just as strong as IMAP access can be made to be.
Of course, by using untrusted hardware you are exposing yourself to various circumventions of the security protocols, but that's just as true of IMAP as it is of HTTPS.
In fact, IMAP is probably slightly worse since it does actually download messages to the local machine by default, where they must be explicitly cleaned up.
That's what IMAP is for. If these are computers you don't directly control, then I'd say any downsides of using gmail pale in comparison to the security implications inherent in your usage model.
[edit] Can't say I understand the negative downvotes. Maybe I inadvertently denigrated people's preference for webmail over mutt/mail.app/etc?
Regardless, the fact is that if you're utilizing webmail for remote e-mail access on shared computers, then there are much more significant risk scenarios at play than those of gmail.