After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 784404 - inbox.google.com blocks login from geary due to "less secure app"
inbox.google.com blocks login from geary due to "less secure app"
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 746705
Product: geary
Classification: Other
Component: accounts
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Geary Maintainers
Geary Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-06-30 22:31 UTC by Sri Ramkrishna
Modified: 2018-04-13 00:31 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Sri Ramkrishna 2017-06-30 22:31:02 UTC
This could be related to 746705, but in any case, accounts using @gmail.com addresses will be blocked unless you go and turn on support for "less secure apps" in settings.  I'm guessing that the authentication method has been deemed insecure by Google.

That said, if you're using google to manage your own domain, geary works without any problems.

Here is the relevant text from the mail I got:
		
Hi Sriram,
Google just blocked someone from signing into your Google Account xrixxx.ramkxxxhna@gmail.com from an app that may put your account at risk.
Less secure app
Friday, June 30, 2017 1:49 PM (PT)
Aloha, OR, USA*

Are you the one who tried signing in?
Google will continue to block sign-in attempts from the app you're using because it has known security problems or is out of date. You can continue to use this app by allowing access to less secure apps, but this may leave your account vulnerable
Comment 1 Michael Gratton 2018-04-13 00:31:58 UTC
Hi there, thanks for reporting this issue. It is a problem because we don't currently implement Google's proprietary login mechanism. Doing so is covered by Bug 746705, which I'd like to get fixed for the next major feature release (0.13).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 746705 ***