Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software The Internet

Next Generation Mail Clients Reviewed 743

Posted by michael
from the kmail-rules dept.
kreide writes "E-mail is the 'killer app' of the Internet; an enormous number of messages are exchanged every day, and while web-based mail has become very popular in recent years, many people still prefer the added speed and flexibility of a mail client application. In this review I compare the next generation of the most popular e-mail clients, including Evolution, KMail, Opera and Mozilla, and their usability in dealing with large number of messages."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Generation Mail Clients Reviewed

Comments Filter:
  • This is not a "next-generation" email client review if it does not include Microsoft Outlook 2003. Outlook 2003 boasts a great number of features and usability enhancements over Outlook 2002/XP. By including an older version of Outlook the author is skewing the comparison significantly!

    Feel free to mod me down as a troll, but the author isn't being honest with the community. Open-source folks will be better off knowing what's in the current version of commercial products, not the older versions.
  • by garcia (6573) * on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:12PM (#8463971) Homepage
    I didn't find anything spectacular about any of them that would make them something I could call "next-generation". Perhaps "up-in-coming versions" or something...

    E-mail is NOT the killer app of the Internet. I have used plenty of different email clients and they all work the same. It is just as important as any other Internet communication device (IM, IRC, whatever).

    In order to get a feel for how each mail client handles daily tasks, I conducted my review by performing a number of tasks:

    Download a reasonably large amount of messages, about 2100 in total


    This is funny to me. I consider myself a "regular" computer/Internet user. I don't see the need to download 2100 messages as part of my "daily tasks".

    Why is new mail notification (on 3 of the 5) "Audio Only"? I much prefer not having sound and just having a popup notification (or a small blurb come up):

    [10:08] > From: Kitch@removed.org
    [10:08] To: Bill
    [10:08] Subject: Re: ok.

    I guess I am old fashioned...

    I also find it strange that only a single one (KMail) supports Maildir. The rest are mbox. I thought Maildir was the future?

    Just my worthless review of a worthless review,
  • by Anonymouse Cownerd (754174) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:13PM (#8463989) Homepage
    The problem with Outlook is that it is not an email client, but rather an Exhange client. For example, there are plenty of simple IMAP functions Outlook does not support (at least in Office XP version that I mucked around with) such as saving sent mail to an IMAP folder instead of an Exchange folder (This can be hacked to work using a rule, but Outlook in itself cannot do this out of the box).
  • by KlaymenDK (713149) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:13PM (#8463995) Journal
    Yeah, all this spam is killing me, that's for sure.

    But having said that, I think email (non-spam, even) probably has been using more bandwidth (speaking globally and through the years) than any other form of internet usage, at least until p2p came along, so I think email has earned its "killer" title.

    And now, I'll go read the article! :-D
  • No import? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enrico Pulatzo (536675) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:14PM (#8464012)
    Why doesn't Evolution support importing mailboxes? That seems really weird, not to mention the first feature that will leave an impression on the end-user. If I'm using an email client, and it does a sloppy/nonexistent job of importing my old mail, I'll just stick to whatever I'm using, amazing features or not.
  • Re:outlook 2k3 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaHat (247651) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:15PM (#8464027) Homepage
    Agreed! Outlook 2003 is the best Outlook version by far and when put against Evolution and and other mail clients I've tried, I've found that Outlook 2003 does the best job of doing what I want and need in an e-mail client.
  • Killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phorm (591458) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:17PM (#8464056) Journal
    E-mail is the 'killer app' of the Internet

    Actually, the internet has had several killer apps that kept the boom going:

    a) Communication: This includes IM's and email. In the early days it was mostly email.

    b) PR0N: Actually, it's been around since the early days of the internet. Heck, I remember it was a big part of BBS's before I got on the 'net

    c) Games: This really hit when TCP/IP games became popular over the internet. Less need to lug your PC over to a friends' for a LAN party, and you mom can play solitaire with your aunt in another country

    d) Music: I know a lot of people that subscribed to high speed just to get supposed "free" music.

    Email is perhaps, however, one of the "killer apps" that has suffered the most during its time online. Games have their botters/hackers, pr0n has its misleading popups, and music has its Britneys, but by far SPAM has become one of the larger unfixed problems so far (patched, perhaps, but not fixed)
  • by Zerbey (15536) * on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:19PM (#8464091) Homepage Journal
    I'm a roaming contractor, so the alternative was trying to manage email clients at several locations, and constantly finding that something (address books, mail archives, etc..) was out of sync.

    That's what IMAP is for.

  • by orangenormal (728999) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:20PM (#8464111)
    Poppycock. The only reason the author didn't include Outlook 2003 was because he didn't have access to it. While this is perfectly acceptable, the little blurb in the FAQ (before the author admits not having access) is pure BS. When writing an article about the "next generation of email clients" there is no justification for comparing the latest version of everything to an old version of Microsoft's product. This is, indeed, unfair and misleading.
  • by autechre (121980) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:23PM (#8464157) Homepage
    If you edit a lot of files, it's worth it to learn how to use vi or emacs. Likewise, if you get a lot of email, it's worth it to learn how to use a powerful and effective email client. There's no reason a program should be viewed as limited just because it doesn't require a mouse.

    Text-based MUAs such as Mutt are still (IMO) more effective at dealing with large numbers of messages. They do have a learning curve, but you can cut through the masses much more efficiently. External programs are called for HTML, images, encryption, etc. in the Unix tradition (and even Microsoft uses an external HTML viewer). For those of you who edit a lot of text too, Mutt even calls an external editor for composing messages.

    No, they're not for everyone, or perhaps even most people. However, my father is an auto mechanic working as a shop supervisor for UMBC. He doesn't like PCs very much, but he asked me to "set up PINE" (meaning an SSH client) on a new machine that the campus IT staff had set up for him with Netscape 7's email client. He's on some high-volume lists, and it's just too slow to use a GUI client.

    For the record, I do prefer Mozilla to w3m, because I find it to be faster for most tasks (even for freshmeat work, where I have to edit a lot of text in Mozilla's editor versus the ability to use Vim in w3m). I also use GAIM, and used Pan back when I downloaded large quantities of fansubs. But email is basically dealing with a lot of text which sometimes has other stuff, and for that, I find text-based to be the way to go.

  • Re:outlook 2k3 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:25PM (#8464186)
    Too bad you have to buy Microsoft Office to get Outlook 2003. Who wants to spend $500 just to get an email client when you can download Thunderbird, Evolution and many others completely free?

    Besides, Outlook is hardly a viable solution. I don't know anyone who uses Outlook. Period. Not at work, home, family, friends - anyone.
  • by robnauta (716284) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:27PM (#8464213)
    I can't believe people mention Eudora. The focus is clearly on next-generation email clients. Although Eudora, Pegasus, etc. were popular in the 90's, they haven't made any progress the last few years, and are burdened by old code. And we all know old code becomes harder and harder to maintain, until it grinds to a total halt. I would rather use a brand new client, preferably with Linux (java) ports available than stuff that was converted from a windows 3.11 version to a windows 95 version almost 10 years ago.
  • by inkedmn (462994) <{moc.nmdekni} {ta} {nmdekni}> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:30PM (#8464260) Homepage
    agreed! For some reason, certain people don't consider mutt to be a "real" email client. The fact of the matter is, i can compose/send an email *much* faster (mostly because i don't have to wait for a GUI to load) tnan I ever could with Outlook, all while the mouse gathers dust and feels slightly neglected. I switched to mutt a couple years ago and I can't imaging using anything else...
  • by phoxix (161744) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:31PM (#8464277)
    I don't know about you guys, but last time I checked not all email clients supported all the AUTH protocols out there.

    I know that Kmail does a pretty good job of supporting most of them (PLAIN, LOGIN, GASSPI, KRB5, etc)

    Sunny Dubey
  • Re:outlook 2k3 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:32PM (#8464291)
    To be honest, dude, that's low. You're comparing bleeding-cutting edge alphas with a 4-year old email client. Outlook 2003 isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. At least draw a fair comparison.
  • by Talthane (699885) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:34PM (#8464323)
    having the possibility to script a mail client is not the best of ideas if you ask me.

    Perhaps having a mail client that supports scripting which someone else can trigger is the problem, not scripting per se. Apple's Mail, for example, fully supports AppleScript but it won't trigger a script on receipt of a mail message. AppleScripts have to be activated by a user.

    Of course, there are dumb users who trigger their own infections by clicking on attachments without checking, but the same goes for a file loaded on a floppy disk, CD or any other source - not the fault of the mail client.

    Having a scriptable mail client can be very useful if you get a lot of spam or need to do a lot of fancy filtering.
  • by bigman2003 (671309) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:35PM (#8464334) Homepage
    Well, I'm glad that someone else who knows how to use Outlook saw the flaws in the article.

    I e-mailed the author, and pointed out some of the more obvious problems with his review.

    Yet another case of the the anti-Microsoft world spreading their own version of FUD. And because they are not part of the legitimate media establishment, they can do a really shoddy job of journalism, and never print a retraction, or correction. In fact, their readership would be disappointed if they ever did correct their mistakes, because their readership does NOT want to hear anything positive about a Microsoft product.
  • by NineNine (235196) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:37PM (#8464369)
    This person has obviously never used Outlook in a corporate environment. At several jobs, I lived in Outlook. All of the features: tasks, calendars, scheduling, even journaling are *EXTREMELY* useful!

    That being said, Outlook is NOT a bare bones mail client. If he wanted to compare the MS mail client, that would be Outlook Express.

    Also, why didn't he review any good closed source clients? This seems to be a silly OSS vs. MS thing. If it was a real review, he would have at LEAST needed to include Eudora and Pegasus, both of which have been around for ages (much longer than any of the ones he reviewed, in fact).
  • by Frymaster (171343) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:40PM (#8464398) Homepage Journal
    wait.... you send passwords over email? ack!

    seriously. this brings up the biggest hole in email as a communications medium: it's inherently broadcast.

    for email to really become the predominant communications medium, privacy and authentication must be dealt with. whether that's through some open encryption/signing standard like gpg/openpgp or through some proprietary technique doesn't really matter (although obviously, i'm rooting for gpg). what matters is that people a) realize the shortcomings of email in this area and b) do something about it.

  • by claes (25551) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:43PM (#8464439)
    With all respect, I doubt any of these email clients belong to the next generation, they are rather of the current generation. The next generation includes Chandler [osafoundation.org] from the OSA Foundation.
  • by lambent (234167) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:56PM (#8464636)

    Maybe because that's e-mail? You can hardly call it an instant message, anymore ... and the concept of downloading missives left at your electronic address by others sounds oddly familiar ...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:58PM (#8464659)
    Stop using your email to fill in forms and surf for porn.

    Somehow I get no spam on my important account of 5 years. But plenty in my free netscape.net that I use when ordering, downloading etc.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:01PM (#8464698)

    I've never met the client and I'm not about to ask for his Yahoo! ID.

    If he's even on Yahoo. Email is universal; there are multiple, competing IM systems.

    f my company had it's own internal IM that didn't require public servers out of our control, it may be feasible, but our information will NOT be stored on MSN or Yahoo servers, PERIOD.

    Look into Jabber.

  • Re:hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by hawkbug (94280) <psx@noSpAm.fimble.com> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:09PM (#8464821) Homepage
    Or not having wads of cash to throw away on a Mac might be the better answer here.
  • by chrysalis (50680) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:10PM (#8464824) Homepage
    Sorry, but I really don't think that HTML bloated email is next gen.

    It pisses me off to waste time understanding how people are quoting emails in order to find what they actually wrote. I especially like people who quote everything and then insert replies with a supposed different color. Very convenient when I answer with mutt.

    It pisses me off to fight with Mozilla Thunderbird in order to remove decorative bloat with pictures added to every mail sent by my boss.

    It pisses me off to removely download a 10 Mb large email through a 128Kb link just to see that it's a BMP screenshot send through outlook instead of writing text.

    It pisses me off to receive mail with no subject. And then people reply to it and the subject becomes "Re: Tr: Tr: Re: Re: Tr:".

    It pisses me off to receive mail that was actually a "reply to" a message that was 2 years old and that has nothing to do with the previous thread.

    It pisses me off to receive mails whose content is in the subject with an empty body.

    It pisses me off to receive fully quoted emails, including attachments (even when it's BMP screenshots) just when the real text added by the sender is "ok".

    The next generation email is probably when people will respect the netiquette again.

  • by Joseph Vigneau (514) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:10PM (#8464836)
    I also agree; this list is "current generation", not "next generation". The IBM/Lotus team has shown some truly innovative work with Remail [ibm.com]. Take a look at the screenshots. FOSS email developers should take a look at this instead of Outlook when adding features to their email clients...
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:11PM (#8464845) Homepage
    what's wrong with it???

    how about the simple fact that it enable's the Dill-weeds in marketing to make a "outlook stationary" that is almost 1 meg in size and causes the email servers to fricking choke as the 1.2 million employees stupidly follow the morons in marketing and use it.

    HTML email is the stupidest thing ever created, but how outlook does it by having all the graphics IN the fricking email is a magnitude worse.

    There is one reason that 90% of the sysadmins on this planet absolutely and utterly HATE outlook.
  • Outlook 2003 price (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sporkinum (655143) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:12PM (#8464864)
    With all these folks going on about how great Outlook 2003 is, no one mentions the price.

    If you are an academic, you can get Office 2003 fairly cheap, but for the average shmo that has to buy at retail at bestbuy/amazon, $275 to upgrade old version of office, and $430 for a new one.

    I can't think of any features in Office 2003 that are so good I'd give up Star Office and Mozilla Mail and pay the Microsoft tax.
  • Re:outlook 2k3 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms@@@infamous...net> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:12PM (#8464869) Homepage
    Second, Outlook is more than an email client.

    Which is a problem, not a feature. "Do one thing and do it well." E-mail clients should let me read e-mail. Scheduling apps should let me check my or someone else's calendar. I shouldn't have to or be expected to use one program to do both any more than I should have to use the same power tool to drill holes and cut 2x4s.

    It sucks not being able to arrange meetings, add appointments easily, and check other people's schedules.
    I have always maintained that if you need software to schedule meetings, you are spending entirely too much time in meetings. :-)
  • by Accipiter (8228) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:17PM (#8464945)
    I was looking for someone to mention Sylpheed [good-day.net], and would have done so myself if nobody did.

    When you don't need all of the bullshit features of the big and ridiculously bloated mail clients out there, and you want something to do just e-mail, Sylpheed simply cannot be beat. It is bar-none the absolute best mail client I have ever used. Period.

    Even if I *did* need the features offered by other mail applications (calendar, journal, etc.) I'd use those separately and still keep Sylpheed as my mail client. It's that good.
  • Gnus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by __past__ (542467) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:20PM (#8464981)
    While I kinda like mutt, for me it is Gnus [gnus.org].

    I recently tried to use other mail/news clients that don't make people look funny at you, but quite frankly, they all sucked in comparison, and I switched back. Even without the fancy configuration options, I could not find one that was as usable for reading a lot of mailing lists and newsgroups. I could not find one where I can easily sort mailing lists and newsgroups from various servers into subfolders by topic, or where I can set up the default spellchecking language per group, or easily create scoring rules globally or per topic/group, let alone fix up the mess people create with Outlook Express so that I can actually read them without getting a headache. Actually, it is hard to find programms that let you treat mailing lists and newsgroups and other similar things (like slashdot, which Gnus supports) in the same way - as if I would care about the transport method used! Some programms have some of the features I want, but not one of them had them all.

    This thing is really the prototypical Emacs-based application, ugly, hard to learn, but amazingly powerful, flexible and easy to use. Not to mention the huge community of hackers that will implement all features found in other mailers in a small elisp snippet anyway :-)

  • by larkost (79011) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:29PM (#8465088)
    I am a real fan of Mail.app, and use it for all of my email, but it is no where near as compete a solution as Outlook on windows. Even taking Mail.app and iCal together does not meet the functionality that is in Outlook.

    That being said, most people use only a small part of the functionality in Outlook... typically people only use the email functionality that is in Mail.app, and the calendaring in iCal, but...
  • by ImpTech (549794) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:30PM (#8465091)
    I'm not sure Word supporting emoticons means that Outlook supports them. Symantics problem really, but still... Its an email program supporting an editing program that supports emoticons, whereas Evolution is an email program that supports emoticons.

    P.S. emoticons are *not* a killer feature anyway
  • by tigersha (151319) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:32PM (#8465116) Homepage
    Hmmm.This is an interesting point that I have not thought about. In an scenario where public keys are published somewhere and the encryption is mailclient->mailclient server side filtering and spam filterint in particular would not work anymore.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:42PM (#8465276)

    I'm actually struggling with this at the moment because I have a wife with a packrat personality who has been out of town for the last month. She has >66,000 messages, >1.3GB, of new e-mail sitting in her account on my NetBSD box (which fetches her e-mail frequently so she doesn't overflow her limit at the ISP). She also has 15GB of old messages lying about. I have so far been unable to find a client that can deal with her. She runs Windows.

    I just switched her to Mozilla after it became clear that Netscape wasn't cutting the mustard. Mozilla isn't doing very well either:

    • It is as prone as Netscape to screw up the index of a mailbox it's been grinding on for a couple of hours, silently turning a mailbox containing 9,500 messages into one containing 2,300.
    • It occasionally spontaneously drops whatever it's doing and insists on dialing into our old ISP, throwing up the connect dialog box and forcing us to press cancel. When we press cancel, it goes right back to fetching mail, but this means it cannot be trusted to download her 1.3GB of new e-mail overnight. I have no clue why it is deciding to dial in nor how it has decided that the old ISP is the connection it should use to do so; it can reach anyplace on the internet through the router connected to the house LAN, so it shouldn't need to dial in at all.

    I switched her to Netscape after getting tired of pulling my hair out with Outlook Express, which:

    • Cannot handle a single mailbox larger than 2GB.
    • Is extremely slow dealing with large mailboxes
    • Cannot store the mailboxes on a network drive. There's a registry hack you can do to force it to do so, but it will silently switch back to the local drive whenever the heck it feels like it.

    If anyone has suggestions for mail clients that can deal with someone that has a morbidly packrat personality disorder, I'm open to suggestion.

  • by B'Trey (111263) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:48PM (#8465355)
    That's a condemnation of Outlook, not of email. It was MS's braindead decision to allow scripting in their email client that caused the problem. There is no need for active email. It's a solution in search of a problem that spawned a whole host of them.
  • Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:01PM (#8465496) Homepage Journal
    HTML IMHO, should not be used in email...just a waste of bandwidth...

    Please..send plain text.

    :-)

  • Re:outlook 2k3 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jilles (20976) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:08PM (#8465599) Homepage
    The sad thing is that outlook 2000 compares quite favorably to the rest of the field, even today. Especially if you consider that some of its key features weren't tested because all the other clients wouldn't pass the test.

    I use thunderbird on a daily basis but outlook 2k3 is on a different level as far as UI polish and features go. It is a very powerful tool for coordinating large quantities of mail, appointments, contacts etc. The reason I use thunderbird is that outlook is overkill for popping mail once in a while. Additionally, I like some things in thunderbird such as extensions and UI. Also its development status and the ability to influence its development is appealing. I see thunderbird as a nice testbed, a good outlook express replacement but not a corporate mailclient. The only two clients that come close are evolution and kontact. Comparing those two to the full featureset of outlook 2k3 would be an interesting read.

    I don't mind people pushing alternative mail clients. What I do mind is this attitude of ignoring features in outlook in order to prove the point that some OSS client is better. If you do a comparison, make it a fair comparison. At least the developers of the mac outlook had the guts to say that thunderbird has a superior mime implementation compared to outlook. This is true and acknowledging it internally allows them to focus on improving this in outlook.
  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:11PM (#8465639) Homepage Journal
    "There's no need for all that concern over a bloody personal email password."

    Except, I'd guess...that most people out there probably use the same password, or slight variations of it for ALL their passwords. That could be trouble. And most of the ISP's I've been with have the same email access password as they have to log in to the ISP for anything as that person...so, that could be a problem too.

    Just some food for though...

  • by theobscurest (613689) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:22PM (#8465770)

    Agreed.. Nothing can beat email in the way conversations can be tracked, stored, and documented. It is imperative that I keep track of user requests, solutions to problems, and things that I did or did not do. I often find myself looking back at old emails that I either received or sent to recall something useful.

    IMs are great in the sense that they provide a simulated conversation, and yes, they can log the entire conversation, but how do you keep track of that in a useful fashion? With email, I can filter out conversations based on who that person was, through email subject lines, and if necessary, through a search.

  • by Shimmer (3036) <brianberns@gmail.com> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:35PM (#8465934) Homepage Journal
    I'm amazed that no one has pointed this out yet, but the real killer app of the Internet is the World Wide Web. Before the Web, the Internet was a backwater (even though e-mail had been around for years). Once the web came along, the Internet exploded.
  • Wrong questions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:39PM (#8465994) Homepage
    That's a naive "feature list" review. More important questions are:
    • How often does the mail client corrupt its own database?
    • How vulnerable is the mail client to hostile content?
    • How good is the spam filtering capability?
  • by B'Trey (111263) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:52PM (#8466175)
    Where in your scenario is there any need for processing active code by the email client? Filling out forms and syncing mobile clients do not require active code in the email. The scripts you mention run on the server which receives the forms submitted by email, not in the email client.

    I have no problem with you saying that I am wrong. I've learned a great deal by people letting me know that something I posted was incorrect. But if you're going to correct me, at least address what I actually said, which was that there is no need for an email client to execute active code in a received email.

    The original problems with Outlook arise when I send you an email which contains code which is then automatically executed on your machine. While it is possible to find a use for such capability, there are alternative ways to accomplish the same functionality without anywhere near the security risk. Providing the capability for Outlook to execute scripts which arive as email was a boneheaded move on MS's part.

    As an aside, note that the recent viruses do not rely on a vulnerability in Outlook. The virus arrives as an attachment which is manually executed by naive or poorly trained users. The primary weakness being exploited here (other than user's poor habbits) is that the average user runs with administrative privleges under an MS OS.
  • Re:hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by repetty (260322) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:57PM (#8466260) Homepage
    "Or not having wads of cash to throw away on a Mac might be the better answer here."

    FUD.
  • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:58PM (#8466271)
    But doesn't Outlook 2003 have MS' nasty DRM technology built into it?

    No. The DRM, if implemented, is more of an Office thing. And then only in a corporate environment, at the server.

    User A creats a doc, and assigns it certain restrictions.
    He sends it to user B. When user B tries to open it, it authenticates back to the server, and asks "I am allowed to let user B see me?"
    If the server says yes, then good.
    User C gets a copy, and it asks again. "No. Your creator wishes only user B to see it. Run away and hide."


    Outlook, indeed Office, is not telling you what to do with your stuff. This is strictly voluntary, chosen by the document creator, and set up by the system admin.
  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @03:05PM (#8466378) Homepage

    I don't think they check content type. More likely, they simply redirect port 80 traffic to their transparent proxy. Since you did not speak HTTP, the proxy hung up.

    If they did check content-type, you'd be much better off using pop3s (normally on port 995), which they wouldn't be able to parse anyway. You should use that anyway, since otherwise your e-mail and, possibly, your POP3 password travels in clear text.

  • by YetAnotherDave (159442) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @03:22PM (#8466616)
    you forgot the greatest feature of mutt: regexp-based header modification hooks.

    I can automatically have a different sig/from address/whatever based on who I'm emailing.
    I can automatically set it to pgp sign/encryot some users and not others.

    Also, you can mod the colours to make keeping track of email SO much easier - mail from my GF is red, mail to lists is white, ...

    And easy plugin config - word docs can get previewed thru antiword, very convenient...
  • Re:hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @03:36PM (#8466808)

    But doesn't Outlook 2003 have MS' nasty DRM technology built into it?

    I've stuck with Office XP for this very reason, and I'm not sure I plan to upgrade to the next version, leapfrog to 2004, or ever use Office again past 2002 (XP). Basically the inclusion of DRM just puts a freeze on the program for me since I don't like being told what to do with my $400 program.


    Why do you have issues with the DRM? You already have to ask microsoft's permission to use your $400 program after you paid for it every time you install it ("activation"). If you don't have issues with that, DRM shouldn't be too hard for you to swallow.

  • by ChefBork (591267) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @06:36PM (#8469515)
    I concur.

    I use Netscape (started with 4.7 and now using 7.1) as a POP mail client to access a MS Exchange mail server over VPN and have had a few minor problems with it. None that make it necessary to immediately move to another mail client, though.

    In all Help Desk calls I have made about these problems I have been consistently been told to "use Outlook 2003 or Outlook Express 2003", as they "fix the reasons you're using Netscape and POP". I have also seen the mention of several alternatives here on /. and was looking forward to reading the article to help me decide whether a good alternative existed.

    I was somewhat disappointed that the article only included mail clients (with the exception of Outlook XP) that would run on UNIX boxes. I'm stuck using Windows for work, no matter what my preferences may be, so wanted to see that platform covered, as well.

    The article's preview didn't indicate that it was only a review of UNIX/Linux compatible mail clients. Thus I expected to see a review of *all* 'next generation' email clients -- no matter their platform. I expected the clients' platforms to be part of their review.

    Or perhaps I misunderstood what the author meant by "next generation"? The term wasn't defined as to what that it meant in the article's context.
  • by Moofie (22272) <lee@@@ringofsaturn...com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:30AM (#8473531) Homepage
    For me, this is the killer feature for my email client.

    I don't read my email on my Palm, but having to only write down email addresses in one place would be, to say the least, a Good Thing.

    I guess I'm surprised this is not a more common feature people look for.

    And no, I won't use Outlook. : )

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. -- Oscar Wilde Most UNIX programmers are great masters of style. -- The Unnamed Usenetter

Working...