
Microsoft looking at mail client for UNIX 134
Eater writes "Here's an article from Federal Computer Week. Seems they're afraid of losing Army dollars. " The Army is using Lotus Notes, because of "security concerns" with Exchange. Looks like military intelligence may not be such a misnomer.
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
mbox incorruptible? ROTFL!!! (Score:1)
site. Go read it.
Re:Proprietary protocols... (Score:1)
Army and what? (Score:1)
Re:Military Intelligence (Score:1)
Where is the dividing line between mere incompetence and actual treason?
If the commies were still a threat, I'd say that M$ exchange was a commie plot.
-jcr
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2)
Military Intelligence (Score:2)
Re:Linux beaten like a rented mule.Can you blame ' (Score:2)
Also, not that they have obviously never heard about FastCGI [idle.com], which in many respects are way superior to NSAPI and ISAPI.
Test's I've done have shown that for some types of dynamic applications we've seen between 2 and 5 times the performance of ordinary CGI's with FastCGI's... That would have placed Linux on par with Solaris and IIS on most of those tests.
Also, I'm curious about the TCP/IP issues they whine about that made them choose 2.0.35 over 2.2...
At best they screwed up again. At worst it's intentional FUD.
JWZ...Woman or Rock Star? (Score:1)
Seriously though, geeks of his caliber don't like anything.
Re:Allright... (Score:1)
How about this? The end users only have to deal with one program. Its more of a psychological advantage, I admit, but people whine enough about having to learn one program.
"Army Intelligence" is NOT a misnomer ... (Score:1)
Re:M$ and unix, Oh my... (Score:1)
Re:JWZ has a rant about anything. (Score:1)
Also, I've never made that much money working on a software project, or known that much about X, or really *used* IRIX (although the big machines are really impressive) so I'm really not in a position to judge.
However, JWZ gets much respect for what he has managed to write under X, even though it sucks. (everyone knows about xdaliclock, and some people even use xscreensaver, especially with the new matrix mode, written by... guess who?)
Yeah, but... Was:Re:Hhmmm... So what's different? (Score:1)
Hhmmm... So what's different? (Score:2)
Re:BLOAT (Score:1)
When Micros~1 delivers ANY product with half the functionality of emacs, i'll use it! Imagine, a nearly complete set of filesystem functionality built with ftp (like ange-ftp), fully programmable language-specific editing capabilities, shell access from within editors... the mind boggles.
Re:Allright... (Score:2)
Can Outlook do ANY of these things? NO!! So don't give me crap about how "powerful" Outlook is.
Re:I guess you never hard of denial of service att (Score:1)
You really have no clue, do you? (Score:1)
Doug Loss
Re:M$ and unix, Oh my... (Score:1)
I would expect MS to go the linux route then they can target Sun, Corel, IBM/Lotus and StarDivision all in one go !
Re:Microsoft is running scared (Score:2)
For example, the company I work for is currently a contractor for the US Navy, and we're using Lotus Notes internally (at the Navy). It seems like all of the Navy uses Notes, BTW. The Marines use some Vines-like thing, and maybe Notes as well (the Marines are *technically* related to or part of the Navy).
Just wanted to point out that just because the Army is developing or forcing Unix-based systems, doesn't mean the Navy (who had the smart ship program) is doing the same thing. In fact, our NT based Domino servers have been flaky all week, further increasing everyone's ire with MSFT here
Sujal
Re:My dream, Eudora on linux, with E as a WM (Score:1)
One of my noisiest bitches with Netscape Messenger is that it saves attachments with the message. So, if I want to keep the message text in my Inbox without this 10MB attachment some dumb-ass sent me, I have to manually edit the nsmail folder and remove the attachment part.
(Granted, it's nice I'm _able_ to just edit the mbox, but I'd rather an option to save certain mime-types into an attachments directory.)
Another bitch is not having direct access to the "From" header when writing a new message. I loved Eudora's "personalities", but I'd settle for just being able to edit that damn header. (I assume Netscape doesn't allow this because it'd make it easier for lamers to send weak fraud e-mail.)
If I didn't have a job keeping me busy, I'd try to write a Eudora-ish client myself. I'm astonished nobody else has-- maybe all the new-breed hacker kiddies are used to sub-par Unix clients, or feel the need to irrationally stick to a command line.
I use Mutt to check mail when ssh'ing from my cablemodem, but when I'm in X, I want to use a graphical mailreader. Right now it's Netscape, but I'm aching for something better.
--
Gnus (Score:1)
Gnus has my vote for most functional mail client. As for ease of use, well... not. =)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Re:M$ and unix, Oh my... (Score:1)
- Sam
Re:New fud by zdnet that cmd taco wont show. (Score:1)
- Sam
Outlook Express (Score:1)
Christopher A. Bohn
Hmm.. (Score:1)
But I guess I must have been wrong.
Rob is evil. Let's kill Rob.
Ben
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
How anyone has the bare-faced cheek to sell this as a mail system is beyond me, it's so awkward to use that since being forced to use it we're seeing mail volumes drop considerably as people find it easier and quicker to hand write messages and stick them in the internal post or use services like HotMail for sending internal mail !
This reminds me of the articles of why "NT is good for the enterprise developer" 'cos it saves a few cycles here and there, but misses the point that as a developer it's so hard to find out what's going on beneath the veneer that those precious few cycles fade into insignificance for those who don't work for MS, IBM, Sybase or similar (hence a thriving industry in "internals", "secrets", "undocumented areas" etc.).
I don't want a "powerful database merging programmable blah blah blah", I just want to send mail to people (please). Anyone got an Emacs RMAIL to Lotus Notes binding lying around ?
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
Re:Gnus (Score:1)
have an information port (reading mail, news,
man pages, info docs, and arbitrary other
stuff) that is keyboard operable, has grouplens
filtering power and mail expiry features that
outlook won't have in 10 years' time. Most
people just haven't been exposed to what CAN
be done. As a matter of fact, I even have toys
like X-faces, my own encryption, a uk-to-german
filter and address-book synchronisation with
my psion siena in it. Thanks to Masanobu UMEDA
and Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen for giving me an
incredibly powerful tool!
Proprietary protocols... (Score:2)
-LJ
Check out dia (Score:1)
Eudora and Visio are the only reasons to use a micros~1 product.
If you like Visio, you should try playing around with dia [lysator.liu.se]. It's not nearly as powerful, but it can do some neat things with network diagrams, and object/class diagrams. I think it's really coming along nicely.
Yeah - it's about time (Score:1)
Only a fool goes into the email server w/o a strategy.
Chuck
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
Outlook reformats even plain text. (Score:1)
If Outlook would let me edit with my own editor and allow me to read messages in non-proportional font (without having to select it for each message) without having to use the mouse, I would be mildly happy.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Funny they mentioned eBay. (Score:1)
D
----
Microsoft is running scared (Score:1)
I think it's striking that an unspecified company is doing the port by an unspecified time. I'm not holding my breath for this software; when MS is really serious about something they give a (wildly optimistic) deadline.
Finally, does anyone use and like Internet Explorer for Solaris or any other Unix? The few people I've heard from who've tried it promptly switched back to Netscape, calling it a major dog. I would assume there's at least some common code between IE and Outlook, so whoever did IE is bound to get the Outlook project, and the result is bound to have the same problems.
D
----
Re:Allright... (Score:2)
Unix mail certainly has more "functionality" - it's just not as accessible on the user level. But apparently "user" is a four letter word around here so give 'em ssh and mutt.
--
Re:Outlook features (Score:2)
1. Roaming support is provided via Windows roaming user profiles. A bit sucky, esp on Win9x. Intellimirror improves this on paper.
2. I've been able to set up mutiple mail sources in Outlook, but never never tried multiple IMAP servers. The UI makes it look possible, though.
3. LDAP is supported.
4. If you are using LDAP, there's no reason you can't use PINE or something in addition to Outlook.
5. Windows and a substandard Mac client only. I would guess that a Unix port would have poor "public folder" support just as the Mac client does.
6. Internet client-side mail filters work fine in Outlook 98 without an Exchange server.
--
Re:Outlook features (Score:2)
4. If you are using IMAP, there's no reason you can't use PINE or something in addition to Outlook.
--
Ho Hum (Score:2)
Note that the "back door" is so Lotus can export a 64 bit encryption version, only that the US government knows 24 of the bits, effectively making it 40-bit when the USG is trying crack you.
Lotus has documented this. Go to http://orionweb.lotus.com and search for technote 162546.
--
Allright... (Score:3)
But is there even one Unix mail program (commercial or otherwise) that comes even close to the user-level functionality of MS Outlook? And before anyone nominates KMail or Netscape Messenger, try using both side-by-side!
(Admittedly Outlook is a 30 MB install, but where I come from, mail is the #1 application by far. Of course, the PST format can go hairy, but again, so can Netscape's mail database.)
--
Re:Netscape's mail database? (Score:1)
I've found ">From" in books. What's the cause: the mbox format.
Then again: mbox is ancient, I don't think the author of binmail can be blamed for this.
The amount of cruft we've collected over the years sometimes scares me.
Outlook sucks (Score:1)
I hate to say it, but Outlook is terrible! I can rant all day on it, but I already did that. Check out: http://www.binary.net/thehaas/t houghts/outpuke.html [binary.net].
In short - it's a memory hog, it causes my Win95 machine at work to crash more often, and it is nasty and non-inititive to configure.
one size doesn't fit all (Score:1)
Contrary to Microsoft's claims, one size doesn't fit all, more isn't always better, and there is no single "#1 application" for everybody.
JWZ has a rant about anything. (Score:1)
I'm not sure what JWZ wants. He doesn't like X11 (yes, X11 has faults, but it's far better than any other windowing system and it's also freed), complains about Unix, feels that Mozilla failed (when it hasn't--M5 is pretty good, although I'm still waiting for something release-quality), and goes on and on about the glories of IRIX (which is an embodiment of everything I would not want in an operating system).
Netscape's mail database? (Score:2)
One of the nice things about mbox format is that it's incorruptible.
Cheers,
Joshua.
Re:Hhmmm... So what's different? (Score:2)
If Exchange was ported to unix platforms it could stand or fall on its own merits rather than having to deal with its own shortcomings plus those of one particular OS. The advantage for MS (after their ego heals) is obvious.
Take a cue from the Navy?! (From experience) (Score:1)
Thank God the supply people have their stuff straight. Logistics is handled through a *nix. But if we don't get MS off those f***ing PC's, some bright individual is going to learn how to connect it to the combat systems and then we should all worry about all hell breaking loose.
Fortunately, it takes a live person to press a button. I don't trust a computer to say whether or not we're going to start WW3.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
Mail Clients Should Read Mail (Score:2)
Address Books are fine, but I get that in pretty much every mail client I use... many of which can use LDAP, so that multiple clients can work well together.
A mail client should first and foremost do its job... and do it well. After it gets that right, then perhaps it might look at some extra functionality. Otherwise, the functionality is a waste, designed only to overwhelm the user into beliving that they have something good.
Its amazing what can be done when people use things for what their intended to do, not fifty extra things that they were never intended to do.
Linux beaten like a rented mule.Can you blame 'em? (Score:1)
Thanks for posting that link, it was pretty amusing. Seeing how so many people were clamoring for tests using dynamic, rather than just static, web pages, this study should make them happy. -[[ Takes another look at the graph of Linux's dynamic performance compared to NT's and shudders ]]- Ummm, then again, maybe not. :)
In case anyone got discombobulated with your tagging error, they can go to, 2256617,00.html?chkpt=hpqs00019 [zdnet.com]
http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755
to see the study.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
For any doubts about the power of Notes, go talk to Chrysler.
Re:Hhmmm... So what's different? (Score:1)
Re:BLOAT (Score:1)
Re:Allright... (Score:1)
I speak highly of notes because it allowed me to set up an ecommerce (ssl) web server and start my own business online. I completely wrote the whole system (including the shopping cart) with absolutely no CGI, HTML, Perl, etc knowledge other than a
tag here and there. All with less than 1yr of notes tinkering experience.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
Re:Allright... (Score:2)
I don't like Outlook and I *really* detest Exchange and NT. As soon as I find an adequate replacement, I have my boss' full support in removing the last vestiges of M$ from the server room. Can anybody help me?
Btw...I'd be more than happy to smack with a dead fish the first person who suggests anything involving emacs. 8]
One domain says it all. (Score:2)
It's owned by Microsoft, but according to Netcraft:
hotmail.com is running Apache/1.2.1 on FreeBSD
Hmm, I thought they were running Solaris, but this is even better! They've tried to switch to NT more than once, and it just couldn't keep up. What more do you need?
Re:I guess you never hard of denial of service att (Score:1)
Even your average NT fan couldn't be this dumb right?
Trolls. Sigh.
Re:I guess you never hard of denial of service att (Score:1)
Please don't feed the troll. Move along, move along.
Either that, or this dweeb has never administered both. (I have/do, and fscking hate it).
Re:Allright... (Score:2)
Ummm... Why do you need it all integrated? I think the whole point of Unix way is that you can use different tools, and make them work together -- the 'one thing does all' is a very Windowish way (Emacs is different, it provides a framework for those 'separate things' to work together, it does not try to do everything by itself -- it's more of an OS than an editor)
--
Re:Allright... (Score:1)
The problem is that there's a really strong case (and solid user support) for integrating calendaring and messaging. Unfortunately, Internet calendaring standards are not as mature as IMAP4 and LDAP. We haven't found a combination of open standards that will let us match that functionality.
Also, Exchange public folders are pretty handy. The back end isn't very robust, but in practice they work pretty well.
Some of our technical people are quite happy using Pine and plan. I would never force that solution on our sales force.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
\//
OK... (Score:1)
Or maybe they'll buy something that a real software producer has already made, and sell it under the MS brand. But then they'll want to be "better" than the competition rather than merely functional and reliable, so they'll start adding in support for macro viruses and all that, and they'll be right back where they are today.
Well, now... (Score:1)
Quote whatever authorities you want; people are still going to believe what they see with their own eyes.
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
Why? Because MS's operating systems are its bread and butter, its cash cow. Witness IE and the whole anti-trust deal. They needed IE to succeed (for strategic, not monetary reasons), so they bundled it. Anything that weakens the operating system business won't fly.
I expect this to go as far as IE for Solaris (which they mislabeled "IE for Unix", as in we support (all) Unices). Just lip service to satisfy people who argue "we need (portability|security)".
My advise to the US Army: take a cue from the Navy (can you say "dead in the water"?), and don't touch MS software with a laser guided smart bomb.
Outlook features (Score:1)
Here are some of my biggest beefs. Does Outlook have:
1. Roaming access like Netscape Messenger? As a contractor who spends a significant amount of time on client site, I'd constantly be setting up new mail profiles. With roaming access, all my settings follow me around (with my bookmarks and browser settings too). Plus my Netscape settings are consistant whether I boot into Linux or Windows. (I think Win2000 Intelli-mirror does something similar.)
2. Decent handling of multiple IMAP servers? Makes life much easier when you recieve mail from multiple sources.
3. LDAP address books? Many companies have their e-mail directories available through LDAP. Can Outlook use them?
4. Command line functionality? Sometimes, telnet is your only friend...
5. Available on Unix and Windows platforms? Sounds like Microsoft is getting better here.
6. Mail filters? Ok, I actually use procmail for this, but still. The last version of Outlook I used had the annoying and inexplicable limitation of not allowing (client side) mail filters unless the mail server was MS Exchange.
Until I find a mail client with all of these, I'll stick to Netscape and Pine.
Re:Allright... (Score:1)
Of course using Winword like that increases your GPF rate, and your chances of corrupting your
Rob
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:1)
Little wired piece (Score:1)
he report charges that popular software programs such as Lotus Notes and Web browsers include a "back door," through which the NSA can gain access to an individual's personal information......"Lotus built in an NSA 'help information' trapdoor to its Notes system,"......"The feature reportedly
broadcasts 24 of the 64 bits of the key
used for each communication, and relies
on a public key that can only be read by
the NSA.
This is still somewhat arguable, the US has not admitted to such, and Louts was not reachable for comment. This would kind of leave one to think that Lotus and The US military are in bed together oon many things. I wonder how far M$ would go to get a Goverment contract? Would they agree to such clauses in their own software? Have they Already?
Just something to ponder
yep (Score:1)
M$ and unix, Oh my... (Score:2)
Boy I bet that stung M$ like a bi*&$.
M$ developing unix apps? Does that mean we will see more M$ ip's running linux/unix for development reasons? Hmm, mabey an internal revolution within M$ company culture will occur after employees get to use a real os!
Probably not
Spying On Australia (Score:1)
Re:M$ and unix, Oh my... (Score:1)
Surely it would be in their interest to make their current products more secure
mutt [was: Re:Allright...] (Score:1)
Linux Exchange Killer? (Score:2)
Thad
the emperor's new clothes... (Score:1)
all we need bill to do now is start buying up casinos [online gambling?] and wearing tissue boxes on his feet.
anyway,email clients [crappy as they are] i can handle, it's not going to really get scarey until bill starts talking embedded systems with these army guys....
Consider the nukes (Score:1)
Re:mbox incorruptible? ROTFL!!! (Score:1)
format either.
However he designed something which addresses
some of the flaws. (And which is in some ways
simpler.)
Re:mbox incorruptible? ROTFL!!! (Score:1)
Yes, the qmail maildir format is much better in
some ways and actually works through NFS without
corruption.
The problem is that most mail apps
This even applies to newer stuff.
What would be really nice would be to have
Windows apps which would read maildir nativly.
(As it's NFS resistant it should also be SMB
resistant. Apart from any Windows inspired
filename mangling.)
Maybe I should send some code to the M project
and hope that it makes it into thw Windows port.
Re:One domain says it all. (Score:2)
Re:My dream, Eudora on linux, with E as a WM (Score:1)
http://www.southsoft.com [southsoft.com]
Small, fast, built in PGP. Best client I've ever used...on windows and OS/2. When I asked the developers, they said they may port it to linux.
Re:My dream, Eudora on linux, with E as a WM (Score:1)
URL should be:
http://www.southsoft.com [southsoft.com]
Re:Have they all gone mad? (Score:3)
No biff? No
I prefer SMTP, but don't spread FUD. You know nothing about Notes.
Unix client? (Score:1)
What I do anticipate is an increase in morons posting HTML to Usenet from their shiny new Linux system.
Eudora 4.x or Outlook Express Functionality (Score:1)
I primarily use Outlook Express 5.0 on NT4.0WS. Email is my primary application. I access more than a dozen different mailboxes, have even more "From:" "Reply To:" identities. Like the choice of either text or html editing. Don't mind the mouse. Outlook 98 is overkill. Eudora 4.x is the only thing that approaches Outlook Express in flexibility.
Keep hearing about the virtues of Pine and Mutt -- are there any X-based clients with this same functionality in one package available for Linux?
If Eudora goes OSS and something wonderful happens -- great! Alas, it will be a long time before MS ports IE/Outlook Express to Linux.
Any practical suggestions?
-sennin
Linus a Lotus Devcon '99 (Score:1)
http://www.lotus.com/home.nsf/welcome/newsviews
Just troll bait, but a few more things (Score:1)
SunFed sells Secure Solaris, which has an A2 rating even in small network clusters. But they only sell it to approved government agencies.
And there are two linux boxes here with C2 ratings.
My dream, Eudora on linux, with E as a WM (Score:1)
Eudora has the interface almost nailed down to perfection. It could use a few more interface whizzies, and better LDAP and IMAP backends, but it does everything I need in an email front end.
When the rumors of Qualcomm releasing the Eudora source as OSS went around last year, I was rejoicing. As soon as that happened, I knew the Open Source community would jump on it and make it into a truly inspired and great program. Then I could make up extremely cheap email machines for my clueless relatives, instead of now getting them cheap 98 machines with AOL or Eudora. And with something like Enlightenment to make the windows pretty, it would be the coolest machine on their block.
But alas, Qualcomm has failed in their duty, but they might do it yet... there is another Qualcomm story on the wires this morning...we wait and see
the AntiCypher
Re:My dream, Eudora on linux, with E as a WM (Score:1)
I use too many systems to keep switching from a CLI mail on unix, to Eudora, to the occasional trip to hell in the outlook handbasket. If there were a *nix version of Eudora, that would cover all the platforms I have to use in my job/secret life as a boy reporter.
the AntiCypher
Good FUD quote (Score:4)
the company provides highly reliable security "out of the box.... Policywise, you have to make sure you configure it correctly."
A group I work with for setting up some secure systems recently invited micros~1 to send some experts to set up a system with proper security. There was a rather large contract riding on this bid, and as near as we can tell micros~1 DID send their most knowledgable engineers. But after three days of configuration and re-configuration, we could break the box with any of a dozen script-kiddie exploits, and with several custom made attacks.
The micros~1 experts finally went away muttering a few feeble excuses. Only one seemed genuinely embarassed, the others 'just didnt get it'.
So the bid going to the customer will be almost entirely unix based, and only a handful of M$ machines to cover a specific need in the contract. The account team from micros~1 are crying themselves blue right now, since it was going to be their quota for the year. Either way, I get paid
The AntiCypher
Re:mbox incorruptible? ROTFL!!! (Score:1)
Qmail is really a fine piece of work. if you need to setup an MTA and are fed up with sendmail, check it out. www.qmail.org
---
David Harris