Re: OT: which email client [was TR35]

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 07:37:22 CDT

  • Next message: Ernest Cline: "Re: Disunifying CJK (was: Re: Everson-bashing)"

    From: "John Cowan" <>
    > John Hudson scripsit:
    > > Jony Rosenne wrote:
    > >
    > > >Mozilla's main value is for non-Windows platforms.
    > >
    > > And for people who are unimpressed by Outlook's security track record.
    > The main reason I spoke of the Outlook addiction

    Outlook was done for enterprise-level management of forms and collaboration on
    common sets of documents. Its extension to Internet was ill-advized, and people
    using it for Internet should reconsider their choice, when Outlook Express is a
    completely different product, which is just scaled to do the right thing with
    little interaction with enterprise applications.

    If you're at home or working alone, there's absolutely no need to use Outlook
    (not Outlook Express, whose name should really be made more distinctive... why
    not simply Internet Explorer Mail?)

    > Mozilla-based email systems use plain mbox/Eudora format, which at least
    > maintains the emails in a way that's easy to understand.
    > Me, I use mutt. GUI-based mail clients are just too slow.

    True for Mozilla Mail, true for Outlook: both are using too much resource. But
    not true for Outlook Express which is nearly perfect for what it does with
    simple options.

    However I am still disappointed by the way it handles the quoting; security in
    Outlook Express is much stronger than in Outlook, and with SP2, preview will be
    much more secure without being required to view all mails in plain-text format
    only. I am very pleased to see that Microsoft has accepted to incldue security
    features in Outlook Express for managing incoming emails, because this is the
    product recommanded instead of Outlook for handling emails from the Internet.
    Outlook should have its separate usage (without any configuration of email
    accounts on the Internet, but possibly on private internal servers), and its
    integration of internet mail has always been poor.

    I see Outlook only as a client for Exchange Server. As Exchange Server should
    not be used for unsecured Internet mails too, Outlook is not a bad product. It
    is just not used as it should be. If you don't have any Exchange Server, there
    should be no usage of Outlook, and in fact Outlook should better be removed from
    Office and placed within the arena of Exchange Server.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 07:38:05 CDT