From: Jony Rosenne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 10:15:46 CDT
Bidi support in Outlook Express is inadequate. This makes it less than
perfect for me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:37 PM
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: OT: which email client [was TR35]
> From: "John Cowan" <email@example.com>
> > 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 - 09:18:05 CDT