Re: Long shot
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:50:07PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: > ...but lacks the ability to filter POP messages by headers before > downloading. Why the hell can't they get their act together on the same > bloody bit of software? And they accuse *us* of forking. Not only that the Outlook and Outlook Express teams at MS are completely different, and I don't think the shared codebase for the Mac/Win is particularly big. Paul (friends in evil places)
Re: Long shot
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:49:48PM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: > > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 03:19:20PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > 1. For some unknown reason it doesn't let you use mail filters on IMAP > > messages, thereby rendering it completely unsuited to my needs > > The Mac version does :) ...but lacks the ability to filter POP messages by headers before downloading. Why the hell can't they get their act together on the same bloody bit of software? And they accuse *us* of forking. Martin
Re: Long shot
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 03:19:20PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > 1. For some unknown reason it doesn't let you use mail filters on IMAP > messages, thereby rendering it completely unsuited to my needs The Mac version does :) But yeah, that's a pain. > 2. And this is the really evil one. If you use plain text mode it ALWAYS > uses your proportional font for displaying and composing mail. If you use But it wraps it correctly when you're done/click send, so it does send it plain text and wrapped correctly. > Netscape - works, can filter mail, poor interface, dreadfully slow > PC-pine - works, can filter mail, dreadful interface, fast > Eudora - annoying bugs, can filter mail, good interface, slow > Express - works, can't filter mail, good interface, quite fast Have you tried "The Bat!"? http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/ Eudora is unquestionably more evil than OE -- unless they've hugely fixed it its MIME is appallingly wrong in many ways. Paul
Re: Long shot
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: > 1. Isn't Netscape > 2. Isn't Eudora > 3. Actually Works > 4. Is free or cheap Mulberry? .. amongst others http://www.ncsu.edu/imap/readers.html http://www.imap.org/products/database.msql thats a choice of about 20 or so all in .. should be one you like ;-)) -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Long shot
Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Netscape - works, can filter mail, poor interface, dreadfully slow Hmm, I like Netscape's Interface - does everything I want it to, no unessecarily wasted screen territory, excellent configuartion system. The only thing that narks me off is the fact that, unlike the *nix version, threads with unread mails don't get bolded to indicate this. Oh and it's also too tightly tied to the browser and doesn't let you have multiple identies. How's the Mozilla version coming along?
Re: Long shot
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: > 1. Isn't Netscape > 2. Isn't Eudora > 3. Actually Works > 4. Is free or cheap > > Sigh... Another vote for PC-Pine. When our University NFS + 'We support Outlook Express, support for Pine is "frozen"' network grinds to a halt and everyone starts to see other people's mail folders when they log on , I am in the minority who can actually get any work done. I appreciate that this isn't *always* a good thing.
Re: Long shot
Outlook express is evil. It actually appears to work correctly for IMAP, and is reasonably fast, but... 1. For some unknown reason it doesn't let you use mail filters on IMAP messages, thereby rendering it completely unsuited to my needs 2. And this is the really evil one. If you use plain text mode it ALWAYS uses your proportional font for displaying and composing mail. If you use HTML mode it will let you work in fixed width, but obviously then sends the message as multi-part mime HTML mail, which is unacceptable. So, I have: Netscape - works, can filter mail, poor interface, dreadfully slow PC-pine - works, can filter mail, dreadful interface, fast Eudora - annoying bugs, can filter mail, good interface, slow Express - works, can't filter mail, good interface, quite fast So, Eudora still ahead...
Re: Long shot
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: > 1. Isn't Netscape > 2. Isn't Eudora > 3. Actually Works > 4. Is free or cheap > PC Pine. /J\
Re: Long shot
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:30:27PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote: > On 21/05/2001 at 14:15 +0100, Mike Wyer wrote: > >On Mon, 21 May 2001, Robert Shiels wrote: > > >>I use Outlook Express, I like it a lot. It works for me. > > > >Much badness. We are withdrawing Outlook and associates from all our > >Windows machines as soon as we have weaned the secretaries off it. It is > >an administrative nightmare, and the source of more viri than any other > >component on our systems (NT and Linux). > > > >In a networked environment, it is the Devil incarnate. > > > >Standalone, you might be ok. The interface may be nice, but the code has > >more design flaws and vulnerabilities than a very buggy thing. > > Isn't there a lot of difference between Outlook- big, bloaty, part of > Office, designed for Exchange- and Outlook Express- biggish, bloatish, > but doesn't talk so many non-standard protocols, and can even do IMAP > over SSH? It does IMAP over SSL (afaik), but not over ssh. -Dom
Re: Long shot
On 21/05/2001 at 14:15 +0100, Mike Wyer wrote: >On Mon, 21 May 2001, Robert Shiels wrote: >>I use Outlook Express, I like it a lot. It works for me. > >Much badness. We are withdrawing Outlook and associates from all our >Windows machines as soon as we have weaned the secretaries off it. It is >an administrative nightmare, and the source of more viri than any other >component on our systems (NT and Linux). > >In a networked environment, it is the Devil incarnate. > >Standalone, you might be ok. The interface may be nice, but the code has >more design flaws and vulnerabilities than a very buggy thing. Isn't there a lot of difference between Outlook- big, bloaty, part of Office, designed for Exchange- and Outlook Express- biggish, bloatish, but doesn't talk so many non-standard protocols, and can even do IMAP over SSH? There definitely is a difference on the Mac, because you can't get Outlook, only something quite like it called Entourage, and OE doesn't talk to Exchange servers. As to the security holes, well, if you're conenecting to decent SMTP and IMAP/POP servers, rather than Exchange, and you don't go around randomly doubleclicking stuff, and switch off the autoexecute options, surely there's not that much difference between OE and Netscape? Hmm, that seems like a bit of work, really. Mind you, I'm still using Eudora 3 Light for the Mac, so I wouldn't trust my opinion. Maybe part of the problem Eudora has on Windows is, like Photoshop, it's sacrificed too much to the Windows interface guidelines, whereas it just looks (and works) right on Mac OS, where you can scatter windows about with much more abandon under an all-embracing menu bar. (Sorry, getting all flowery.) -- :: paul :: sigs take time
Re: Long shot
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:15:28PM +0100, Mike Wyer wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2001, Robert Shiels wrote: > >From: "Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: 21 May 2001 13:28 > >Subject: Long shot > > > > > >> Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: > >> 1. Isn't Netscape > >> 2. Isn't Eudora > >> 3. Actually Works > >> 4. Is free or cheap > >> > >Define works? > > > >I use Outlook Express, I like it a lot. It works for me. > > Much badness. We are withdrawing Outlook and associates from all our > Windows machines as soon as we have weaned the secretaries off it. It is > an administrative nightmare, and the source of more viri than any other > component on our systems (NT and Linux). > > In a networked environment, it is the Devil incarnate. > > Standalone, you might be ok. The interface may be nice, but the code has > more design flaws and vulnerabilities than a very buggy thing. Don't get confused between Outlook (much badness) and Outlook Express (standalone mail/news reader which comes with IE). Outlook Express is ok, as a POP/IMAP mail client. It's not great, but it's better than quite a few other things out there. Definitely worth a try, given that it's probably installed on anything that has IE5 on it already. -Dom
Re: Long shot
Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: > 1. Isn't Netscape > 2. Isn't Eudora > 3. Actually Works > 4. Is free or cheap Pc-Pine? http://www.washington.edu/pine/pc-pine/
Re: Long shot
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Robert Shiels wrote: >From: "Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 21 May 2001 13:28 >Subject: Long shot > > >> Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: >> 1. Isn't Netscape >> 2. Isn't Eudora >> 3. Actually Works >> 4. Is free or cheap >> >Define works? > >I use Outlook Express, I like it a lot. It works for me. Much badness. We are withdrawing Outlook and associates from all our Windows machines as soon as we have weaned the secretaries off it. It is an administrative nightmare, and the source of more viri than any other component on our systems (NT and Linux). In a networked environment, it is the Devil incarnate. Standalone, you might be ok. The interface may be nice, but the code has more design flaws and vulnerabilities than a very buggy thing. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Wyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || "Woof?" http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mw || Gaspode the Wonder Dog Work: +44 020 7594 8440|| Mobile: +44 07879 697119|| ICQ: 43922064
Long shot
Anyone know a windows IMAP client that: 1. Isn't Netscape 2. Isn't Eudora 3. Actually Works 4. Is free or cheap Sigh... -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
