Microsoft Stops Development Of Outlook Express

Read between the lines by mao+che+minh · 2003-08-13 14:11 · Score: 3, Funny

"The attrociously insecure program won't go away, but no new work is being done. It was our best attempt at writing a simple email client in an early iteration, and our investment in the consumer space is now focused around agents that will allow us to more effectively execute our SPAM campaign and strengthen our monopoly: Hotmail and MSN. That's where we're putting the emphasis in terms of new investment, development work, and worm targets that will give your IT guy an incredible head ache."

Re:Read between the lines by billsf · 2003-08-13 14:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

HotMail and MSN are spam by definition. I suggested at CCC Camp that all "no body mail + html is spam", explaining that it is not necessarily my idea and got booed. A happy note is one of the people that made this all possible (that is Unix ofcourse) showed support in this method while strongly balking at other filtering methods as 'censorship'.

If you were there you know who i am and who was sitting next to me. It really is true that if html is not allowed as a 'mail medium' the spammers will not be allowed to show their presentations and/or direct you to dangerous sites. It is really that simple and if Outlook is out of the picture, spam has the great setback that has been a long time coming. This is a serious note BTW.
Re:Read between the lines by Planesdragon · 2003-08-13 14:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

It really is true that if html is not allowed as a 'mail medium' the spammers will not be allowed to show their presentations and/or direct you to dangerous sites. It is really that simple and if Outlook is out of the picture, spam has the great setback that has been a long time coming. This is a serious note BTW.

You're wrong.

Outlook is just one mail client. So long as HTML mail can be sent, it will be sent, and it will be used for spam--and for other things as well. It doesn't matter if every installation of Outlook suddenly vanishes tomorrow--there will still be HTML/MHTML mail, and there will still be spam.

Of course, to remove HTML mail would require a level of effort such that a proper check on spam would be easier to implement.
Re:Read between the lines by yerricde · 2003-08-13 15:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Of course, to remove HTML mail would require a level of effort such that a proper check on spam would be easier to implement.

Most Outlook Express clients that are configured to send HTML are configured to send both text/plain and text/html, with reasonably valid tags. Most Outlook Express users also spell at least half Just flag as "junk" any message 1. that has text/html but no inline text/plain, 2. whose inline text/html content does not substantially match its text/plain content, 3. whose text/html content has a large number of comments or unknown elements, or 4. that, after deleting words not valid in any language the intended recipient speaks, consist primarily of a link whose content is an image to be retrieved via HTTP. These quick checks seem to work well as a front line of defense against junk e-mail, and SpamAssassin uses variants on them.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?
Re:Read between the lines by billsf · 2003-08-13 15:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

It may be true that Outlook is one mail client for those that don't want to mail online. Religion is stupidity -- agreed.

Simply stated, all i'm trying to say is that if HTML is not allowed in mail, the husksters of today have lost a powerful tool. Do you know about 'one pixel images?' These, when used with Outlook can tell the UCE exploiter when you read your mail, how long you spent on it and if you read it again and when all this happened! Do you care in the least about your privacy online? "Would you trust these people and Microsoft with your wallet?" This is just a metaphor, but putting your creditcard to a IIS server is the same as giving it out to twenty or more 'script kiddies'.

Wake up, it really is a war zone out there. The Internet with M$ is not the 'friendly' place it was twenty years ago or more when we all thought we had a great idea.
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:45 · Score: 0

> Wake up, it really is a war zone out there

No, its just an email. Delete it and move on. Even eBay uses single pixel spy tools. Don't worry about it. You`ve lost no privacy.

> we all thought we had a great idea.

What, are you Al Gore now? Puh-lease.
Re:Read between the lines by macshit · 2003-08-13 15:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Really, you got booed??? That's a bit bizarre...

I've filtered pure html mail for a long time -- it's a highly effective way to get rid of spam, and nobody I know (even my non-computer-adept relatives) is so clueless as to send pure-html email.

I've noticed recently that spammers are trying to get around this, not by putting their spam in text form, but by trying to disguise the html using multipart etc (it's still easy to automatically identify though).

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Read between the lines by Talez · 2003-08-13 16:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do you know about 'one pixel images?'

Apparently Microsoft does and hence Outlook 2003 filters images out by default to protect privacy. That being said, its merely a one click effort to put the images back in.

Imagine that, a sensible idea to get the best of both worlds that doesn't involve putting a blanket ban on HTML mail.
Re:Read between the lines by ProtonMotiveForce · 2003-08-13 17:17 · Score: 2

It's always the same with buggy whip drivers - they hate new technology.

People like HTML mail. It's easy to make tables, highlight important points, bullets, headings colored text, etc... Simply because a few aging hippies don't like it - it's not going away. It has nothing to do with spam.
Re:Read between the lines by KindAloysiusX · 2003-08-13 18:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any image can be used as a tracking device, it doesn't have to be a 1x1 pixel size image to track you.
That is why Outlook 2003 blocks ALL images by default.
Re:Read between the lines by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-08-13 18:32 · Score: 1

Outlook is just one mail client. So long as HTML mail can be sent, it will be sent, and it will be used for spam--and for other things as well. It doesn't matter if every installation of Outlook suddenly vanishes tomorrow--there will still be HTML/MHTML mail, and there will still be spam

Was HTML mail really Microsoft's idea anyway? It seems to me they were originally going down the path of RTF (which looked nice and had a nice editor), and then they suddenly switched to HTML, which looks bad, and has an absolutely horrible editor.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:Read between the lines by kyrre · 2003-08-13 19:11 · Score: 3, Informative

I do believe Netscape included the innovative html-format in their email client first. Html emails are not all bad, but usually a simple url to the formated text is just as good, especially if you don't know the recipient.
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 19:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

I don't want to see your tables, highlighted text, bullet points, different and "creative" use of fonts, "cute" Javascript scrolling signature or any of that shit. That's what a word processor is for, so fucking use one. Email is to send textual information and if you have trouble expressing yourself in that medium I suggest you go back to school and retake basic English. Anyone who has enough time to sit and change the fonts they're using in their table when sending and email is obviously expendable.
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 20:11 · Score: 0

You, are a fucking idiot. Most users hate HTML mail and almost all are too clueless to even create it in the first place. It shall be my pleassure to continue to block HTML mail. I dont feel like being a target for a virus or a worm.

Remember the old truth when email was plain text? It was impossible to get a virus via e-mail? I WISH we had those days back. New tech != good tech

And I say again, go fuck yourself
Re:Read between the lines by hplasm · 2003-08-13 21:23 · Score: 1

It's easy to make tables, highlight important points, bullets, headings colored text, etc
Stick this sort of stuff in an attatched file where it can be dealt with accordingly.
sheesh! they'll be including streaming voice-in-email or video next!!

--
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Re:Read between the lines by jjhlk · 2003-08-13 22:10 · Score: 0

People care about privacy. Microsoft cares about money. People would pay money for privacy.* Microsoft cares about privacy. At least as much as is necessary. Microsoft isn't inherently evil. They like money. * They'd pay in a round-about manner, though.
Re:Read between the lines by darkpurpleblob · 2003-08-13 22:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't want to see your tables, highlighted text, bullet points, different and "creative" use of fonts, "cute" Javascript scrolling signature or any of that shit.

Sometimes HTML formatted email can be useful. I will sometimes send email with bits of code 'inlined' in the message. I believe using proportional font with a fixed width font for the code fragments presents my message much more clearly than a plain text would. I can also emphasise important sections of my message a lot more nicely than using something like *emphasised text*.
Nonetheless, if I am not using any HTML formatting in my message, I will always send it in plain text format.
Re:Read between the lines by darkpurpleblob · 2003-08-13 22:34 · Score: 1

Most users hate HTML mail and almost all are too clueless to even create it in the first place.

Riiight. I'll take the bait and answer this.
An average non-technical user would have no idea that an email message can be either plain text or HTML format. In their eyes, it's just an email message. Saying most technical users hate HTML email would be a have been a better claim IMHO.
You are wrong saying users are too clueless to even create HTML email in the first place. Outlook Express is configured to send HTML formatted email by default. I believe average users generally won't know they can change the default mail sending format, let alone the difference between the two formats. Outlook also sends HTML formatted email by default as well, IIRC.
Re:Read between the lines by AndroidCat · 2003-08-13 22:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

how long you spent on it
Hmm, the fetch can be tagged. But how do they get any information when you close the email?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Read between the lines by JanneM · 2003-08-13 23:03 · Score: 1

So long as HTML mail can be sent, it will be sent, and it will be used for spam--and for other things as well. ...and it will be dumped into my spam folder, spam or not. Sure, I look thorugh that folder a couple of times a week before emptying it, so chances are decent that a non-spam mail will be noticed and read by me. If not, tough. Same thing with mail from Hotmail, Yahoo or MSN. If it was really important, you can send it again, or call me.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:Read between the lines by sufehmi · 2003-08-13 23:09 · Score: 1

You, are a fucking idiot. Most users hate HTML mail and almost all are too clueless to even create it in the first place.

"too clueless to even create it in the first place" ? Surely you meant "too clueless not to send HTML email in the first place".

OE send HTML-formatted email by default. It's been the curse of good netizens for years.

Where have you been?
Oh wait, you're new here, aren't you ?
Re:Read between the lines by Arker · 2003-08-13 23:24 · Score: 1

You're completely right, of course. HTML has no place in email period, and no body+html is a sure sign of spam.

This is really the most important test to have available in your filters, yet it seems that almost no email clients include it.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Read between the lines by Ed+Avis · 2003-08-13 23:57 · Score: 1

Actually Outlook Express isn't too bad, it seems to have much fewer holes and less cruft than Outlook does. It's just a fairly boring Windows mail client that connects to a POP3 or IMAP server.

Slashdot readers take note: this is Outlook Express that's being discontinued, not Outlook. The two are about as related as Javascript and Java.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 00:26 · Score: 0

Including attachments from friends...so idiots turn blocking off so they can see the image and NEVER turn it back on again. What you do not seem to get, is that HTML email adds nothing to email except marketing....
Re:Read between the lines by Evil+Grinn · 2003-08-14 00:28 · Score: 1

People like HTML mail. It's easy to make tables, highlight important points, bullets, headings colored text, etc... Simply because a few aging hippies don't like it - it's not going away. It has nothing to do with spam.

I like the idea of HTML mail. But it is true that most of the HTML mail I get is spam, and most of the spam is get is HTML.

I guess if all (or most) clients capable of displaying HTML mail blocked all images, and Spammers knew this, they would stop using it as a tool.

--
where there's fish, there's cats
Re:Read between the lines by RighteousFunby · 2003-08-14 00:59 · Score: 1

Even so, my cousin regularly sends me mail that is full of MSN's emoticons. I tell her REGULARLY to not send me her goddamn smilies and to put plain text on, but she ignores and carries on.

By the way, this is the same person who has apparently "never had a spam email through Hotmail". Pass the cluestick.

--
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
Re:Read between the lines by ClubStew · 2003-08-14 01:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhaps, but you also stop a lot of valid uses as well. And let's not forget that there are plenty of *nix clients that display HTML mail as well. I guess it's all that anti-Microsoft propaganda again.
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 01:12 · Score: 0

allow us to more effectively execute our SPAM campaign

You have no idea how much. But it is not just MSN. Yahoo and AOL also sell and now adays help. At a major data center where I have been doing some work, the senior director was approached by a spam company. They were willing to pay millions for the privilage of using their data center to send the info, but they would need to be able to use varied ips, including their customers. What was interesting was that their current operations was being handle at MSN with MSN help and permission. But they were jacking up their rates as there is plenty of demand.
Re:Read between the lines by linuxelf · 2003-08-14 01:17 · Score: 1

I personally like the way that Squirrelmail does it. If the image was sent with the email, it displays. If it wsn't, it gets replaced with "Image removed for security reasons."

As for why you need HTML in email, I can't say I actually need it, but it is helpful in email based reports. We generate reports from script runs, and formatting the reports into HTML tables before sending them out makes them a LOT easier to read.

--
- "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
Re:Read between the lines by mwood · 2003-08-14 01:26 · Score: 1

I keep thinking I'll find the time to try a different approach: build a filter for procmail that simply strains out all text/html bodyparts and all defined HTML tags in text/plain bodyparts before delivery. Based on experience I figure this will remove absolutely nothing that I wanted or needed to see, and if the resulting message is empty then I know what it was.

Oh, yeah, I also need to have it rip out ms-tnef bodyparts, preferably triggering some derisive sound as it does so.
Re:Read between the lines by 4of12 · 2003-08-14 01:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

>Any image can be used as a tracking device, it doesn't have to be a 1x1 pixel size image to track you.

That is why Outlook 2003 blocks ALL images by default.

It's good that the latest full versions of Outlook fix this insidious problem.

At the same time, though, I have to wonder what fraction of Outlook users are using versions prior to Outlook 2003; it may be high enough that this kind of spam spyware tactic will be used for a while because it is pratically successful.

If Outlook users could upgrade to 2003 for free, maybe that would help.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Read between the lines by Sunnan · 2003-08-14 01:37 · Score: 1

Sometimes HTML formatted email can be useful. I will sometimes send email with bits of code 'inlined' in the message.

A good MUA will display inline code proportional without any problem

I can also emphasise important sections of my message a lot more nicely than using something like *emphasised text*.

I use Gnus, and it converts *this* to this for me automatically.
Re:Read between the lines by ichimunki · 2003-08-14 02:49 · Score: 1

Doesn't JavaScript often get executed in HTML mails? (obviously depending on your client and security settings) If so, isn't there an onClose function that can be called?

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Read between the lines by Em+Ellel · 2003-08-14 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Why not just disable HTML presentation in your email client. Heck, even Outlook Express supports this. This way if you really did want to see HTML, you can view it as attachment.

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Re:Read between the lines by Em+Ellel · 2003-08-14 03:00 · Score: 1

...or you can just disable HTML viewing in Outlook Express (or whatever your client is). HTML content is still there if you want to see it, but now it is an attachment. I am not sure why noone ever does this. Increases privacy and keeps you from staring at the stupid signatures and idiots that use 32pt fonts.

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Re:Read between the lines by darkpurpleblob · 2003-08-14 03:41 · Score: 1

A good MUA will display inline code proportional without any problem

I'm don't quite follow you here here, as I want the code fragments to be displayed in a fixed width font, something like the following line:
Use DateFormat to format a date to the locale of the client machine.
I use Gnus, and it converts *this* to this for me automatically.

So *this* is essentially markup that tells Gnus to display this, just like <b>this</b> is markup that tells Outlook Express (or any other MUA that can display HTML) to display the same thing in an HTML formatted email. While it is indeed a nice feature, it is based on a kind of de-facto, non-standardised markup. It basically enhances the plain text, just like HTML does.
But the problem here is that the user composing the message needs to know the markup. If you aren't a plain text email zealot ;) and do write a HTML formatted message, you aren't going to mark it up yourself, but you are going to compose it with the WYSIWYG editor in your email client. The key thing is that the markup is abstracted away from end users.
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 03:53 · Score: 0

HotMail and MSN are spam by definition.
Do you even have any idea what the the phrase "by definition" means?
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 04:02 · Score: 0

Imagine how dumb you are since your reading comprehension is about as good as my 3 year olds. He said "Outlook 2003 filters images out by default to protect privacy. " Where in that does it say they only filter out 1 px images?
Re:Read between the lines by AndroidCat · 2003-08-14 04:15 · Score: 1

Ah. I never load HTML email, so the thought of JavaScript email never even occured to me! :^) I don't think that I've seen spam rigged to do that, but I suppose it's possible. I've seen plenty with the images tagged with an ID, but that only confirms that the email box exists and someone read it.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Read between the lines by JCCyC · 2003-08-14 04:24 · Score: 1

(Disclaimer: I don't know the exact options for disabling HTML in Outlook, but you get the gist of it)

What you say:

"Hey! You sent me an HTML message again! Please disable it by going to the Tools/Internet Options menu, clicking in the Compose tab and unchecking 'HTML Mail'!"

What your cousin reads:

"Hey! You sent me a nolprizitized fowpixmager again! Please hefoprinate it by ruteyating the 'Koblington Upermasving' in Spobulator!"
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 04:47 · Score: 0

Don't forget, there's still the full outlook, your still screwed on SPAM.

Personally, I use mozilla mail, I don't particularly care about outlook in either variety. But, this is of course just Bill's way of propping up Hotmail. That division lost money ever since he took it over.

What SPAM strategy? I don't see one on Hotmail... He just thinks here is one and 'poof' there is? Who made him Merlin?

One hell of a trick if that did happen. but, I will continue to think it was smoke and mirrors myself...
Re:Read between the lines by LifesABeach · 2003-08-14 04:58 · Score: 0

what about 2 pixel images? :o)
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:08 · Score: 0

I find that hard to believe.

Ever get an email from Yahoo? Its ALL HTML. There is no plain text. Yahoo is bigger than hotmail, I am sure somebody has sent to you from there.

Joe sixpack (or is that Joe keg?) is to too damn stOOpid to turn off HTML. They LIKE pictures and crap. Sometimes I really wish that using the Internet required a fsking license! If you have absolutely no CLUE what the hell you are doing, DON'T DO IT!!!

Case in point: Blaser virus yesterday.

If Billy cared about his responsibilities to the the public, he would have the default install disable HTML, and ONLY have the option to turn it on. Not the other way around like it is.

I want Eudora!!! THAT was an email client! I don't need no sinkin' pictures! Faster too. Didn't have to waste bandwidth on inline pics. If you really want to see the pic, download it from the MTA, if you don't, leave it there.
Re:Read between the lines by mu-sly · 2003-08-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Joe sixpack (or is that Joe keg?) is to too damn stOOpid to turn off HTML. They LIKE pictures and crap. Sometimes I really wish that using the Internet required a fsking license!

HTML email is bloody ugly anyway. If I wanted to read my mail in bright pink 32pt Comic Sans on a bright green background - no doubt complete with animated GIFs of that fscking dancing baby and a 3D-rendered chrome-effect rotating email me logo - I'd take some hallucinogenic drugs, go to a childrens daycare center, sit in the post room and read a newspaper.

Most people (especially the non-technical variety who like to use HTML email) have serious deficiencies when it comes to any aspect of designing anything on a computer. Letting Joe Public near HTML formatted email is a serious error of judgement, since it gives him ample opportunity to display his hideous typographical ineptitude.

I've been sending email for almost ten years now, and have never, ever felt the need to use HTML formatted text. What's wrong with text-only mail clients? I've certainly never found them lacking.

There really is no need for HTML email, ever. We just don't need it - nobody does. Plain old text gets the message accross fine, every single time.

Without even taking into consideration the gaping security implications caused by HTML email, it's still one of the worst ideas in the entire history of the Internet. Whoever came up with it in the first place is a fool of the highest order.

Keep your poxy Outlook Express - anyone dumb enough to use it deserves everything they get.

--
Organic free-range music... yum!
Re:Read between the lines by lactose99 · 2003-08-14 05:57 · Score: 1

Does your cousin ever call you for technical support regarding her Internet connection?

*unplug*

Problem solved!

--
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Re:Read between the lines by PhxBlue · 2003-08-14 07:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Imagine that, a sensible idea to get the best of both worlds that doesn't involve putting a blanket ban on HTML mail.

The "sensible" bit must be why it took Microsoft five years to come up with it.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:Read between the lines by ichimunki · 2003-08-14 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Very interesting article on the topic of HTML/JavaScript email. In short: never ever ever allow your email client to run JavaScript. :)

The article talks about some very interesting possibilities that make simply knowing how long you viewed the mail seem pale by comparison: JavaScript can be used to track any text added when forwarding the mail, track who gets the mail next (their email address), how many times a specific copy of a message is forwarded, etc etc. So, if you leave JavaScript turned on, there may have been some truth to those "If you forward this mail to everyone you know, Bill Gates will give you a penny" type of chain emails after all.

Note that this functionality is still available in some clients, but ought to be turned off by default.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Read between the lines by joto · 2003-08-14 09:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, after I started doing that, I noticed most spammers text part was something like
______________________ __R___V_______U____P__ __E___I___A___N____R__ __A___A___T___R____I__ __L___G_______E____C__ ______R_______A____E__ ______A_______L____S__ More Info Available Here
or
gcmmmtxw bq xqsu ow cwj pxiry gogx
The last one seems to be a way of getting around mail filters of some kind (maybe on the theory that new unknown words give the message a higher rating). The first one, I have no idea about.
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 13:42 · Score: 0

OE is discontinued. MSN Messenger messenger beta 6 was released shortly ago. Anyone notice how integrated it was with Hotmail/MSN? Microsoft is going to blur the distinction between email and instant messaging. Email will just be a term for "offline messaging" such as that built into Yahoo. Weeeee! Put on your hard hat fellahs!
Re:Read between the lines by some+guy+I+know · 2003-08-14 16:01 · Score: 1

Why not just disable HTML presentation in your email client. Heck, even Outlook Express supports this.
Really?
How?

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Re:Read between the lines by Em+Ellel · 2003-08-14 19:35 · Score: 1

Erm,

Tools:Options:Read

check the checkbox next to "Read all messages in plain text"

You can also select "Send" tab and make your default sending format "plain text"

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Re:Read between the lines by macshit · 2003-08-14 20:10 · Score: 1

Ever get an email from Yahoo? Its ALL HTML. There is no plain text. Yahoo is bigger than hotmail, I am sure somebody has sent to you from there.

Sure, I regularly get mail from yahoo, and not a drop of html* (this is from non-techie types too). I have no idea what yahoo's defaults are, but they don't seem to be a problem for me.

* Excepting, of course, spam... :-)

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Read between the lines by sg_oneill · 2003-08-14 20:48 · Score: 1

Actually I'd take a wager that the squirrel mail things has more to do with cross site cookie issues.

Squirrelmail (at least earlier v's) cookies are notoriously easy to mess with. I've seen some downright bizare things happen with squirrels cookies, like user #1 logs in, doesnt log out , user #2 logs in on same machine and ends up somehow inhereting user #1's settings including email address. bizareness.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Read between the lines by Sunnan · 2003-08-14 21:41 · Score: 1

I'm don't quite follow you here here, as I want the code fragments to be displayed in a fixed width font,

What you aren't saying is that you want the stuff that's not code to be displayed in a proportional font, in which case I do see your dilemma.

So *this* is essentially markup that tells Gnus to display this, just like this is markup that tells Outlook Express (or any other MUA that can display HTML) to display the same thing in an HTML formatted email. While it is indeed a nice feature, it is based on a kind of de-facto, non-standardised markup. It basically enhances the plain text, just like HTML does.

Sure, if it were only about emphasis, underlining and so on, the syntax wouldn't matter. The thing is though, Gnus can read html-mail and I was sick and tired of people using ugly color-schemes and (the worst part) way too small fonts to be readable. So I turned that feature off.

But the problem here is that the user composing the message needs to know the markup. If you aren't a plain text email zealot ;) and do write a HTML formatted message, you aren't going to mark it up yourself, but you are going to compose it with the WYSIWYG editor in your email client. The key thing is that the markup is abstracted away from end users.

Well, yeah, and that's good and bad. I've been using *this* as emphasis for a long time and when I discovered that Gnus actually interpreted it, it was a small pleasant surprise and it's made email even more readable for me.
Re:Read between the lines by some+guy+I+know · 2003-08-15 00:28 · Score: 1

check the checkbox next to "Read all messages in plain text"
There is no "Read all messages in plain text" checkbox in the "Read" tab in my version of Outlook Express.
(There are four checkboxes in the "Reading Messages" of that tab, none of which can be used to turn off HTML.
Maybe it was added in MS-Win98 or later.)

My "Send" tab has plain text radio buttons for both mail and news, which I set to plain text a long time ago.
I also turned off all scripting and ActiveX a long time ago.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Re:Read between the lines by Em+Ellel · 2003-08-15 03:56 · Score: 1

Upgrade your IE to latest version - this should include latest OE

My version: Outlook Express 6 - 6.00.2800.1123

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Re:Read between the lines by some+guy+I+know · 2003-08-15 13:25 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, MS-IE v6 doesn't run on MS-Win95 (at least, according to what I've read).

I'm in the process of moving to Mozilla, anyway (I already use it as my browser), so it doesn't really matter that much.
The reason that I asked how to turn HTML off was that, several years ago, I tried everything that I could to turn all of that junk off, and could not disable HTML.
When you wrote that it was possible to turn it off, I wondered what I'd missed.

Anyway, thanks for trying to help.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-18 15:05 · Score: 0

I've been sending email for almost ten years now, and have never, ever felt the need to use HTML formatted text. What's wrong with text-only mail clients? I've certainly never found them lacking.

I've been sending email for a couple of years longer than that, and I actually still use elm much of the time (and mush another part of it). As you might imagine, I hate getting HTML mail as a result. Nonetheless, when I've been using a GUI mail client (usually Eudora), I really am tempted at times to put a little bit of styled text in. Plain text is the lowest common denominator by design - that's a good thing, but it also ignores that sizeable portion of written communication that lies in typographic and other choices of spatial representation. HTML isn't actually a great solution for that because it was designed as another sort of lowest common denominator (and badly), but something is surely needed. I can use plain text and even claim considerable skill with it, but I'm always aware that I'm just making do, and I often feel constrained. And I suspect that you might too, since you did take advantage of the opportunity to format your post in HTML. ;)

Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Cool - so now Evolution can play catch-up for the next few years....

Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:16 · Score: 0

I don't understand - play catch up? to OE? I don't think so
Re:Good news for Evolution! by simon_aus · 2003-08-13 14:22 · Score: 4, Funny

THere's a whole heap of vulnerabilities yet to be implemented to give a fully rich and satisfying "user eXPerience".

--
Stopping myself...Abort (core dumped)
Re:Good news for Evolution! by westyvw · 2003-08-13 14:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Catch Up? Like gone past?
I hate outlook and outlook express. At my real job, I have to use Outlook.

At my consulting Job I use evolution. Ah so much better. Then I have to go out and support (I do IT support) for outlook. YUCK. Express was better. Made more sense. When is MS gonna learn that there should be 2 ways to do things: Wizards for the lame, and straight forward for us techs?
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 0

Agreed -nodoubt- what does this have to do with evolution playing catch up though.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by jpmkm · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I think he means play ketchup.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by simon_aus · 2003-08-13 14:42 · Score: 0, Troll

Yep, kinda just slop it on in globs.

--
Stopping myself...Abort (core dumped)
Re:Good news for Evolution! by 10bt · 2003-08-13 15:16 · Score: 1

When is MS gonna learn that there should be 2 ways to do things: Wizards for the lame, and straight forward for us techs?

not everyone who uses wizards is lame. that is like saying everyone who uses windows is lame and linux users rule the world. to me, XP is one big wizard (at least in the default configuration).
Re:Good news for Evolution! by pixelgeek · 2003-08-13 15:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

-- Wizards for the lame, and straight forward for us techs?

Don't you think it would be better if they wrote straight forward apps for everyone so you didn't need wizards in the first place?

The need for "wizards" is a sign of usability problems.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by EvanED · 2003-08-13 16:13 · Score: 1

As a general rule, there is *no way* to design a complex program (as in one that does a lot of things) in a way that is both simple enough to learn and use for beginners and yet powerful enough to satisfy advanced users. You need two modes of operation. I believe this is an actual design rule attributed to someone, but I forget who. Now, one of the ways doesn't have to be a wizard, but in order to make it easy for beginners to use, you have to hide advanced options. In order to make it efficient for advanced users, the advanced options need to be easily accessable. These two goals are contradictory.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by aastanna · 2003-08-13 16:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Try using any of the apps that come out of Apple and say that. They are all simple and to the point. All preferences are always in the same spot through the entire OS, with a standard interface. The thing I've found about Macs are it's either blatently obvious how to do something, or it's essentially impossible since Apple hasn't gotten around to it yet (the point here is design, not completeness of implementation).
Re:Good news for Evolution! by pixelgeek · 2003-08-13 16:22 · Score: 1

-- In order to make it efficient for advanced users, the advanced options need to be easily accessable. These two goals are contradictory.

Not to be the contrarian but might it just be that people haven't explored usability design enough to build apps that can be used by both sets of users?

Remember we are talking about Microsoft apps here?

Computer interface design and application design are new enough fields that I feel rather uncomfortable with people positing universals like this.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:24 · Score: 0

I'll have to check out evolution. I've been using Mozilla mail for quite some time after ditching Nutscrape and it works great. Could use a few more hotkeys, though.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:42 · Score: 0

You're an idiot.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by ProtonMotiveForce · 2003-08-13 17:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Outlook is really a superior email client - period. The new version 2k3 is really nice - Unix mail clients will always be playing catch up because Microsoft has the developers and money.

And you can certainly go beyond the wizards in Outlook - but you need real balls and can't be some random "tech", you gotta write real code.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Slarty · 2003-08-13 17:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

OK, I'll bite... I would love to know who this "design rule" is attributed to, because having "two modes of operation" like what you're suggesting is demonstrably not a good thing. (I'd cite sources but it's late, and hey, you didn't.)

It's not at all impossible to have an application that's accessible to both beginners and expert users. It's just that the beginners need a bit more hand-holding: dialog boxes, explicit menu items, etc... while experts, in a well-designed app, should be able to accomplish stuff faster and more efficiently via direct manipulation, shortcut keys, and operations that are a bit more hidden to new users. But you don't *hide* advanced options, and you definitely don't have two modes... keep the advanced options there, and make as much stuff reversible as possible so users will feel more comfortable poking around and trying things to get the hang of it. In most apps today, much more is technically undo-able than apps generally allow.

And keep in mind that beginners and expert users are both in the minority for the kind of complicated, probably often-used application like an e-mail client. The majority of users will be some level of intermediate, since beginners don't stay beginners forever, but most don't ever become experts. It's your basic bell-curve thing. But if you think about it like that it doesn't make sense to design only for one extreme or the other, or as you're suggesting, both.

Anyway, I'm just spouting Alan Cooper here... go get About Face 2.0 and read it. You will learn much. He's usually right on the money, even if he does have a tendency to point out all the stuff Microsoft does right (and yes, they do many things right UI-wise, which makes sense when you remember that they spend way more money on usability testing than anyone else.)

Anyway, bedtime for me.

--
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Langly99 · 2003-08-13 17:38 · Score: 1

-- Wizards for the lame, and straight forward for us techs?

Don't you think it would be better if they wrote straight forward apps for everyone so you didn't need wizards in the first place?

No, thats why linux isn't yet the primary desktop (though quickly gaining), too many variables. It's getting closer to that best of both worlds option though.

Wizards have their place with those that aren't technical specialists, and those that don't have time to mess with it.

While I do agree with the parent of this thread that it would be nice for Windows to support a straight forward options for the techs, being a support tech myself, they're not marketing their product on that ability, it's all about "ease of use".

Your average linux users use linux because they want to know exactly what its doing, the average Windows user use it because it works and they don't always have to know all the little details that go into making it work, "It just works."

While not exactly the best answer, it's what it boils down to. For instance, I can see where wizards are a great benfit to alot of small businesses that don't have a dedicated IT staff and don't have the added funds/want to pay the outragous cost (depending on where you're at) of outsourcing, so someone gets voted the "inhouse IT person" because he or she is willing to take the time to figure it out. In general, they just want it to work with the most minimal amount of their time spent doing it.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Phroggy · 2003-08-13 17:44 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Don't you think it would be better if they wrote straight forward apps for everyone so you didn't need wizards in the first place?

Thank God for Apple.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Good news for Evolution! by BrokenHalo · 2003-08-13 17:48 · Score: 1

Maybe. I'm not a Mac user, since Linux fulfils my specialised needs (scientific apps) very well. Until recently, I have been happy to give Mac zealots the benefit of the doubt when they claim everything "just works".
Over the last few months, though, I have attended many lectures where the various speakers, using a variety of applications managed to make a total cockup of their presentations (since they mostly failed to have any overhead transparencies as a backup). I have no problem with that kind of thing happening once in a while, but when these bozos gave the gall to insist that their stupid Macs are the only good solution for such-and-such, it makes me very tired. Sitting there for fifteen to twenty minutes at a time while the lecturer farts around resizing windows in futile attempts to bring up the widget they need to click to make it all "just work" is pretty frustrating if it happens several times a day.
Whereas a lot Windows users seem quite happy to admit that they're totally clueless, and manage to get the job done anyhow.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 17:51 · Score: 0

The need for "car mechanics" is a sign of usability problems.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Dalcius · 2003-08-13 18:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, I wouldn't say that evolution is behind much if at all, but it is very interesting.

IE: no tabs, no mouse gestures, no popup blocking to my knowledge, renders fonts like crap, mildly broken CSS support, broken javascript.

IE has really fallen behind in the times; Opera and Mozilla are gaining by leaps and bounds on Windows, and browsers like Galeon 1.2.10 have folks like me swooning on Linux.

Mozilla mail, Evolution and the like are now poised to become even better. With AbiWord/Open Office/Etc. getting better and better, GnuCash, gnumeric, etc....

Is this really a wise move for Microsoft, resting on their laurels?

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 18:46 · Score: 0

When designing a complex program, you already violated the KISS rule: Keep It Simple, Stupid. In that case you are probably never going to make your program userfriendly, neither for beginners, nor for experts.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by muirhead · 2003-08-13 20:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Please could you explain how a single e-mail app. is going to have any effect on evolution?
Re:Good news for Evolution! by BlueYoshi · 2003-08-13 22:13 · Score: 1

Wizards are very usefull for task that are rarely used (like configuration) and I think that the interface must remain easy for day to day use. I think lots of software have poor designed interface and propose to much options, buttons, menues that few understand and use. Apple is doing a very good job with the iApps because I know a lot of non-tech people using it without any difficulties.

I think it may be smart if a lots of software could be run in 2 mode (or more): normal use, configuration. My experience with end-user is that they want more of the time very few buttons and a easy procedure to follow to avoid accident. May be a way to easilly enable/disable buttons, menues,... to customize the interface for each profile and then for each use

--
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 22:33 · Score: 0

groan...
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 22:34 · Score: 0

Many lectures? That's your first mistake. You should be concentrating on getting something done.

So because the Windows folks fumble and futz just as much as the Mac folks when under the hot lights and the pressure's on, they're OK? Sure there isn't just a teensy little platform bias (x86 hardware, after all) shining through here? Especially since there's been plenty of articles since OS X came out about a lot of scientific apps being ported?

Nothing annoys a tech more than being presented with a choice that will consign a serious amount of his technical knowledge to antiquity... witness all the MS shops who don't have a single non-Windows-based system (hell, I know of some delusional shops who extend it to mice, keyboards, palmtops, and beyond).
Re:Good news for Evolution! by LooseChanj · 2003-08-13 22:48 · Score: 0, Troll

Evolution sucks Outlook's balls. I say that because I have yet to see a completely functional evolution install. Either I can't send email, can't check email, crash sending/checking email, crash opening the calendar, crash closing the calendar...or just plain crash upon startup. The possibilities are endless!

Oh, and please choke on a bucket of dicks if your solution contains any of the following: change distro/fix gtk/recompile kernel/fresh install/compile from source/update.

--
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by cbiltcliffe · 2003-08-14 00:18 · Score: 1

not everyone who uses wizards is lame. that is like saying everyone who uses windows is lame and linux users rule the world.

Huh? I always thought that was true. You've shattered my view of computer user hierarchies, you insensitive clod!! ;)

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Good news for Evolution! by cbiltcliffe · 2003-08-14 00:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Outlook is really a superior email client - period....And you can certainly go beyond the wizards in Outlook - but you need real balls and can't be some random "tech", you gotta write real code.

So what you're saying is, in order to use something beyond basic configuration garbage in Outlook, you've got to be a programmer? There's no level of user between beginner and programmer? What the heck kind of crap is that? I don't want to have to learn a programming language just to configure something more than my POP and SMTP servers. (In reality, I already know several, including, unfortunately, VB, which is probably what is used here, but that's beside the point) Most users who are starting to get more advanced aren't going to want to become programmers in order to set more advanced options. That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Real superior email client you've got there.....

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-08-14 02:00 · Score: 1

Shit, I use Windows and even I think I'm lame for it.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 02:00 · Score: 0

What the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting that we have only simple, one-button applets to do everything? By that logic, we wouldn't have such useful software engineering feats as Photoshop, any 3D rendering application, or, for that matter, any operating systems. There is a definite need for complexity at times. Asshat.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by berzerke · 2003-08-14 02:04 · Score: 1

...Is this really a wise move for Microsoft, resting on their laurels?

I don't see it so much as resting as a move to extract more cash from people. Remember the replacement is Outlook and that is part of M$ Office. M$ Office is not free. And since you have already bought an office suite, why chose OpenOffice, Abiword, etc.??

Conspiracy theorists could well see this as an attempt to lock people out of other office suites, and maintain M$ lockin. And they may be right. But the peasants are restless, and while some will go down the M$ road, more than a few might chose other paths.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by BrokenHalo · 2003-08-14 02:15 · Score: 1

OK, troll:
Many lectures? That's your first mistake. You should be concentrating on getting something done.
I'm a student. If I don't turn up to lectures, I fail. A course involving a heap of laboratory work can't be done by correspondence. Simple as that.
So because the Windows folks fumble and futz just as much as the Mac folks when under the hot lights and the pressure's on, they're OK?
Read The F. Post, you fool. I said the exact opposite.
Sure there isn't just a teensy little platform bias
I don't see why. I don't have a problem with anyone using OSX or any other MacOS. Hell, they can use DOS for all I care, if it gets the job done. I don't think my Unix skills are in any danger of being relagated to history any time soon, but that doesn't mean I am so devoted to it that I won't consider better alternatives if they turn up.
re: good news for evolution! by ed.han · 2003-08-14 02:16 · Score: 1

i'm sorry, your post appears to have been mis-filed: this belongs in the zealots poll comments, i believe... :D

and as for straightforward apps: er, have you seen the standard M$ interfaces? what makes you think your idea of straightforward bears any relation to the definition in redmond?

seriously: wizards do serve a purpose, for the AOL other "training wheels needed" crowd. it's not unlike the big, friendly instructions most PC sellers bundle into the boxes for new PCs. sure, if you're l337 you don't need it, but let's face it: most people aren't.

M$'s entire philosophy is geared towards the mainstream, non-l337 crowd: that's why windows became so popular in the first place. that they use wizards as prolifically is not, IMHO, inherently problematic.

now, how successful they are in that regard is another matter entirely, of course... :D

ed
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 03:29 · Score: 0

You do realize that you just described having two modes of operation. Hand holding for beginners and direct manipulation for advanced users. Duh?
Re:Good news for Evolution! by LilMikey · 2003-08-14 03:40 · Score: 1

"apt-get install evolution".

I realize it's a little more complicated than "setup.exe" but that's not bad. Oh damn, I forgot. It will ask you to press 'Y' before downloading.

I run it on both of my linux boxes pretty much constantly and have never had it crash. Either you're doing something horribly wrong which would surprise me as installation and configuration of a mail client is fairly simple compared to a linux install (or any OS install for that matter) or you've only used the thing long enough to notice that "Hey, this isn't Outlook", decided you didn't want to figure out this complicated foreign software, and now spout off about it in random public forums.

The truth of the matter is that Evolution is an efficient and mature mail client that, while maybe lacking a feature here or there, is right on the heals of Outlook and superior to just about any other mail client. In fact, as far as usability and efficiency goes, I'd say it surpasses Outlook. The only complaint I have is that I still have to use some form of bloatware or crapware on my Windows box.

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:23 · Score: 0

Javasript? Bill dumped that a hell of a long time ago with Java, its all VB Script and .net now.

I do like Moz myself. I will never see the options it (the browser AND mail) have with regards to user security, and options. I love the fact that you can block images from specifc sites/domains/etc. Like a mini firewall...

You will NEVER see that in ANY M$ product. Bill gets paid by EVERYBODY not just the users.

Watch where the money comes from, do you honestly think he will create a feature that will kill a serious portion of his cashflow? Go get a nice strong expresso before you answer that one.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:28 · Score: 0

"IE: no tabs, no mouse gestures, no popup blocking to my knowledge, renders fonts like crap, mildly broken CSS support, broken javascript."

Am i the only one who always turns off tabbed browsing the minute he installs opera & mozilla? i think its the most annoying feature in both those browsers (& its not simple disabling that feature in either one) gesturing was fun for a week or so, but once the novelty wore off i found myself never using it either. as for broken CSS support and javascript, i find it odd that many heavily scripted pages (read webmail, and not just hotmail either) simply dont work properly on opera or mozilla, but work fine on IE's "broken" java.

IE does need a popup blocker, but it seems many users are happy to use a 3rd party app for that. Personally its the only reason i install opera & mozilla.

ill agree that abiword and openoffice have quickly surpassed their MS-made counterparts, but its mostly because they have done such a great job imitating those MS-made counterparts. The biggest selling point for abiword is that it looks, feels, and is used just like word. If MS would just set a reasonable price for word Im sure abiword would disappear almost overnight, or would have to add some "features" that MS hasnt thought of and that most of us will turn off, maybe tabbed word processing & gesturing would be a good start.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2003-08-14 05:47 · Score: 1

But you don't *hide* advanced options, and you definitely don't have two modes... keep the advanced options there, and make as much stuff reversible as possible so users will feel more comfortable poking around and trying things to get the hang of it. In most apps today, much more is technically undo-able than apps generally allow.

Sure you hide the advanced stuff. You just have a config option that switches between advanced and simple, with the advanced stuff being a natural extension of the simple. Most people aren't interested in doing complex things with an app like email - they just want to get their work done, or maybe send pictures of their kids around.

A concrete example for this simple/advanced dichotomy might be a spam filter - simple gives you a switch to turn the filter on and off, and allows you to deemphasize flagged files. It also sets sensible defaults, like disabling http retrieval and JS in flagged files independent of whether it's available elsewhere. Advanced allows you to set more aggressive filtering, set up whitelists, automatically delete the spam, and so on. If you stuck that functionality in front of the novice, they might inadvertently nuke their mail archives or get into a jam that they can't easily get out of. It's the difference between driving to the store and driving on a track.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Dalcius · 2003-08-14 05:53 · Score: 1

> "i find it odd that many heavily scripted pages (read webmail, and not just hotmail either) simply dont work properly on opera or mozilla, but work fine on IE's "broken" java."

CSS: There are a handful of CSS features that just don't work in IE. This is "broken." Just because a page uses a lot of CSS doesn't mean that it won't work in IE, it just means that the developers cater to IE.

Javascript: It's not strictly 'broken', IE's implementation just sucks: they make up their own standards. Again, pages work for IE because developers cater to IE. They have to. Unfortunately. This still doesn't change the reality that MS breaks standards.

As for turning off tabs, I'm curious how this is difficult? Just don't use them. Right click and hit open in a new window.

I suppose gesturing isn't for some folks. I'm addicted to it; closing windows, going back/forward, creating and flipping between tabs are about the only things I use it for, but I do them so often that I miss mouse gestures when I'm not in my browser.

If you're using Linux, you might want to try Galeon 1.2.10; turning off tabbing is trivial.

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 06:00 · Score: 0

Spoken like a true lame wizards user!
Re:Good news for Evolution! by 10bt · 2003-08-14 06:24 · Score: 1

c'mon guys, wizards are fun. some people like to be led. some wizards are better than others....some wizards even hold your hand and pamper you. a lot of people don't get enough hugs and yearn to be pampered. whoever invented wizards should win the nobel price for advancing society.

please do not speak badly of wizards users -- they all have feelings and sometimes even emotional attachment to their favorite wizards. not all wizards users are lamers, though some wizards are lame in that they're not automated enough. the ideal wizard should be holding both our hands instead of just one hand.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by iantri · 2003-08-14 07:09 · Score: 1

IE with bad font rendering? Err.. if you mean anti-aliasing and the like.. what does that have to do with the browser? More to do with the OS, I'd say. If you mean size issues.. have you ever seen Mozilla or Opera on Linux? Eeek! Mozilla is a lot worse than Opera in this respect; you can fairly easily do something about Opera's fonts (although it doesn't seem to scale exactly the same way on different sites..) Both of the above are fine under Windows, and have fonts that are identical to IE. What are you bitching about? That said, I really don't fancy IE and am using Opera right now (with a half-dozen tabs open).
Re:Good news for Evolution! by bhtooefr · 2003-08-14 07:13 · Score: 1

GEOS? 3-4 modes of operation. K1u3l355 n3wbz use level one, once they seem OK with it, they proceed to level 2, unlocking some features, but increasing complexity, then level 3, more features, more complexity, so on, so on.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Dalcius · 2003-08-14 07:14 · Score: 1

True, Mozilla on Windows doesn't have AA, I should have been more clear.

In comparison to my mozilla, or beter, Galeon, on Linux w/Gnome 2, IE font rendering sucks the big one (inherent with Windows). How ironic, considering this was the biggest complaint about Linux for quite a while.

Just another feature that IE (Windows) doesn't have.

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by iantri · 2003-08-14 07:37 · Score: 1

Whatever you say. I'm under Windows right now and I don't see what is wrong with my fonts. They are well-hinted, and look fine (and the larger point sizes are smoothed.). My fonts under Linux are far poorer.
Re: good news for evolution! by Phroggy · 2003-08-14 09:00 · Score: 1

and as for straightforward apps: er, have you seen the standard M$ interfaces? what makes you think your idea of straightforward bears any relation to the definition in redmond?

Read some basic principles of user interface design here.

seriously: wizards do serve a purpose, for the AOL other "training wheels needed" crowd. it's not unlike the big, friendly instructions most PC sellers bundle into the boxes for new PCs. sure, if you're l337 you don't need it, but let's face it: most people aren't.

Apple has one setup wizard which runs the first time you turn your new computer on. Yes, that serves a purpose - it configures a variety of settings before you start using the computer, to get them out of the way - what time zone you're in, for example. Beyond that, if you need a wizard for something, it's probably because the software wasn't designed intuitively enough.

M$'s entire philosophy is geared towards the mainstream, non-l337 crowd: that's why windows became so popular in the first place. that they use wizards as prolifically is not, IMHO, inherently problematic.

Oh I see, Apple targets the l33t h4x0r geek crowd. I wonder why they didn't think of making their computers appeal to average people?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Good news for Evolution! by BollocksToThis · 2003-08-14 10:17 · Score: 1

At my consulting Job I use evolution. Ah so much better.

Umm, why?

Honest question - I haven't used it (no Win32 version, no linux desktop to speak of right now). But I have looked at the screenshots on Ximians page, and all I see is an Outlook knock-off. If everything is a copy of Outlook, where does the 'so much better' part come in? What does it do that Outlook doesn't (apart from 'not launch email viruses' - but that's not enough of a reason, as Outlook CAN be configured properly)

--
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by BollocksToThis · 2003-08-14 10:22 · Score: 1

Unsubstantiated comment: Evolution is so much better.

Rating: +5, Interesting!

Unsubstantiated comment: Outlook is really a superior mail client.

Rating: 0, Flamebait.

Slashdot moderators are the online version of a fucking circle jerk. Go ahead, mod me down. See the cock sucking in action.

--
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
Re:Good news for Evolution! by Dalcius · 2003-08-14 12:53 · Score: 1

Are you running GNOME 2.x with GNOME 2.x compliant apps?

I took the liberty of taking some screenshots.
The differences aren't killer, but IE certainly could use some anti-aliasing. Big, italic fonts or complicated fonts make IE look even worse.

Windows 2000 IE
Gnome 2 Galeon 1.2.10

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

Thank God... by Ataeagina · 2003-08-13 14:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

and good ridance.

--
We're siamese children created by heart. Nothing, nothing can tear us apart.

Re:Thank God... by whatch+durrin · 2003-08-13 15:11 · Score: 1

So call me a little behind the curve on email, but...
I've had hotmail as my primary mail for a while. At this point, it's easier to keep it than change to something else. I do use an email alias for more professional needs, but it goes back to hotmail. Unfortunately, not everyone I know uses the alias, and it would be quite a PITA to change my email w/ them.
Anywho, I use OE only for archiving purposes. I open it, login, and archive mail locally. That's all.
That being said, is there another client (non-MS) that I can use? Every time I've checked on using another it won't work w/ hotmail.

--
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Re:Thank God... by codemachine · 2003-08-13 15:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Try something called hotwayd. It is a POP gateway to hotmail, so you can use any POP mail client with your hotmail account. I've been using it for a year with KMail and it works great.

There is also something called gotmail I believe which will also do the trick.
Re:Thank God... by quimbaya · 2003-08-13 15:52 · Score: 1

Take a look at http://hotwayd.sourceforge.net ... I am running this on my Linux box at home, but I don't know if it can be made to work on Windows.
Re:Thank God... by RealityShunt · 2003-08-13 16:14 · Score: 1

Yeah...OE is the worst problem ridden POS email client I've ever encountered.

But on the downside, then we'll get to support a email client over the next ?5? years on older machines that will probably no longer have updates done for it. Try to convince these people to upgrade? Hah. I still support Win95 people...although I'm slowly converting them to linux :)

Joy. Thanks, MS. So, when are you going to cut off security updates? Finally figured it out, haven't you?

realityshunt

--
Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
Re:Thank God... by morningstar8 · 2003-08-13 17:53 · Score: 1

Try the e-mail client within Mozilla. There are lots of cool features, including a spam filter that you teach. I use it at home and see very little spam. I'd use it at work, but we use Outlook there, and I have to reply to Outlook meeting notices and schedule conference rooms.

Brief non-topical note: You might come to like Mozilla the browser, too. It's PC World Magazine's best browser of 2003 (scroll down a bit to see the note).
Re:Thank God... by whatch+durrin · 2003-08-14 00:33 · Score: 1

I already use Mozilla, but not its email client. Are you sure it will work w/ hotmail?

--
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).

they want to focus on webmail... by dcstimm · 2003-08-13 14:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

They think webmail is going to be more popular than imap, or pop3 mail boxes. So they are going to intergrate a Hotmail mail box into the next version of windows.

--
keanmarine.com

Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 0

This is a Good Thing. The less n00bs running pop3 clints opening attachments and spreading nimda type crap can only be a positive.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Drakonian · 2003-08-13 14:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes.... I think they will call it.... I know! "Internet Explorer"!

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by billsf · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you like mail the real way, there is "Mutt" and other Unix mailers. "Webmail" is slow, unwieldly and totally insecure. Then you have little shits like Microsoft that actually dare to claim your mail their IP! Get a life and mail online.....
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-13 14:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Great, just what I need, MORE M$ proprietary mail headers, HTTP extensions, and HTML tags.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:24 · Score: 0

Hotmail has support for attachments as well.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Omnifarious · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 2, Informative

They are wrong, especially if I can get CAKE working well. :-)

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:31 · Score: 0

webmail'd be easier to control though...

one interface -- ms (can) fix a bug, rather than expect everyone to apply their fixes for them.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by bofkentucky · 2003-08-13 14:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'll take 128-bit RSA over plaintext IMAP, POP3, and SMTP anyday. Joe Six Pack isn't sophisticated enough to use GPG/PGP or Client side certs, most ISP's don't offer TLS mail services, but that little lock icon keeps his pr0n, email forwards, and industrial espionage from being snooped by big brother.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by finkployd · 2003-08-13 14:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Slow and unwieldy I'll give you, but insecure? Just about every webmail I've seen has been on an https connection, which is lightyears more secure than pop3 and imap, which is what just about everyone uses. Sure there are a handfull of secure pop and secure imap servers out there but look at what just about every ISP/university/corporation offers?

Finkployd
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Edgy+Loner · 2003-08-13 14:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Definately. As long as whoever runs the server is trustworthy. Of course Micrososft is pretty good in that regard -
Oh wait, never mind.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by sir99 · 2003-08-13 14:44 · Score: 1

It's funny, my university offers TLS smtp, imap, and pop3, but their webmail service isn't encrypted. Really annoying when the imap server is down and I want to check my email.

--
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by lewiz · 2003-08-13 14:47 · Score: 1

So they are going to intergrate a Hotmail mail box into the next version of windows.

If this truly is the case I see this as a Good Thing(TM). This way Microsoft have a lot more control (okay, I guess that's a downside ;) over the security: if it's fully integrated they can do patching in a slightly different way. Also, any arguments about ``webmail'' being slow are made redundant... if they go the right way about it*.

* -- specifically I'd expect some kind of built-in webmail client that works in a way very much similar to IMAP. In fact, the old OE did support HTTP mail (Hotmail). This is the kind of integrated support I would really like to see.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:51 · Score: 0

Don't forget all those wonderful Internet kiosks that have key loggers installed.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by bofkentucky · 2003-08-13 14:53 · Score: 1

If they get one of microsoft's private keys whats to stop a hacker from getting mom and pop ISP's private key. No system is completly safe, hell, even the FSF have had a rooted FTP server for 5 months. I'm no MSFT apologist, but lets be realistic here.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Omnifarious · 2003-08-13 14:57 · Score: 1

If they get Microsoft's keys then millions of people's emails are comprimised. If they get mom and pop ISPs private key, then a few hundred people's emails are comprimised.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by the+uNF+cola · 2003-08-13 15:00 · Score: 1

Until you have something silly like autofill on, which gets stored on disc, and a virus that mails your autofill to someone. Hrm...

--
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by hdparm · 2003-08-13 15:10 · Score: 4, Funny

ms (can) fix a bug, rather than expect everyone to apply their fixes for them.
When you wake up, please be so kind and let us know what happened by the end of your dream.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Tyreth · 2003-08-13 15:16 · Score: 1

Hotmail has an amazing vulnerability - secret questions to change someone's password.

Introduce yourself to a person. If their secret question is "What's your favorite food?" then you just need to say to them "mmm, just had spaghetti for tea, it's my favourite. What's your favourite food?"

I always fill in those secret questions with some garbled answers. I don't forget my passwords.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by vandan · 2003-08-13 15:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just about every webmail I've seen has been on an https connection, which is lightyears more secure than pop3 and imap, which is what just about everyone uses

Hardly. The POP3 and IMAP connections you describe, that "just about everyone uses" are between the user and their ISP, over a modem connection. Whether they use plain text or not is beside the point, because the traffic never gets on the 'net - just over the phone lines. So that makes them more secure than your HTTPS which is easily interceptible and only needs to have the encryption cracked.

If you're not talking about modem-to-modem traffic, then you really should be using IMAP over SSL etc.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by finkployd · 2003-08-13 15:29 · Score: 1

Ok, so I will grant you ISPs, however that assumes you never check your ISP mail from work, school, or anywhere other than dialed into them. That still leaves universities and corporations. Some are smart and turn off plaintext pop and imap, many do not.

And https only needs to have it's encryption cracked? Have you been cracking 128 bit (actually mine are all 1024 or 2048) RSA keypairs? I'm going to have to call "not a chance" on that one.

Finkployd
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by bofkentucky · 2003-08-13 15:32 · Score: 1

But the effect is the same...Joe Sixpack's mail just got read. BTW, I work at a mom and pop, we are 1% of AOL's size, but it still means we get the same fscking irate calls and stupid breakage as any other ISP, plus the pressure of the company CEO being right down the hall when the quanno hits the blades.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by gfody · 2003-08-13 15:53 · Score: 1

I always fill in those secret questions with some garbled answers. I don't forget my passwords.

Tyreth@hotmail.com, what is your favorite color?

> "asdf"

..input your new password:

btw your new password is

--

bite my glorious golden ass.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by jimmyharris · 2003-08-13 16:11 · Score: 1

My reading of the context of the "insecure" was that it referred to the transmission of email data as well as username and password. Hotmail may make you log in via HTTPS but when you read your mail it is all via insecure HTTP.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:14 · Score: 0

Sure there are a handfull of secure pop and secure imap servers out there but look at what just about every ISP/university/corporation offers?
Name one major University that does not offer POP or IMAP over SSL or kerberized POP/IMAP.
I can name a few that still offer plain-text POP and IMAP, but I know of none that don't provide SSLed POP and IMAP as an option (I occassionally compare notes with other similar universities (Ivies, Big Ten, etc.).
I know of some colleges that don't even offer POP or IMAP (complete "Microsoft shops"), but these aren't major universities, rather small liberal arts schools.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by EvanED · 2003-08-13 16:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

The real downside to webmail for me is (are you ready for this?) it's on the web. I keep a backlog of essentially every email I recieve. I have things burnt onto CD from over 4 years ago, which is when I first had a non-webmail, non-AOL account. Unless webmail places start giving insanely larger starage spaces (say, 50 megs instead of 5) and/or offer a very easy download solution, they are worthless for general use. Add to that the fact that you have to be online (okay, I have cable, so that's not a real issue) with a good connection to read, and even with a good connection it would take longer to move things between folders, read past messages, search, etc. and webmail starts to look very unappealing. The only benefit for power users at least is that you would have all your messages whereever you go.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by scotartt · 2003-08-13 17:08 · Score: 1

oh yeah .. at my current client site I can't get ssh access outside, and subsequently, I have to use webmail to read email at work, which is a right royal PITA.

--
-A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed-
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Eminor · 2003-08-13 17:30 · Score: 1

Just about every webmail I've seen has been on an https connection,

You think hotmail is secure? Search for the hotmail cache file (I believe its "hotmail.html" or something like that) on kazaa. Download it and open it. You will see a users inbox.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by mercuryresearch · 2003-08-13 17:56 · Score: 1

Actually, if you run TCPDUMP on a new with hotmail users, you'll find the only thing encrypted is the username/password when someone first signs in. Afterwords all the mail is sent using unencrypted HTML, it's a breeze to read the plaintext email from tcpdump's output when the ascii switch is turned on.

So, for hotmail at least, the only security advantage is not sending the password as plaintext.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by skinfitz · 2003-08-13 18:06 · Score: 1

I don't forget my passwords.

Famous last words...
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 18:11 · Score: 0

Yep. And then all you need is their zipcode and birthday. Oh wait, its not that easy to get all of that info.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by sprayNwipe · 2003-08-13 18:21 · Score: 1

Sure logging in is secure, but every time I've gone to an internet cafe-like place at an airport somewhere, 90% of the time I will find the last person who visited still logged into Hotmail.

'Secure' is only as secure as your weakest link. I know that I've never accidentally seen someone else's POP mail via the "View POP mail" stuff they usually have at kiosks, that's for sure ;p
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by gad_zuki! · 2003-08-13 18:56 · Score: 1

>because the traffic never gets on the 'net

It sure as heck does. Just because you're dialing in doesn't guarantee you're not calling some outsourcing dial-up that routes packets to your ISPs email server. Consider wide area or nationwide dial-ups.

>only needs to have the encryption cracked.

Only? Good luck with that.

256bit SSL has 1.1579208923731619542357098500869e+77 potential keys to guess from. 128, 168, and 256 are standard and I haven't seen 40-bit in years.

Regardless, unless people are using private/public key encryption at the source it becomes plaintext somewhere (transit, storage) and should be considered compromised. No use splitting hairs over modems and web interfaces, someone can read all your email. I've read a lot of it, you should email your mother more.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 19:06 · Score: 0

128-bit RSA... I hope not :)
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by broeman · 2003-08-13 20:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, I think it will be called "MSN Explorer"!

1. Microsoft denies that the Internet is of interest of the average user.
2. Microsoft "creates" Internet Explorer to compete with Netscape.
3. Microsoft buys the popular Hotmail among other popular portals on the Internet.
4. Microsoft extends its "MSN" to the Internet (and television).
5. Microsoft develops MSN Explorer.
* 6. Microsoft stops development of IE and Outlook.
7. Microsoft .NET will function perfectly with new MS Network servers.
8. Microsoft Windows Bloat2005 is delivered without TCP/IP. You can now login to the MS Network without the use of Internet.
9. ... (more marketing)
10. Microsoft users have forgotten that there was something called "The Internet". "I just login to the MS Network, its easier to use, like I read/saw somewhere", a local user said, "I hope we will implement it at our work, because of communcation with my home, telephone is sooo old-fashioned".

That is their strategy ... I doubt that it will succeed, since we have so great governments around the world, not allowing this?!?!

--

(yes this can be compared with sex)
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Tyreth · 2003-08-13 20:29 · Score: 1

Actually, by being clever it's quite easy to get that information.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by danielsfca2 · 2003-08-13 21:00 · Score: 2, Informative

> Just about every webmail I've seen has been on an https connection,

*Buzz!* Wrong. Just about every webmail user uses either Hotmail or Yahoo! Mail. Well, not quite that large a proportion, but those are likely the two most guilty parties responsible for this webmail trend.

Anyway, both those services only use SSL (https:) for half a second while you log-in. The rest is sent in the clear (I should know, I used to sniff packets when bored, but unfortunately, it was even more boring).

Maybe nicer webmail services let you encrypt the whole session (I know the POP3/IMAP-to-Web service Mail2Web does), but most people don't use nicer webmail services. Most (but of course not all) webmail users are clueless n00bs. Most webmail users have accounts for free with lots of ads that do not afford them any additional security, nor allow them the option to use POP, IMAP, SMTP or any other standard protocol. This is not real e-mail.

On the other hand, many users of real e-mail can choose an SSL or otherwise encrypted login.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by RoLi · 2003-08-13 21:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
I think you forget:
- 70% of webservers run Apache/Unix
- Outside USA, both MSN and AOL are neglectible in marketshare
- Millions of PS3 users won't use IE
- Even more Millions of cellphone users won't use IE
- Linux making inroads on the desktop
Sorry, but with Microsoft being forced to support TCP/IP and HTML, they have lost the browser wars. The current domination of IE won't hold for long.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by edxwelch · 2003-08-13 22:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

They obviously make the [incorrect] assumption that a) the internet is always working b) that everyone is always connected c) everyone has broadband The advantages of pop mail is you can read and write your mail offline.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by impluvian · 2003-08-13 22:48 · Score: 1

"Microsoft have a lot more control ... over the security: ... they can do patching in a slightly different way."

This misses the fundamental point! The fact that Microsoft needs to do patching, whether or not in a slightly different way, should be enough of an indication that there are good reasons not to give Microsoft a "lot more control" over security.

Although it would be easy for this to degenerate into even more /. Microsoft-bashing, this is not an unreasonable question: as Microsoft gains more control over more of the things its users interact with (especially web-based services), will they really feel any extra pressure to make more secure systems than they have in the past?

Previously (and even now) their systems have a dominant market share, but have to interact with a whole host of other systems. They have built buggy and insecure platforms for this task: when all they're (mainly) interacting with is each other, they'll have even less reason to worry about security, won't they?
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by broeman · 2003-08-13 23:04 · Score: 1

That is why I said *I doubt* it would happen, but it looks like it is their plan at the moment.

When I look at your comment, remember that most users don't know what Apache/*nix is, AOL is big in Germany and UK and Microsoft is trying (un-successful again) to let the cellphone-companies use their network. Off course I think that their plan will not succeed, and OSS will pervail whatever if it is Linux or HURD that is running on future desktops, but I see so many people that is still praising Microsoft, because they don't know better (like I heard a guy in a department say: "Why are we still running Windows 2000, Windows XP is sooo better" not a smart guy, but that is not the point).

--

(yes this can be compared with sex)
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by OmniVector · 2003-08-13 23:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not when you manage a webserver and mailserver yourself, and can put a free webmail program on the webserver. I couldn't live without webmail sometimes, especially on the go. It's actually easy to set up even if all you have is the webserver portion. If your mail server supports imap and authenticated smtp, then you just need a machine that can run php/apache with a static ip.

--
- tristan
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by finkployd · 2003-08-14 01:30 · Score: 1

I can name a few that still offer plain-text POP and IMAP, but I know of none that don't provide SSLed POP and IMAP as an option (I occassionally compare notes with other similar universities (Ivies, Big Ten, etc.).

By and large, most still offer plaintext POP and IMAP.

You are correct in that it is getting better and more and more universities offer secure protocols. HOWEVER, in my experience nobody (or very few) use them until the plaintext protocols are turned off. People will continue to use what is easiest and what they have used in the past until they are forced to change. Case in point, my school (PSU) offered SFTP for years but it was rarely used. only after turning off FTP did we find that people used SFTP (realistically they had no choise). Technically it was a simple move, politically it was a nightmare.

Finkployd
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Ride-My-Rocket · 2003-08-14 02:56 · Score: 1

Sorry, but with Microsoft being forced to support TCP/IP and HTML, they have lost the browser wars.

Netscape has essentially been relegated to the scrap heap; Mozilla has neglegible market share; Opera is technically superior, but isn't free. And Microsoft, with its desktop market share hovering at around 95%, has been packaging a built-in, free browser for years now, in the form of Internet Explorer 4.x+. So how in hell do you figure that Microsoft has lost the browser wars?

Yes, Microsoft needs to support TCP/IP and HTML, which it currently does. But that doesn't mean they need to play by the rules. Internet Explorer 6 doesn't support CSS2 properly, and they've had years to fix it up right. And you think the masses are going to defect and buy Opera, or download Mozilla because of that??

It's time you faced the facts -- IE won the browser wars. Theirs isn't the best solution by any means, but it's the cheapest solution around, the easiest to procure and the least difficult to use for a vast majority of desktop users. Internet Explorer in its current incarnation won't be around much longer -- it will soon be a part of the Windows operating system. But that doesn't mean it's going away, either.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by bahamat · 2003-08-14 03:25 · Score: 1

I'll take 128-bit RSA over plaintext IMAP, POP3, and SMTP anyday. Joe Six Pack isn't sophisticated enough to use GPG/PGP or Client side certs, most ISP's don't offer TLS mail services, but that little lock icon keeps his pr0n, email forwards, and industrial espionage from being snooped by big brother.

Hmm, this is almost so trollish I hesitate to respond, however since you've gotten +4, there's aparently enough stupid people out there who believe you and you must be refuted.

Your mail is stored in plain text on the mail server unless you encrypt it with PGP. All dial up systems and 99% of cable/dsl ISPs are switch based, which means you can't snoop on your neighbor. The only person who can snoop on you is your ISP, but why do they need to sniff your password when they can just crack it right out of the passwd file in the first place? Why would they need to snarf your mail when they can just look on disk in the first place? Because of this, using SSL for IMAP or POP3 is false security, as in it's no security.

And since you're stupid enough to think your browser is sufficient protection for your e-mail, once it leaves your browser it's converted to plain text and sent on it's merry way to where ever it may want to go. Because of this, using SSL for SMTP is false security. It is no security.

What about passwords? Assuming someone was interested enough to want your password, IMAP encrypts it before sending anyway. Again, browser based SSL offers no additional protection.

It has been said "don't send anything in e-mail that you wouldn't put on a post card". Read that again because it's true.

For those of you not keeping score, if you want any security at all for e-mail, it MUST be PGP encrypted. Otherwise you're just waisting your time. Sorry to break the cold hard reality to you.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by autechre · 2003-08-14 03:30 · Score: 1

You should go back and read the part of his post that you didn't quote. Microsoft currently has a near-monopoly on the desktop browser population. However:

1. Vast numbers of devices that are not desktops and have never been online before are starting to get online. Some of these will use Windows embedded stuff, but many will not. These are browsers too. These count too, and probably more than computers. I'll bet that many people would not bother with a home PC if they could check their email and surf the Web with their cell phone/PDA. Especially if someone came out with a "docking station" for the home that gave you a real keyboard, display, and pointing device.

2. Windows users have no way to get a new version of IE without getting a new version of Windows. That will not be available for about 2 more years. Jakob Nielson estimates that "most" people will have upgraded to a version of a browser 2 years after it has come out. Will people abandon IE when it stagnates for 2 years? Did they abandon Netscape 4 when it stagnated for 2 years?

(There is apparently software that gives IE tabs and popup blocking, but I didn't hear anything about mouse gestures, and I can only imagine that the tab implementation will continue to improve in Mozilla to the point where it's impossible to emulate [like moving tabs between windows]. Clever freeware authors can't prop up IE indefinitely.)

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by cheekyboy · 2003-08-14 04:35 · Score: 1

R: Ill pay you $6, but every year that $6 looses 4% in inflation. Until, hey presto its worth-less

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:28 · Score: 0

I hope to hell not. If I wanted Bill to control MY email I would already be using Hotmail.

I don't want my email to be moron34431@hotmail.com, I want what I have, my current one is more personal and shows my support for the independant ISPs (cable mind you, but Bill dosn't control it, yet...) If I ever found a version of Windows with an integrated Hotmail box, I would not buy it. If it was given to me, I would toss it out.

This is just one more way for Bill to do an end run around the government's anti-trust win (not much of one). And he will too.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by murdocj · 2003-08-14 05:56 · Score: 1

Sorry, but with Microsoft being forced to support TCP/IP and HTML, they have lost the browser wars. The current domination of IE won't hold for long.

I think you have to look at it the other way around. At least for the moment, MS owns the desktop. They are working to make inroads on the server market. Already people are complaining about those sites that can only be viewed with IE. I'm sure Microsoft is aiming for the time when they have enough market share in the server market to make non-MS clients non-functional, or at least function poorly.
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by lactose99 · 2003-08-14 06:13 · Score: 1

In SOVIET RUSSIA, your passwords forget YOU.

--
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by ImpTech · 2003-08-14 14:45 · Score: 1

>The only benefit for power users at least is that you would have all your messages whereever you go.

*cough* *cough* IMAP *cough*
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by hearingaid · 2003-08-15 03:56 · Score: 1

Mozilla doesn't forget my passwords. :)

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by hearingaid · 2003-08-15 03:59 · Score: 1

Have you ever heard of routers?
Sure, most people's email is on their ISP's mailserver. However, most ISPs have routers (well, all, actually). Any router can be compromised, and programmed to log all the packets it processes for the benefit of a cracker. Assume any routers that you use that you do not maintain personally are compromised. It's safer that way.
BTW, normally the machine that picks up the phone when you dial an ISP is a router, or a close neighbour to one. It is not your ISP's email server, unless your ISP is dangerously insane.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:they want to focus on webmail... by skinfitz · 2003-08-18 07:36 · Score: 1

Mozilla doesn't forget my passwords. :)

Famous last words...

This may not be such a bad thing by gatesh8r · 2003-08-13 14:12 · Score: 0, Redundant

Maybe we'll see less VBS worms getting spread around. That assumes they yank out OE from Windows.

--
Karma whorin' since 1999

Re:This may not be such a bad thing by El+Cubano · 2003-08-13 14:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe we'll see less VBS worms getting spread around. That assumes they yank out OE from Windows.
Considering the lackluster rates of adoption for MS's newest offerings, I would say the danger will be there for a very long time to come. Just look at how many people still run 98. I have a friend who spent a lot of money on a gaming rig, lots of RAM, powerful video card. You know what he did? He tossed his old machine, popped in his Win 98SE CD and off he went.
Since most home users see 98 as pretty much everything they need (and we are almost done with 2003, so it a five year old OS) it will be a while untill it goes away.
Re:This may not be such a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:54 · Score: 0

newer versions of windows either fuck with legacy game support (ME AFAIK) or have overly invasive "activation" schemes (XP). 98 has good support for legacy (and most new) games and works on the honor system instead of assuming I'm a "dirty thief" (copyright infringer).

Hell, the only reason I still USE Windows is because of the games (WineX just doesn't cut it - the games run, but the playability and frame rates suffer badly).
Re:This may not be such a bad thing by Alex+Thorpe · 2003-08-13 15:12 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that VBS worms were a product of Outlook alone. I know they don't work with OE for the MacOS(9 and earlier), and assumed that they didn't in IE for Windows.

--
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Re:This may not be such a bad thing by Jman314 · 2003-08-13 18:07 · Score: 1

That assumes they yank out OE from Windows.

No, it appears that Microsoft will stop developing OE seperately. Which leaves things open for a Hotmail interface as a part of Windows. I don't like the idea. An interface to a spam-infested web mail system that you can't remove. Yuck.
Re:This may not be such a bad thing by allanj · 2003-08-13 19:47 · Score: 1

I have a friend who spent a lot of money on a gaming rig, lots of RAM, powerful video card. You know what he did? He tossed his old machine, popped in his Win 98SE CD and off he went.

That actually makes sense - Win98SE is the best choice for PURE gaming, IMHO. Better gaming performance than W2K or WXP, and you don't need much from the OS when all your programs do is render monsters in 1600x1200@70fps. In fact, the best the OS can do for most games is to get out of the way. Win98SE will do that happily, while W2K/WXP most definately will NOT.

--
Black holes are where God divided by zero
Re:This may not be such a bad thing by Carrot007 · 2003-08-13 20:55 · Score: 1

> lots of RAM

Seems either your definition of lots is outdated or just very unlikely.

win 9x tends to choke with more than 512mb ram, lower on some motherboards.

I regard 512mb as a minimum budget choice these days. (ie to be avaoided if atall possible which is is given ram prices)

--
+----------------- | What is the question!
Re:This may not be such a bad thing by Firehawke · 2003-08-14 07:28 · Score: 1

You can make it work through some INI tweaking, but it's still somewhat touch and go from all reports-- especially in that it's near impossible to reinstall.. and we all know 9x needs a reinstall about once a year or two..

Does That Include Patches? by Myriad · 2003-08-13 14:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

but no new work is being done.

What's that sound? Ahhhhh, worm and exploit writers around the world can rejoicing...

I they've got them to stop development.

Blockwars: go play.

--
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'

About time... by B+Ekim · 2003-08-13 14:12 · Score: 1

now we can only hope Outlook follows shortly.

Re:About time... by Interesting+Username · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 0

Microsoft will probably release an enterprise version of whatever they have planned for the fate of Outlook Express.
Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:21 · Score: 0

Doubt it - though i hope so too.

Stopped making the product they include for free to go with the product that they sell with something else(office) and the product that they can get advertising money for(hotmail).

They realized they were competing with their self and weren't getting any $ from that product?
Re:About time... by MonTemplar · 2003-08-15 02:01 · Score: 1

Er, that would be Outlook, then.

MT.

--
-MT.

Simple... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:12 · Score: 0

... there're going to be lots of new users of Edora Mail once more

Re:Simple... by wo1verin3 · 2003-08-13 14:35 · Score: 1

This will definately give incentive for Qualcomm to add some of the things Eudora lacks.

I thought I was one of the last few Eudora users. It may not be the best, but I can't remember the last time my mom got a Eudora Worm. :)
Re:Simple... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 06:23 · Score: 0

And I use NS4 for mail & news :) We old-timers ;)

Standard Protocols? by Interesting+Username · 2003-08-13 14:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

Where does that leave the general e-mail system if they focus on new systems based around Hotmail? If the regular Microsoft user who only knows Outlook (/Express) exists can only use Hotmail now, regular SMTP/POP3/IMAP servers may become a thing of the past. Not to mention leaving the non-Windows mail servers behind.

Re:Standard Protocols? by Christianfreak · 2003-08-13 14:23 · Score: 1

doubtful.. there are tons of people that use OutHouse, if OutHouse stops being made (since when to people upgrade anyway?) people will find something so they don't have to give up joeblow@isp.com.

However maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing, us geeks would still have our email servers but all the Spam would go to Hotmail :)

--
The Anti-Blog
Re:Standard Protocols? by PepsiProgrammer · 2003-08-13 14:32 · Score: 4, Informative

SMTP and Webmail are two different matters entirely.

SMTP has to do with how the mail is transfered between servers.

Webmail/POP3/IMAP have to do with how the end user reads mail in their inbox

Also webmail is quite capable on non-windows servers

SquirellMail (Open source imap webmail) is a much better interface than hotmail ever was

--
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Re:Standard Protocols? by Narcissus · 2003-08-13 15:02 · Score: 1

Maybe Hotmail will include an option of "integrating" your regular POP email with Hotmail (like, for one of many examples, mail2web.com)? That way, the user doesn't lose their email address, but MS still keep that share of the market (the users just roll over to Hotmail).

Good! by Roguelazer · 2003-08-13 14:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe this will cause peopel to realize that Internet Explorer and Outlook Express AREN'T the only way to use the internet. With any luck, mozilla and its ilk should be seeing a lot more customers once the EOL for Internet Explorer 6 and Outlook Express 6 hits and Microsoft either A) Requires a new version of windows for new features or B) Requires MSN subscription, both of which are alternatives that home and small business users (and probably large business users too) won't want. So let's make sure we have a very user-friendly product with plenty of advertising, eh?

--
My Systems

Re:Good! by Malc · 2003-08-13 14:50 · Score: 1

You think they'll just switch off what they have and force everybody over to what you currently see as Hotmail? I think that's a trifle naive. I know not what they plan, but have no doubt that they do have a plan. They will continue to leverage their desktop monopoly, and slowly transition people over to their new way. It will probably be a seamless part of the OS, and at first, most non-technical people won't even know there's much different.
Re:Good! by dwsauder · 2003-08-13 15:15 · Score: 1
Really, it's no big deal.
Other programs that they stopped further development on:
- Internet Explorer
- Notepad
- Wordpad
- Sound recorder
- HyperTerminal
- Paint
- etc.
My point is, that there are much better options for most of these applications. Surely this is better for Mozilla mail, Eudora, Mulberry, Pegasus, and other third party email client applications.
Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:44 · Score: 0

They may not be the only way but they're the BEST way. I have yet to see any of the crap OSS products hold a candle to either.
Re:Good! by dtfinch · 2003-08-13 18:40 · Score: 1

"Your honor, these MSN/Hotmail popup advertisements are an integral part of the Windows 2005 operating system. Removing them would be next to impossible without undoing years of development. It'd be like pulling the engines off a plane to make it more aerodynamic." - future Microsoft lawyer.
Re:Good! by cruachan · 2003-08-13 20:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Outlook doesn't. It's a commercial product that comes with Office. I think in the distant past Outlook97 or thereabouts was free, but it's been commercial now for some time.
Re:Good! by CrazyTalk · 2003-08-14 01:42 · Score: 0

True, but the one thing I could always count on was that Outlook express would be available on any computer I run into in the workplace. I could easily configure it to read multiple personal email accounts. Even where I work now, Groupwise is the email standard and we do not have Outlook, but we DO have good ol' Outlook express which makes it easy for me to check my personal email. Sure, most email accounts provide web interfaces but they are slow and clunky, never mind the off-line storage issues others have mentioned.
Re:Good! by bahamat · 2003-08-14 03:45 · Score: 1

Maybe this will cause peopel to realize that Internet Explorer and Outlook Express AREN'T the only way to use the internet.

Not hardly. Do you realize how many sites block or do stupid things to web browsers that don't include "MSIE" in the Useragent string? MSN is no different.

Append "MSIE" to your Mozilla general.useragent.vendor string and watch how much web sites change.

What? by Quasar1999 · 2003-08-13 14:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh, ok... so what you're saying is we no longer have outlook express... it's now part of the OS and we can't de-couple them... it's an integral part of the OS... honest your honor!

Seriously... They're doing with outlook express, what they did with Internet Explorer... except this time, they are bundling outlook functionality with their Web business, instead of their OS... Same shit different pile...

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:33 · Score: 0

I'm assuming this was modded funny because it's so stupid.

Bundling software was illegal because everyone uses Windows, so they were leveraging their monopoly. Not everyone uses MSN, in fact probably less than 1/4 of computer users do, so it's not illegal. If OE sucks, then the consumer is free to change to something else.
Re:What? by AstroDrabb · 2003-08-13 14:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not only IE and now OE, but in their next version of their OS they are "integrating" Windows Media Player. It will no longer be a stand alone app. Boy am I glad the US justice system knows how to stop monopolies from ruining captialism.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:What? by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm assuming this was modded funny because it's so stupid.

If that was how messages were rated, yours would have been a +5 Funny.

Bundling software was illegal because everyone uses Windows, so they were leveraging their monopoly.

And now they want to leverage their monopoly on Windows to get people to use Hotmail and MSN -- two Microsoft online services that compete with other companies' offerings.

Not everyone uses MSN, in fact probably less than 1/4 of computer users do, so it's not illegal.

There was a time when "probably less than 1/4 of computer users" chose Internet Explorer as their browser, but Microsoft's bundling of that browser changed that.

If OE sucks, then the consumer is free to change to something else.

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another mail client. They don't know how to install it. They don't know how to configure it. They think that 99% of the software downloaded over the net has viruses in it or is part of some clever ploy to steal their credit card number. They are scared that installing new software will "break" their computer and that they will have to take the computer back to Best Buy, pay the service department $150, and then find out that the "tech" wiped their hard drive and did a fresh install of Windows to "fix" the problem. If it's so damned easy to "change to something else", why did Netscape go ballistic when Microsoft started bundling IE with Windows and why is IE now the dominant browser?

But your last sentence makes no sense anyway in the context of this discussion. The point of this discussion is that Microsoft is discontinuing OE and is, instead, pushing future Windows users to sign up for MSN/Hotmail. So there won't be a version of OE, whether it sucks or not.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:33 · Score: 0

They don't know how to configure it. They think that 99% of the software downloaded over the net has viruses in it or is part of some clever ploy to steal their credit card number. They are scared that installing new software will "break" their computer and that they will have to take the computer back to Best Buy, pay the service department $150, and then find out that the "tech" wiped their hard drive and did a fresh install of Windows to "fix" the problem.

You don't work with the "average person" then. Most (all?) non technically inclined people I know will download anything and everything off the net. Take a look at your "average Joe's" system tray for exmaple - it's ten feet long and filled with the likes of Gator, Real Player, and 25 other pieces of junk/spyware.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:16 · Score: 0

And now they want to leverage their monopoly on Windows to get people to use Hotmail and MSN -- two Microsoft online services that compete with other companies' offerings.

How exactly are they leveraging their monopoly to do this? Windows doesn't come with anything related to Hotmail or MSN, idiot.

There was a time when "probably less than 1/4 of computer users" chose Internet Explorer as their browser, but Microsoft's bundling of that browser changed that.

Exactly. Neither MSN or Hotmail are bundled, so they're irrelevant, and you're completely incapable of thought.

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another mail client. They don't know how to install it. They don't know how to configure it. They think that 99% of the software downloaded over the net has viruses in it or is part of some clever ploy to steal their credit card number.

You're completely ignorant of the common user. Most common users I know are smarting than you, even, because at least they're capable of rational thought.

Most people use AOL. AOL is not owned by MS.

But your last sentence makes no sense anyway in the context of this discussion. The point of this discussion is that Microsoft is discontinuing OE and is, instead, pushing future Windows users to sign up for MSN/Hotmail. So there won't be a version of OE, whether it sucks or not.

OE was bundled, that's how it's relevant to your post. MSN and Hotmail are services, so can't be bundled, so they aren't relevant to this discussion, so your post obviously isn't, either.

Seriously, please get a clue BEFORE posting.
Re:What? by EvanED · 2003-08-13 16:32 · Score: 1

>>There was a time when "probably less than 1/4 of computer users" chose Internet Explorer as their browser, but Microsoft's bundling of that browser changed that.

Do you remember the time that MS charged a monthly fee to use IE? Didn't think so. Do you think that people would have switched to IE from Netscape if the companies charged $20-whatever/mth? No, because calling up AOL, canceling their account, calling up MSN, giving them your cerdit card is a bigger pain then installing AOL. But there was no pain changing from Netscape to IE. (Apart from the dubious quality of IE anyway.)
Re:What? by Ramze · 2003-08-13 17:24 · Score: 1

Most of that crap is installed b/c something popped up on their screen and they clicked "yes" to it. It's not like they went looking for a nice spyware program and chose Gator. Some of that crap is installed on the PC when they get it, too.
Re:What? by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 17:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

How exactly are they leveraging their monopoly to do this? Windows doesn't come with anything related to Hotmail or MSN, idiot.

You are an ignorant turd, aren't you? Windows puts MSN icons on desktops, they make MSN the ad-splattering homepage for IE, they repeatedly ask if you have, or want to sign up for, a Hotmail account. Try reading this before you make more of a fool of yourself.

Exactly. Neither MSN or Hotmail are bundled, so they're irrelevant, and you're completely incapable of thought.

You are so incredibly stupid that it is no wonder that you post anonymously. If you had read the article, you would have seen that it said: It is consumer email in an early iteration, and our investment in the consumer space is now focused around Hotmail and MSN. That's where we're putting the emphasis in terms of new investment and new development work."

That means that Hotmail or MSN sign-up will be a big part of Windows install, that both MSN and Hotmail will be even more prominently pushed through IE (remember, IE ships with MSN as its homepage), and consumers will be left to either do the easy thing and sign up for MSN/Hotmail or try to hunt down an e-mail client and another service.

You're completely ignorant of the common user. Most common users I know are smarting than you, even, because at least they're capable of rational thought.

You wouldn't know an intelligent person if they hit you in the face -- and I'd like to be the guy to prove that. You calling me stupid is like Woody Allen calling Arnold Schwarzenegger wimpy.

OE was bundled,

And won't be any more.

that's how it's relevant to your post.

Wrong. We are talking about what happens now that OE is End Of Life, not what Microsoft did in the past.

MSN and Hotmail are services, so can't be bundled

Yes, services can be bundled with the OS. When the install asks if you want to sign up for a Hotmail account, the browser's homepage is an ad for MSN, the desktop includes a sign-up-for-MSN icon, and the system automatically starts up MSN Messenger, that's pushing the services down the users' throats and leveraging the monopoly power of Windows to do so. Are you even aware that:

AOL made a deal with Compaq to place an AOL icon on the desktop, and pay Compaq $35 for each AOL account sign-up it generated. In response, Microsoft announced that any OEM who put icons on the desktop must also put on an icon for MSN (Microsoft's service that competes with AOL) and Microsoft Media Player. That put AOL in the position of paying for Microsoft's advertising. Compaq stated that they will have no choice but to comply because of Microsoft's monopoly power. The Justice Department even investigated this as part of their anti-trust case against Microsoft.

Now go away little boy.
Re:What? by hamster+foo · 2003-08-13 17:38 · Score: 1

> But there was no pain changing from Netscape to IE. (Apart from the dubious quality of IE anyway.)

My memory may be failing me, but if I recall the major move to switch to IE came around version 4. When comparing IE 4 to Netscape 4 in terms of quality, Netscape came up well short. Up until that version of IE, I had been a Netscape user, but the difference in quality between those versions was significant enough to cause me to switch.

Thankfully, Mozilla has corrected this gap, and now exceeds IE in just about every conceivable way. But it's not really accurate to contend that Netscape lost that "war" to an inferior product.

--
- b
Re:What? by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 17:43 · Score: 1

Do you remember the time that MS charged a monthly fee to use IE?

Back when I paid for Netscape Gold?

Do you think that people would have switched to IE from Netscape if the companies charged $20-whatever/mth?

No, and Microsoft realized that. They recognized that the advertising power of being able to control the homepage and bookmarks far outweighed any fee that they might get for the browser. So they gave it away in a successful effort to take over the market and now use it to push MSN, other products, and sell bookmark placement to other firms.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 23:17 · Score: 0

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another mail client. They don't know how to install it. They don't know how to configure it. They think that 99% of the software downloaded over the net has viruses in it or is part of some clever ploy to steal their credit card number. They are scared that installing new software will "break" their computer and that they will have to take the computer back to Best Buy, pay the service department $150, and then find out that the "tech" wiped their hard drive and did a fresh install of Windows to "fix" the problem.

And that's why I'm still wondering why in the hell are we geeks always worrying about those kind of assholes...

(excuse me for the bad english, it's not my primary language)
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 00:38 · Score: 0

The EU just told them not to tie them. Maybe US users will have to import European versions ;)
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 02:43 · Score: 0

>>If OE sucks, then the consumer is free to change to something else.

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another mail client. They don't know how to install it. They don't know how to configure it

Uhh, idiot, the fact that somebody doesn't know how to do something doesn't mean they are prevented from doing it. If that were the case, I could argue that X is a monopoly because I don't know of any competitor purchase a product from.

(mod prev msg +5 Funny (=Stupid)..per his directions)
Re:What? by Yort · 2003-08-14 03:05 · Score: 1

Not everyone uses MSN, in fact probably less than 1/4
Not for long. Seriously, have you ever tried to make a new dialup connection on a Windoze computer and NOT go through MSN? It's a friggin' maze! You have to choose the correct option three or four times in a row to not get "Ok, I will connect to Microsoft's toll-free number to find an MSN dialup in your area."
Thank goodness I got my brother-in-law off MSN. Now they're much happier. (Next stop, Linux!)
Re:What? by tshak · 2003-08-14 03:09 · Score: 1

why did Netscape go ballistic when Microsoft started bundling IE with Windows and why is IE now the dominant browser?

Why is explorer the most dominant file browsing software? What about all of those shells for DOS pre win95? Why is Windows TCP/IP more dominant than Trumpet Winsock? Because all of these technologies have become commodities and commonplace in a consumer desktop OS.

Also, as a hardcore NS user of the time, you have to admit that NS4 was a step BACK from NS3, and that IE4 was miles ahead of anything else in the market.

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:What? by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 04:08 · Score: 1

And that's why I'm still wondering why in the hell are we geeks always worrying about those kind of assholes...

Because they decide what software companies and products fail or succeed. They are the reason that Microsoft is huge, Netscape has almost folded, Linux is a fringe OS, and insecure, unstable commercial products are commonplace. They use whatever is put on their system and that becomes a "standard", whether it's IE, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, or Wordpad.
Re:What? by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 04:21 · Score: 1

Uhh, idiot,

Irony: Someone starting a sentence with "Uhh" then calling someone else as an "idiot."

Trust me on this, I'm easily your intellectual superior.

the fact that somebody doesn't know how to do something doesn't mean they are prevented from doing it.

Just how can someone do something that they don't know how to do? Their lack of knowledge prevents them from doing the thing.

If that were the case, I could argue that X is a monopoly because I don't know of any competitor purchase a product from.

Isn't that how IE became the world's most popular browser? And isn't that why the Justice Department went after Microsoft? That's the whole argument against using the Windows monopoly of the desktop OS market to push other Microsoft products.

(mod prev msg +5 Funny (=Stupid)..per his directions)

As I post this, my earlier has a +5 for Insightful and Interesting. Your message (like you) is still a zero.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:45 · Score: 0

If Ford sucks, then the consumer is free to change to something else.

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another alternator. They don't know how to install it. They don't know how to configure it. They think that 99% of non-ford mechanics are shade-tree types out to rip them off. They are scared that installing an aftermarket alternator will "break" their pickup truck and that they will have to take the truck back to the dealership, pay the service department $1500, and then find out that the "mechanic" replaced everything under the hood to "fix" the problem.

its been going on for years, its called marketing & most people are very suseptible to it. you dont have to put "factory authorized" parts in your vehicle, many people think its worth the extra $$$ & then many people dont. The only difference in my analogy is that most people using computers today havent been exposed to them their entire lives like they have vehicles. This is due to change in about 15 to 20 years, maybe by then we will see more intelligence in the average computer-using public, but i wouldnt bet on it.
Re:What? by slycrel · 2003-08-14 07:14 · Score: 1

Isn't this exactly what Apple has been doing (more or less) with Quicktime for ages? At least from a developer standpoint, all the utility of Quicktime comes from libraries that you have access to regardless of what you have in the way of an actual quicktime application.
Re:What? by Tenareth · 2003-08-14 07:46 · Score: 1

Not to mention, if you've installed XP recently you'll note their push to get you to sign up for a .NET passport, and the wording of that offer is extremely misleading, making it sound like you won't be able to use 90% of the Internet if you don't sign up for a passport.

--
This sig is the express property of someone.
Re:What? by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 08:15 · Score: 1

If Ford sucks, then the consumer is free to change to something else.

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another alternator. They don't know how to install it...

The difference though, is that Ford does not have a monopoly on vehicle sales like Microsoft has on desktop OS sales. Also, Fords come with warranties. Try telling Bill Gates that you want him to fix your computer under warranty after his OS breaks. In fact, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was passed just to assure that consumer product manufacturers don't deny warranty claims because someone chose to use an aftermarket part or accessory. Since the software industry has managed to avoid having software considered to be a product, Microsoft is exempt from such legislation.

If Ford had 90+% of all vehicle sales in the U.S., then you can damned well bet that they would be scrutinized just like Microsoft is.

This is due to change in about 15 to 20 years, maybe by then we will see more intelligence in the average computer-using public, but i wouldnt bet on it.

Nor would I. Some consumers seem to pride themselves in being totally ignorant about their computers.

THIS IS MY OUTLOOK! by dirtydiaper · 2003-08-13 14:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

My Outlook on Outlook is comparible to the stability of Windows. Same with Hotmail.. Hey IDEA!!! Put the money from no Outlook dev to the anti spam project in hotmail.. I have gotten 46 spam messages in my box TODAY!

Re:THIS IS MY OUTLOOK! by Interesting+Username · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

Doing this will allow them to focus on elminating spam. If everything has to travel through Hotmail's servers it will be easier to beging to put an end to spam.
Re:THIS IS MY OUTLOOK! by billsf · 2003-08-13 14:29 · Score: 1

MY MUSIC, MY FILES, My Computer???? MY MY MY! Isn't the whole "Me generation" a dead issue? Seriously folks, you lose Microsoft.....
Re:THIS IS MY OUTLOOK! by asit+ler · 2003-08-13 15:16 · Score: 1

No, if everything has to travel through Hotmail's servers, nobody will ever receive email again. Simple as that.

Barring a sudden switch to UNIX variants, that is.

--
This is not the sig you're looking for.

Bait and Switch by NaCh0 · 2003-08-13 14:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here is a nice free email client. Oh, we changed our minds. Please use hotmail from here on out. Enter your password on the dotted line and we'll even POP your other accounts for you!

Email Portals at their best.

Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:18 · Score: 0

Uhhhh.... NO! Bait and BAIT! Bait and BAIT! Bait and BAIT!

(You have to watch King of the Hill to get it)
Re:Bait and Switch by SubjunctiveSam · 2003-08-13 14:28 · Score: 1

That explains why I don't get it then.
Re:Bait and Switch by gobbo · 2003-08-13 14:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Oh yeah! Sounds great! Let's see, umm... me@hotmail.com. Nope, hmm. me2@hotmail.com. MMMh. me2dood@hotmail.com. Eh! is anything available!? meetooooyoudamnpigbilly@hotmail.com. ARRGGHH how can that be taken! OK try this: me_bork_bork_bork_boogliachoo129@hotmail.com ... Finally. OK, login here, WHAT? spam already?

--
Damn those pesky terrorists
Re:Bait and Switch by lpret · 2003-08-13 15:25 · Score: 1

I just got a new hotmail account and haven't told anyone about it and I'm waiting to see how much spam I get just from them.

--
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Re:Bait and Switch by RealityShunt · 2003-08-13 16:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Parent post is not kidding.

I opened a hotmail account when I bought and installed XP (when it was first released).

I didn't use the account for *anything*. Two weeks later I checked the account and there were over 60 spams in there. I didn't use any dictionary checkable words, or even anything halfway recognizable, in the account username, either.

I realize that was a while ago (two years late this fall) but you can't convince me that MS wasn't passing on hotmail account usernames to spammers. Don't even try. The funny part about it was that a fair portion of those spams were viagra spams....

realityshunt

--
Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.

Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

So OE will never be able to filter by header, forcing people to live with spam. It's just like IE - leave some critical, easy to add features missing, then stop development. It's like they're trying to annoy people into upgrading to a new version of windows to get the latest email client and web browser.

Re:Great... by gobbo · 2003-08-13 14:47 · Score: 1

"...leave some critical, easy to add features missing..."

Like a simple redirect.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists
Re:Great... by Cat_Byte · 2003-08-13 14:49 · Score: 1

No but somebody told me that bought a 3rd party app that does filter OE and it worked great. Personally I haven't tried it but I thought it would be worth checking out since OE won't do it by itself.

--
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.

With Microsoft cutting off all their free software by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:14 · Score: 0

As standalone products, what if Microsoft decided to adopt the Mozilla/Gecko codebase and package their own version as IE7/OE?

Maybe THey Can Secure It Now by illectro · 2003-08-13 14:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now that they're not adding new security holes err I mean features then the bugfixes might eventually leave the default windows mail reader in a halfway secure state. Those e-mail viruses will need to find a new way to propagate right?

No more hotmail support... by BrynM · 2003-08-13 14:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

There goes the best Hotmail client there ever was. Treat hotmail just like e-mail without paying for premium POP3 service. Oh well.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)

Re:No more hotmail support... by Nucleon500 · 2003-08-13 14:40 · Score: 4, Informative

There are several webmail to POP gateways that work just as well. For example, YahooPOPS.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:No more hotmail support... by angle_mark · 2003-08-13 15:33 · Score: 1

Don't want to sound like a shill but give www.fastmail.fm a try. Its free. Gives you 10mb of mailbox space. Has secure imap access, secure webmail access plus lots of other cool things. Oh and it can collect mail from your hotmail and other pop accounts.
Re:No more hotmail support... by Heartz · 2003-08-13 15:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Fastmail.fm offers access to hotmail just like you can get access from Outlook.
Re:No more hotmail support... by rob_au · 2003-08-13 16:05 · Score: 2, Informative

As a POP3-to-Hotmail bridge, there is also Hotwayd which works particularly well.
Re:No more hotmail support... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:32 · Score: 0

w00t i agree, fastmail r0x0rs!!!!!!!! $$$$$$$$$$
Re:No more hotmail support... by poutineboy · 2003-08-13 16:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Geekmail (www.geekmail.cc) offers a Yahoo and Hotmail fetchmail type service for their IMAP accounts. Works quite well. I really like consolidating my accounts with their service.
Re:No more hotmail support... by Drakonian · 2003-08-13 17:24 · Score: 1

It's IMAP too so it stays on the server and you can check it all over. Vastly superior to Hotmail in my opinion. I believe they have spam more under control than Hotmail too with SpamAssasin.

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:No more hotmail support... by apankrat · 2003-08-13 17:27 · Score: 1

Geek mail is another service-based option;
handles Hotmail and Yahoo accounts among other things.

--
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Re:No more hotmail support... by LordSah · 2003-08-13 20:05 · Score: 1

Outlook (no Express) talks to hotmail. Outlook 11's (soon to be released) spam filter even works while talking to hotmail.
Re:No more hotmail support... by __aamkky7574 · 2003-08-13 21:23 · Score: 1

I use both, and by no means does "YahooPOPS" work "just as well". I mean, it's cool that I can download my Yahoo mail for free, but I still use Hotmail with OE as my primary mail access. YahooPOPS is very slow (over broadband it takes a minute or two to download/upload even a few emails) and it has to be _regularly_ updated. Also, since it's POP, you can then only access the mail from one location; OE/Hotmail allows me to access my mail both at home and work (and of course elsewhere through a browser).

P.
Re:No more hotmail support... by Captain+Large+Face · 2003-08-13 23:06 · Score: 1

Gotmail might be useful, too.
Re:No more hotmail support... by Brian+Blessed · 2003-08-13 23:40 · Score: 1

My favourite is MrPostman, which is a webmail to POP3 gateway, so any mail client can be used and it's entirely in Java, so there's just a jar-file to download then it's as easy as "java -jar MrPostman.jar".

- Brian

Bundling? by toddestan · 2003-08-13 14:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does that mean they won't bundle an email client in Windows anymore? That's one good thing I see coming out of this. Hopefully a good, simple to use, secure, and free email client will be able to fill the gap.

Re:Bundling? by nolife · 2003-08-13 14:27 · Score: 1

I use Pegasus. The interface takes a little getting used to and the setup is not really tweaked for beginners because it does have a lot of options and features but it does work very good and it is free.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Bundling? by Takatsuki · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 1

no, msn messenger will come bundled with windows, and along with it will be hotmail integration.

*gasp* horror of horrors, i can see it all now

--
my other post is +5 insightful
Re:Bundling? by spectral · 2003-08-13 15:11 · Score: 1

it keeps crashing on my system. (windows xp sp1 athlon (original) 750mhz 256mb ram, japanese default language)..

I use eudora and haven't had too many problems with it, but am always open to something new.
Re:Bundling? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 18:35 · Score: 0

I got a bit of flack from a few people when I said I was going to write my own mail client with spam filters. (Like, why bother?) Now it looks like MS has done me a favour.

I swapped from OE in March, and have been using my own program ever since. It's still beta, but can be downloaded free here:

http://www.spacejock.iinet.net.au/files/yMail.ph p

Cheers
Simon

No Loss by grennis · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Outlook express is a weak email client anyway, and it has no support for automation or external API's except "simple" MAPI which is anything but, and WAB - Windows Address Book - which basically forces you to write spaghetti code to use it...

bundling strategy? by rgoldste · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

MS might now bundle Hotmail and/or MSN and/or Office (including Outlook) with Windows as the "consumer email client." Possibly a far-out guess, but given MS's history, it wouldn't surprise me.

Re:bundling strategy? by AstroDrabb · 2003-08-13 14:53 · Score: 1

Office and especially the full Outlook will never be bundled. Office is MS's second cash cow. They won't let that one slip away easily.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:bundling strategy? by cscx · 2003-08-13 15:12 · Score: 1

I thought Office generated more $$$ for them than Windows, but I could be wrong.
Re:bundling strategy? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 01:54 · Score: 0

Hotmail is a web site, not an application. How can it be bundled?
Re:bundling strategy? by gamgee5273 · 2003-08-14 05:11 · Score: 1

It does. Office makes more money for MS than Windows.

Good riddance! by billsf · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

Can I say more? This whole Outlook/Exchange thing has been one long nightmare as a provider. This is the best news I've heard in a long time. Just hoping it is true!

Re:Good riddance! by Jay+L · 2003-08-13 15:23 · Score: 1

This whole Outlook/Exchange thing has been one long nightmare as a provider

You're an e-mail provider of some sort, and you don't know the difference between Outlook and Outlook Express?

They have absolutely nothing in common but the name and the fact that they both do e-mail. Outlook derives from Schedule Plus and the Exchange client, while Outlook Express is part of IE. They share little to no code.
Re:Good riddance! by Osty · 2003-08-13 15:24 · Score: 1

Can I say more? This whole Outlook/Exchange thing has been one long nightmare as a provider. This is the best news I've heard in a long time. Just hoping it is true!

It's not, of course. Outlook Express != Outlook, and Outlook Express does not interface with Exchange. Outlook is not going away, and will not any time soon.
Re:Good riddance! by Ramadog · 2003-08-13 16:52 · Score: 1

The article talks about no more development for outlook express.
It is outlook (part of office) that talks to an exchange server not outlook express.

Sad news... by carlcmc · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't start up your flamebait moderation yet. I think this is sad news. OE has been my favorite email client for a long time. It starts quick, has message rules etc, and is easy to use. Yes there are other clients, but I will miss it.

Outlook is to large and too slow to start. I have a key on my keyboard for email, and I like to hit the key and have the results within seconds as opposed to tens of seconds.

Re:Sad news... by SystematicPsycho · 2003-08-13 14:26 · Score: 1

There was a slashdot poll a week or so ago, "favourite email client", think outlook polled the best. Last time they did the poll (in 1999 iirc) pine polled the best.

--
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Re:Sad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:48 · Score: 0

Why do you think that since they are no longer developing it you can't just continue to use the version you have?
Re:Sad news... by teeker · 2003-08-13 15:01 · Score: 1

I think this is sad news. OE has been my favorite email client for a long time. It starts quick, has message rules etc, and is easy to use. Yes there are other clients, but I will miss it.

It's always bad news when your one of your fave utilities is discontinued. However, if you really liked OE, you might want to consider using Mozilla Mail. I made the switch some time ago and I'm happy with it. Speedy, supports rules, etc. A pretty decent replacement.

--
teeker
Re:Sad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:13 · Score: 0

There was a slashdot poll a week or so ago, "favourite email client", think outlook polled the best. Last time they did the poll (in 1999 iirc) pine polled the best.

I wonder if there's any correlation to the decline of quality here.
Re:Sad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:16 · Score: 0

Ahh, 1999, the good old days, when slashdotters were UNIX guys, not windowites wanting to sound cool.
Re:Sad news... by instinctdesign · 2003-08-13 15:23 · Score: 1

Thank you for posting this, I was about to write one along the same lines myself. I've been using OE for about three years now and I've never gotten a virus. Granted, I am not an average user, but still, as long as you are careful its not too hard to remain safe using OE, and be happy doing so.

I had been using NS 4.7 for web and mail, but switched to IE and OE since I didn't feel like Mozilla was ready for primetime. Since then, I now use Firebird but I don't feel that Thunderbird has reached the same level. Once it does, will I switch? Probably, but until then I'll use OE.

Now would I recommend OE to a novice user? (see sig) Of course not. That is why my neophyte friend uses Mozilla for her email and doesn't notice a difference.

--
forma3
Re:Sad news... by kcurrie · 2003-08-13 15:54 · Score: 1

obviously those poll results were bogus-- as back in '99 mutt ruled the universe :-)

Mutt's lack of IMAP header caching finally caused me to jump ship to Mozilla Mail, now I'm using Thunderbird and am loving it, especially the spam filters. ...back in the day spam wasn't such a big deal... ..mutt still rocks for dealing with large amounts of email though. ..and yes, I now know that there is a patch that allows IMAP header caching in mutt, but I don't believe it's in the main codebase..

--
-- I speak only for myself.
Re:Sad news... by inertia187 · 2003-08-13 17:31 · Score: 1

Sad news indeed. As an Outlook (not Express) user, what will my News Reader be? When I go to a nntp:// address, Outlook Express loads. So what's Microsoft going to do about this?

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Re:Sad news... by Eminor · 2003-08-13 17:34 · Score: 1

Try Ximan Evolution. It it just like OE, but without the bugs.
Re:Sad news... by gamgee5273 · 2003-08-14 05:14 · Score: 1

Simple: They'll buy Google.
Then you can have google.msn.com, and groups.google.msn.com...
I'm shutting up now. I don't want to give MS any ideas...
Re:Sad news... by hearingaid · 2003-08-15 04:08 · Score: 1

I can't believe you admitted to that in public. Good god, get Agent or something. OE is maybe the worst newsreader in the history of Usenet.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:Sad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-15 05:47 · Score: 0

Who cares what hearingaid (who has a user rating of 43%) thinks?

Why the Surprise? by Hideyoshi · 2003-08-13 14:15 · Score: 1

Why is this surprising? Given how tightly coupled Outlook Express and Internet Explorer are, who could have expected anything other than this to happen?

More profit by dj961 · 2003-08-13 14:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cancelling development is obviously an attempt at moving people to either Outlook or Hotmail/MSN, either of witch would yield more profit for Microsoft.

Re:More profit by TheGrayArea · 2003-08-13 14:51 · Score: 1

Exactly. OE doesn't help to drive revenue and if you don't drive revenue, you're out. Get used to that philosophy because as MS moves more and more towards being a traditional corporation, that will be the main factor in most prodution decisions.

--

This space for rent.
Re:More profit by dj961 · 2003-08-13 14:57 · Score: 1

Good point, imagine what will go next IE? Soon enough using windows will require a susbscription, not to mention extra fees to view e-mail, webpages, etc.
Re:More profit by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-08-13 15:06 · Score: 1

Normally I'd laugh at your spelling 'witch', not which. But somehow I think 'witch' is quite appropriate...

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:More profit by _|()|\| · 2003-08-13 15:53 · Score: 1

Cancelling development is obviously an attempt at moving people to either Outlook or Hotmail/MSN
Surprise, surprise. After years of dumping to annihilate the competition, the prices go back up.

Note To Self: *breathe* by Myriad · 2003-08-13 14:16 · Score: 1

What's that sound? Ahhhhh, worm and exploit writers around the world can rejoicing...
I they've got them to stop development.

Wow, that has got to be one of the most incoherent things I've ever posted. And I'm not even drunk.

Blockwars: multiplayer game.

--
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'

Re:Note To Self: *breathe* by ajf442 · 2003-08-13 14:22 · Score: 1

You are even talking to yourself.
Re:Note To Self: *breathe* by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:34 · Score: 0

maybe not explicitly clear -- but I gots the mesage. Good point, BTW, and I'm sure this will just mean it is going away (despite the spin -- not dropping a product, for most other companies, does mean continuing to provide support).

"It's not going away" just means "we can't delete these old versions of our software from your computer" -- but no patches -- as opposed to no new features -- pretty much means a forced upgrade.

OK, time to go RTF(ine)A!
Re:Note To Self: *breathe* by Slime-dogg · 2003-08-13 14:53 · Score: 1

I was about to say...

I they've got them to stop development.

So, now we know who's behind this Blaster thing. I imagine that you just like your name in the news. "There is a myriad of worms, trojans, and viruses out there..."

--
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Re:Note To Self: *breathe* by Cat_Byte · 2003-08-13 16:15 · Score: 1

AND was modded up to 4 even while incoherent...grin. Just shows all it takes is a little MS bashing to get modded up even if it doesn't make sense! heh

--
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.

ISP techs rejoice? by Highlordexecutioner · 2003-08-13 14:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now techs at ISP's will have to support users trying to use another client. That will make them happy.
Of course most techs just walk people through the Setup wizard. So they will just have to find another way.

--
Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?

Re:ISP techs rejoice? by RealityShunt · 2003-08-13 16:31 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who feels that this is the opening move by MS to drop support completely for security updates for OE?

realityshunt (who has not read the entire article postings yet)

--
Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.

I don't blame them... by conan_albrecht · 2003-08-13 14:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

I support email for a few users, and by far, web mail is really nice (Go for IMP):

It's the easiest to administer and support.
In my experience, consumer/home users prefer web mail anyway.
It's easier to secure. Just use HTTPS, which everyone knows how to use. No need for IMAP/POP3 over SSL.
Users can access their mail through their browser (doesn't IE == internet? :)

I'm no fan of MS, but I have to agree with their decision on this one.

Re:I don't blame them... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:35 · Score: 0

This is all fine and dandy, until you wish to move your PC around (ie. laptop) and do not have access to the Internet and can not access that very important email you need.....

I have a web-based email system setup, but use it to access my mail while on the road; otherwise, I use a client based system so my mail can travel with me.
Re:I don't blame them... by antibryce · 2003-08-13 14:46 · Score: 1

Just to chime in with my 2 cents, I highly recomment SquirrelMail over IMP, as I've found it easier to install and maintain than IMP. IMP was ok in earlier versions but the Horde stuff is completely bloated and poorly written.
Re:I don't blame them... by nolife · 2003-08-13 14:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

From a users prospective...

Pros:

Easy to get to and use.

Cons:

Where do you "store" your mail and attachments? Keep them on the server?

What if you have multiple accounts? You would have to check multiple web mail sites and or configure one webmail account to use POP to get the other ones. That mean password in the clear to the other accounts AND that password is stored on a third site. I dont know of any webmail sites that can be configured to fetch remote mail in any other manner then plain old POP.

Limited interface and functionality. You are bascially STUCK with whatever layout, filter options, spam solution (or lack of) that the provider feels is best for XXX amount of users they have. You are also stuck with the ads at login, during the session, and after logout (like Hotmail taking you directly to MSN after clicking logout). Hotmail specific but clicking on an email link always keeps Hotmail in a frame at the top of the page like a follow you function, even when opening in a new tab or window.

Stuck with HTML email along with all the web bugs and tracking links. This would be a spammers heaven. Of course with any modern browser (maybe even IE), you can turn of image loading with one click.

IMHO, I like web mail as an option but it is not a long term solutions for me.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:I don't blame them... by G27+Radio · 2003-08-13 14:53 · Score: 3, Informative

I've been using webmail exclusively for a year now, so I agree. We use SquirrelMail. It's a great webmail program with tons of plugins (calendars, weather, spellcheck, translators, virtual domains, etc...) Most of our customers use it for access to their e-mail--though it doesn't stop them from using POP3 or IMAP clients if they prefer. Definately worth a look if you're interesting in providing webmail services. Oh yeah, GPL of course.

One word of warning--many of the plug-ins don't seem to work well with the 1.4 series yet. You may want to stick with the 1.2 series for a while if you need a lot of the plug-ins. Otherwise, 1.4 works great and is a bit faster.
Re:I don't blame them... by conan_albrecht · 2003-08-13 15:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Remember, this is for end/home users, not for power users.

Home users don't care about long term storage of attachments or mail.

Home users don't care for multiple accounts.

Home users don't want rich features.

Home users don't care or even understand about html vs. text email.

Personally, I agree with you. I'd never use web mail myself as my primary mail access. But (yes, I realize I'm generalizing) typical home users aren't us.
Re:I don't blame them... by IANAAC · 2003-08-13 16:18 · Score: 1

I also use webmail almost exclusively (I use OpenWebmail on my own server - it's got Unix maildir style files/folders, calendar, webdisk, etc). The one thing I kind of wish I had, even though I probably wouldn't use it that much, is offline use. But, since I use Linux for my desktop/laptop as well, my kludge is scp user@machine:/home/user/mail /home/user/mail and scp user@machine:/var/spool/mail/user /var/spool/mail/user. Probably not the most efficient, but, as long as I remember to sync somewhat regularly, I'm OK, and I have the added benefit of backing it up on another machine. One of these days, I guess I should look into only syncing what's been updated.
Re:I don't blame them... by Azureflare · 2003-08-13 16:19 · Score: 1

I don't know about you, but I really don't like the idea of Microsoft having access to my emails while they are stored on their server. In fact, I will never trust any company with my emails on their server, ever. It's not because I don't like Microsoft (I don't like 'em), but it's because I hate the idea of having all my emails on someone else's server. They could be the best admin in the world, and I still wouldn't trust them. Emails are important, and I want them locally, and I want to be able to access them without internet access. No thanks, to webmail.
Re:I don't blame them... by Sloppy · 2003-08-13 16:26 · Score: 1

It's easier to secure. Just use HTTPS, which everyone knows how to use. No need for IMAP/POP3 over SSL.
What an interesting take on "secure" -- the user has to either have all their email stored unencrypted, or they have to trust a remote server, not under their control, to store and use a copy of their private key. Either that, or I guess they can to cut 'n' paste the ciphertext from their web browser into another window where they feed it into pgp or gpg so they can read it. Hardly user-friendly.
Web mail is very lame, as far as security is concerned.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:I don't blame them... by d2003xx · 2003-08-13 17:25 · Score: 1

Where do you "store" your mail and attachments? Keep them on the server?

I believe it's far safer...

What if you have multiple accounts?

Just open multiple tabs :)

... That mean password in the clear to the other accounts AND that password is stored on a third site.

I don't use password...
Re:I don't blame them... by f0rt0r · 2003-08-14 01:28 · Score: 1

Funny, I am a home user, and I went through all the trouble of setting up my own mail server/domain hosting just because I don't want my personal info sitting on a box I don't control. Hmm, I have multiple domains, use postfix mail filtering, and am
a home user. Even non-technical users I know who ask when it is safe to plug in a mouse to their laptop have multiple email accounts ( a mix of home/school/work ), ask me for help setting up a home LAN so they and their wife/kids can be online on different computers, even ask about wireless networking (which I am purposely slow to adopt, so they are asking the wrong person ).

By the way, these people are realtors, milk salesmen( yep, sell milk), high school students, and even a grocery store clerk is in the bunch. Don't underestimate Joe user. He will suprise you every time.

--
I can't afford a sig!

This just doen't make any sense. by frankthechicken · 2003-08-13 14:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unless it is part of the EU's ruling, and they are removing the e-mail client completely from new versions of Windows. It would be intereseting to see how many people who have a copy of Windows, also have a copy of Office, and actually use Outlook as their default mail manager.

And is anyone yet to be convinced with Thunderbird yet?

Re:This just doen't make any sense. by HolyCoitus · 2003-08-13 16:35 · Score: 1

I'm convinced with Thunderbird. I'm using it on my Linux and my dad's Windows box. Imported his Outlook Express contacts into Thunderbird without a hitch, and then did the same with the old messages. It didn't get the attachments though, but that's a minor thing in my opinion unless your mail consists mainly of that.

I haven't had a crash or an annoying problem yet, and it has white list support, and a bayesian spam filter built in. Plans are in place for black lists as well, and it has most of the nice features of Mozilla Firebird including extensions and themes. It looks to be shaping up to be a great client.

--
That's scary.

It seems many of the posters missed the last line by The+Uninformed · 2003-08-13 14:18 · Score: 4, Informative

The full version of Outlook is still supported

Outlook Express is no longer supported

The Golden Rule by Captain+Beefheart · 2003-08-13 14:18 · Score: 1

He who has the gold makes the rules. Sure, why provide a free client when you can end up migrating MS webmail to a fee-only structure? That's where things are heading: no free HTTP mail.

"The technology doesn't go away" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:18 · Score: 0

So we get to keep SMTP/POP3 right? Wow I was worried there for a minute that I might lose the ability to send and receive mail.. seems I'm just missing out on a shit load of e-mail bourne viruses.. how will I get through this heart break

Alternatives... by quinkin · 2003-08-13 14:18 · Score: 3, Funny

I am going to have to find an alternative program to soak up all those CPU cycles...

Q.

--
Insert Signature Here

Re:Alternatives... by sharkey · 2003-08-13 14:42 · Score: 1

I am going to have to find an alternative program to soak up all those CPU cycles...
For /.ers everywhere.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Re:To all my users... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, and try explaining that to Joe Service Pack.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Methinks it is bad.. by Dr+Reducto · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who in their right mind would want all their email on MS servers?

Re:Methinks it is bad.. by gacp · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 1

>Who in their right mind would want all their email on MS servers?

And who in his right mind would ever have any dealing with a company like Micro$oft Evil Corporation???

But, alas, people in their right minds are hard to find. As the sorry state of our world testifies.

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Re:Methinks it is bad.. by Dr+Reducto · 2003-08-13 14:44 · Score: 4, Funny

In a related note, my email address is hotmail, so it was kind of a joke. But I could still keep my 1337ness by saying I am bringing them down from the inside.
Re:Methinks it is bad.. by MMaestro · 2003-08-13 15:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Back when I used Hotmail (I don't anymore) there was a trick I used, I donno if its still there, but if you sent ALL your e-mail to the Trash all the space used up there -would not- be counted against your alloted e-mail space. So as long as you checked your e-mail everyday (which we all do anyway) I used to open up my Hotmail account and find about 3~7 megs of e-mail/spam sent to me. (Compared to the 2 megs max limit)
Sift through the obvious spam ones, the ones I don't care about, and transfer the extremely important ones to my Inbox where they won't get deleted. After checking my e-mail, empty the entire Trash folder and you've used about 5 megs of memory for e-mail/spam courtesy of Microsoft. Each day.
Re:Methinks it is bad.. by ece · 2003-08-13 15:55 · Score: 1

The truth is I've had my hotmail address for about 5 years now. I haven't lost one single email from my box. I only have 2MB of storage but again that's a service they're offering. If you want more storage, you buy it. That's the deal everywhere. But on the other side, spam is a bitch in there.
Re:Methinks it is bad.. by the+uNF+cola · 2003-08-13 16:10 · Score: 1

Which, at last check, are freebsd (for hotmail).

--
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
Re:Methinks it is bad.. by babbage · 2003-08-13 17:34 · Score: 1

That hasn't been true for years. After W2k server came out, porting Hotmail to it was seen as a necessary marketing move. The transition didn't go completely smoothly at first, but eventually it was completed, and the entire web-facing tier of their network is now purely Windows based.
For the curious, there was a fascinating leaked whitepaper on the conversion, dated August 2000, by an [ex-?] Microsoft engineer named David Brooks. It's very good reading, if you have the time and want to understand a bit better how Microsoft is approaching their effort to evangelize their software over Unix.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:Methinks it is bad.. by skinfitz · 2003-08-13 19:17 · Score: 1

...spam is a bitch in there.

Yeah - I've found Hotmail to be quite convenient so long as you have it set to only accept messages from people in your address list and to assume everything else is spam.

I suppose its the same for all email these days though sadly.

Sucks! by techwiz007 · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I really liked OE, even though it had its plethora of security issues. It was not as bloated as Outlook, and believe it or not is a really good email client. Clean and simple enough so our older employees can handle it. I don't think I want to upgrade our workstations to use Outlook, should look for a good replacement. Any nice, powerful and free email clients out there?

Re:Sucks! by sTavvy · 2003-08-13 14:29 · Score: 1

You shouldn't be asking on slashdot if you want a Windows client!!!
Re:Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:40 · Score: 0

See the comment above about Thunderbird. It's the email portion of Mozilla/Netscape, which has been separated into the Phoenix browser and the Thunderbird email client.

At work I have Windows 2k on the desktop, Linux at home. At work I was using OE rather than the "corporate standard" Eudora, as I find Eudora's user interface clunky. I decided to switch from OE just because of the abysmal security record of OE, and have found Thunderbird to be quite useable.

I really haven't missed OE, unlike what I experienced when I tried Eudora.
Re:Sucks! by Christianfreak · 2003-08-13 14:47 · Score: 1

Oh I dunno ... Thunderbird?

--
The Anti-Blog
Re:Sucks! by KevCo · 2003-08-13 16:03 · Score: 1

I've been using Eudora for a long time now. They display a small square ad in the lower left hand corner... essentially an unused portion of the window for me anyway. I'm quite happy with it.
Of course on my laptop I just run mail.app

Yes, by mao+che+minh · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, and it also launched viruses and worms effortlessly (even simple ones written in VB script), which made people like us have to work extra hours to clean up messes.

Don't worry though, Microsoft will find new ways to make IT staffers suffer.

Re:Yes, by ramzak2k · 2003-08-13 14:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft will find new ways to make IT staffers suffer. Suffer ? Its job creation dude. Rock on

--

Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Re:Yes, by rikkards · 2003-08-13 14:56 · Score: 1

Don't complain it is keeping you employed :)
Re:Yes, by Cat_Byte · 2003-08-13 14:57 · Score: 1

I've always used Norton Antivirus and religiously keep it updated. I have never once got a virus from OE myself and my computer stays online 24/7. It's the uninformed users who aren't smart enough (or too naive to believe they should) get antivirus that ended up getting them.

When I worked in IT the people who got the viruses were confronted if they had ignored virus update warnings due to the risk of lawsuits if they were infected & infected a clients network. It's really not that big of a problem if you have a good AV.

--
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Re:Yes, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:10 · Score: 0

It's the uninformed users who aren't smart enough (or too naive to believe they should) get antivirus

Um, the stupid people are the ones who willingly pay $50/yr for something that shouldn't need protection from in the first place.
Re:Yes, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:15 · Score: 0

I've been online since 1996 and never have I installed an antivirus program, nor have I ever had a virus.. so lick my dick
Re:Yes, by aug24 · 2003-08-13 22:49 · Score: 1

Given the choice between doing something shitty for money and doing something good for money, I'd like to do something good. MS crapware ensures that a fair percentage of geeks are doing something shitty.
IT budgets getting wasted like that isn't job creation, it just means that otherwise they could be using the same money to pay us to do something creative and useful. No PHB will ever say 'Now we have secure products, you can cut my budget'!
J.

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Re:Yes, by sehryan · 2003-08-13 23:45 · Score: 1

Outlook != Outlook Express

I have been running OE for years, and I have never been nailed with a virus or a worm through email. Not once.

Just because they are named the same doesn't mean they act the same.

--
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Re:Yes, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:52 · Score: 0

yea im going to miss all those billable hours removing dumbass.vbs from idiots' registries.

ahh well, now ill have more billable hours troubleshooting peoples MSN virii (they WILL be coming if they havent already)

Hmm by Yeah-or-something · 2003-08-13 14:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

First there was no more new standalone Internet Explorer clients, and now there's no more Outlook Express. I see this as being a pretty good thing overall. The initial impact will be more users switching to other alternative non Microsoft software. At least that's what I'll be hoping to see.

My site

Thunder by Fammy2000 · 2003-08-13 14:20 · Score: 1

Thunder, thunder, thunderbird. Ho!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Plus Thunderbird is a good alternative to Outlook Express.

--
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.

Re:Thunder by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:13 · Score: 0

Why ThunderCats? Not
Thunderbirds are Go!
*bad music*
Anything can happen in the next half hour, like turning it over only to find Stingray on the other side
*more bad music*
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o!

Bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:21 · Score: 0

Is that a bad thing?

TCO +99 MS by thinkliberty · 2003-08-13 14:22 · Score: 1

LOL linux just got ~100 dollars cheaper. Now you have to buy an email client on top of an OS license.

Re:TCO +99 MS by IM6100 · 2003-08-13 15:53 · Score: 1

Naw. There's a really good free email client out there. It's ad-supported, but Eudora is a nice email client. Or you can pay a one time registration and never see the ads again.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS

Awww, that's too bad. by Chromodromic · 2003-08-13 14:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, guess who isn't stopping their development?

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/

Version 0.1 is still better than Outlook Express ever was. Anyone with any experience with the Mozilla products, especially Firebird, knows that each incremental version increase brings loads more functionality, features and options.

So while I would shed a tear over Outlook Express going away, truth is, a rat's ass I do not give.

--
Chr0m0Dr0m!C

Re:Awww, that's too bad. by drayzel · 2003-08-13 14:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I must admit that Thunderbird is coming along nicely, but it is a pig in its current release. Maybe when it hits ver 1.0+ it will be up to speed, but for now OE trounces it.

Who here actualy sets up OE for their parents/grandparents/whomever? Web based e-mail is perfect for those that are computer illiterate. The interface is familar, virus scanning is built in, and with a tweaked Mozilla install they are ad free!

It is a pitty to see ANY software have it's dev cycle stopped. I used PMMAIL for OS/2 and still use the registered Windows client for my day to day e-mail. It was very modern in '98, but it is starting to show it's age. I'll keep using it for my POP mail, and I'll keep OE around for archiving my hotmail account. Hopefully Thuderbird will continue to trin down and it's features will be ironed out soon. I just wish Blueprint Software would get development rolling on PMMAIL or open source the project.

~Z
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by angle_slam · 2003-08-13 14:55 · Score: 1

Not that I'm anti-Mozilla (I use it as my primary browser, though I keep IE for IE specific sites). But I wanted to make sure that no one forgets about Eudora, which has a free (well, sponsored by innocuous ads) email program.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by Jay+L · 2003-08-13 15:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunately, Eudora's database format can't handle my 9,000-message inbox; it expects your inbox to be small, and only your sub-folders to be large. And it hasn't been significantly updated in many years.

OE, for all its many flaws, is the least-worst IMAP client for Windows that supports HTML in e-mail. It handles large message stores flawlessly; it does disconnected mode; it lets me do a full-text search easily, it supports authenticated SMTP, STARTTLS, and IMAP over SSL; it cleanly supports multiple accounts, and it's certainly got the least clunky UI.

I also believe it is the *only* client (aside from Outlook itself) that supports the IDLE extension, which lets my Cyrus IMAP server push "new mail" notifications asynchronously, instead of requiring the client to poll every N minutes.

I have tried AOL Communicator, which I assume shares some code with Thunderbird. It's the next best to OE, no question, and it's very impressive for a 1.0 release, but it took *five times as long* to download my message store, and there were a few usability bugs I ran into.

I tried Mulberry a while ago, but I didn't like it; I forget why, exactly, but it looks like they've recently released a new client, so maybe I should check into that again.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fearlessrogue · 2003-08-13 15:21 · Score: 1

Except that it is fast, a lot faster than thunderbird. A lot Try using thunderbird on a pentium 100 with 4 megs of ram. It aint fun. OE on the other hand works.

--

Everything Zen;
Everything Zen;
I don't think so!!!
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by RealityShunt · 2003-08-13 16:34 · Score: 2, Funny

"So while I would shed a tear over Outlook Express going away, truth is, a rat's ass I do not give."

Amen!

Except I have a bad feeling I will have to support it for many, many years to come....

*bangs head on wall*!

realityshunt

--
Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by denisb · 2003-08-13 20:01 · Score: 1

Finally someone who compares apples !
Thunderbird is definitely the most directly comparable OSS client to OE. And a great competitor. Whereas a lot of people find Mozilla AppSuite to be a bit sluggish and "heavy", the birds just fly !

Thunderbird is good looking, slim and speedy and has all the right settings you need. Including a great spamfilter integrated.

Evolution, Kmail, Mozilla Appsuites Mailnews.. All are nice email clients, but none are directly comparable to OE ;

- Evolution is more of an Outlook clone, with more features and a bit different UI, also not available for Windows.

- Kmail is not available on windows in a native enough manner that most people can "download and install"

- Mozilla Appsuite is not only an email client, and can only be installed with the browser (incidentally making links from email messages open in anything other than Mozilla is difficult too !)

So Thunderbird has my vote as the definitive OE killer ! Get installer packaged builds from here and spread to your friends :
seb.mozdev.org

- Thunderbirds are GO!

--
life+universe+everything=42
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by ssstraub · 2003-08-14 15:52 · Score: 1

"Windows that supports HTML in e-mail.

I believe most clients don't implement this feature on *purpose*. HTML mail seems to only be used by advertising and spammers that want to track if you opened the message or not.

I use Outlook and have installed a NoHTML mod that automatically disables HTML from being rendered. Instead it just spits out straight text. It's wonderful.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-18 02:12 · Score: 1

You mean, that's the only kind of email you get. Lots of people use rich text in their email. Why? Well, why did you use it just now in your Slashdot post?
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-18 02:23 · Score: 1

OE, for all its many flaws, is the least-worst IMAP client for Windows that supports HTML in e-mail. It handles large message stores flawlessly; it does disconnected mode; it lets me do a full-text search easily, it supports authenticated SMTP, STARTTLS, and IMAP over SSL; it cleanly supports multiple accounts, and it's certainly got the least clunky UI.
Have you followed development of the email client in Mozilla/Netscape? Feature-for-feature, it's always lagged behind OE -- but the current release has all the features you mention. And it's a lot easier to use than OE.
I also believe it is the *only* client (aside from Outlook itself) that supports the IDLE extension, which lets my Cyrus IMAP server push "new mail" notifications asynchronously, instead of requiring the client to poll every N minutes.
Well, that's a cool feature. But all it does is save on network bandwidth (which is hardly in short supply these days) and get you notified of email the very moment it arrives, instead of within 60 seconds.
I tried Mulberry a while ago, but I didn't like it; I forget why, exactly, but it looks like they've recently released a new client, so maybe I should check into that again.
My problem with Mulberry is that it piles on the features (I think it must have more than any IMAP client) without trying to make them fit together, or make the whole reasonably usable. So you end up having to do a half-dozen clicks for even the simplest actions. Unless they're advertising that they've done some serious usability testing, I wouldn't bother downloading the latest release.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by Jay+L · 2003-08-18 03:32 · Score: 1

Have you followed development of the email client in Mozilla/Netscape? Feature-for-feature, it's always lagged behind OE -- but the current release has all the features you mention. And it's a lot easier to use than OE.

Yes, I have, and eagerly so - it is definitely catching up rapidly. Right now, the big things missing are IDLE (see below) and general performance; it takes significantly longer to sync up my mailbox or scroll through a large mailbox. Given that Firebird is only at 0.1, though, I am sure these will be corrected, and I expect that is where I'll end up.

[IDLE extension..]
Well, that's a cool feature. But all it does is save on network bandwidth (which is hardly in short supply these days) and get you notified of email the very moment it arrives, instead of within 60 seconds.

It's not just a network bandwidth thing - it takes a lot of CPU to poll multiple 10,000-message folders for new mail every 60 seconds, and it makes the client sluggish, even on a fast P4. With IDLE, I can set my "scan" timeout ridiculously low - it's really just a catchup in case the impossible happens - and still get notified of new mail without heavy CPU utilization.

My problem with Mulberry is that it piles on the features (I think it must have more than any IMAP client) without trying to make them fit together, or make the whole reasonably usable. So you end up having to do a half-dozen clicks for even the simplest actions. Unless they're advertising that they've done some serious usability testing, I wouldn't bother downloading the latest release.

Yes, that was it, now I remember :) They are, in fact, advertising usability testing - "The best graphical user interface models and research were used in Mulberry's development, backed up by extensive direct user-testing with both "naive" and expert users" - but they're lying.

And not only doesn't it support IDLE, and not only is it single-threaded (!), but it erases the header cache every time you quit the app. Bad, bad Mulberry.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by ssstraub · 2003-08-18 05:23 · Score: 1

Because the web was designed for HTML. Email was not. Email is much less anonymous. You can't send spam to an IP address and expect it to follow the user *anywhere* they go, like you can with email. I'm sure you know all of this.

When I open an image on a web page, it doesn't track my email address, and accordingly, sign me up on the "active email" spam list.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-18 11:47 · Score: 1

Saying that Slashdot is part of the web and email is ignoring the point. They're both messaging systems. Rich text is a useful messaging system feature. Exactly how you happen to implement the messaging syste isn't at all relevent.
Never mind simple things like italics and colored fonts. When you're doing any kind of serious workflow, you need to be able to do complex tables, simple diagrams, etc. I don't just want HTML support in my workflow, I want vector graphics. For online collaboration to get serious, online collaboration tools have to come out of the dark ages.
If MUTT works for you, fine. But don't assume your needs are the only ones any mail user can have.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by ssstraub · 2003-08-18 19:27 · Score: 1

Oh I agree that the formatting that rich text provides *is* usefull. The point I have is that before this can be used (without consequence) in email with the outside world, we have to find a solution for the "spam tracking through images" problem. I don't know about you, but I do everything I can to avoid getting on spam lists with my day-to-day email accounts. And doing that requires blocking thinks like HTML since it can provide tracking for spammers.

I see how everything you describe would indeed be useful, but I consider the damage caused by spammer misuse of those same features to be far too much of a hinderance at this point.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-19 05:03 · Score: 1

So use an email client that doesn't allow cookies in email. Like Netscape/Mozilla.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by ssstraub · 2003-08-20 22:30 · Score: 1

I'm not worried about cookies. I'm worried about images. I thought I made that clear.

I'm evaluating Thunderbird. If it's half as good as Firebird, I'll be using it for sure.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-21 15:41 · Score: 1

You said you were worried about the "spam tracking through images problem". Images themselves provide no tracking mechanism. It's only when downloading the image causes a cookie to be set. If your mail client doesn't set cookies, the images are just images.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by ssstraub · 2003-08-22 17:02 · Score: 1

I think you don't understand the problem I refer to.

1. Obtain a numbered email list.
2. Create a small jpg image, for example, called "image_X" where X corresponds to each number on your email address list.
3. Mail out tons of spam with the only difference being that the X in image_X is incremented each time.
4. Parse your webserver log for all the image_X references that have been accessed, crosscheck that with your email list, and you now have a list of active email addresses.
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-23 16:50 · Score: 1

You're right, I hadn't heard of that one before, and I thank you for telling me about it. The fix is to configure your client not to download external graphics. I'm going to do that right now!
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by ssstraub · 2003-08-24 11:22 · Score: 1

Yep, no graphics allowed in my inbox. :)
Re:Awww, that's too bad. by fm6 · 2003-08-24 13:11 · Score: 1

Which sucks. Means you can't subscribe to services that scape news pages or comic strips for you. It would be nice if you could set up a policy, saying that certain sites are allowed to download graphics. I think Outlook actually lets you do that, but of course it has other issues...
Incidentally, if you have Netscape or Mozilla, and use this option, you're not keeping graphics out of your inbox -- you're just keeping downloaded graphics out. It's still possible to reference graphics attached to the message.
Anyway, didn't we start out arguing over rich text in email? Even if I can't have downloaded graphics, I still want rich text.
I just thought of something really nasty I want to do. Find a server that's downloading tracking graphics, and saturate them with requests. Not a DoS attack, I don't care for those. Just a lot of requests making it very difficult to analyze their server log. All the files in the tracking list of course. But also a lot of random stuff.

pay by cygnusx197 · 2003-08-13 14:22 · Score: 1

Oh that's cute. And obviously everybody will need to purchase more storage space....my .pst file is over 100MB.

Re:pay by SubjunctiveSam · 2003-08-13 14:33 · Score: 1

There are tools to import pst files into other mail clients.
Re:pay by cygnusx197 · 2003-08-13 14:42 · Score: 1

nono... I meant that if 10MB is $30/yr, then do the math for a large pile of mail you want to keep around. Yeah. mmmmmmbox gooood.
Re:pay by SubjunctiveSam · 2003-08-13 14:58 · Score: 1

Right. Something is wrong with my brain tonight.

Surprising by Drakonian · 2003-08-13 14:22 · Score: 0

A think a lot of non-savvy home users use OE as their email client. My parents and ex-GF did. I don't think Hotmail is a valid alternative, there is just too much spam on Hotmail. I think this leaves the door open for other email clients like Mozilla Mail or Thunderbird.

--
Random is the New Order.

Schizophrenic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:23 · Score: 0

I am schizophrenic, so at the first glance, "aquarium modcase" and "microsoft stops development of outlook express" appeared like being related.

Later I found out that the microsoft programmers don't like to be watched through the modding holes, and so they preferred to get rid of their own worm farm, the one they had called Outlook Express.

Now they will support business worms only, as Outlook does.

New Client by dirtydiaper · 2003-08-13 14:24 · Score: 0

Maybe they have a "Outlook Express Express" in the works.. Could you imagine.. TWICE THE CRASHING POWER!!!!!

Re:New Client by Interesting+Username · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 0

I'm more worried about twice the security exploits.

You never know! by rice_burners_suck · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 3, Funny

The next thing you know...

For immediate release:
Microsoft today announced an immediate halt in development of their operating system, Windows. By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions. The move comes after Microsoft's new research lab on Linux demonstrated to Microsoft management and shareholders that Linux is, indeed, a superior product to Windows.
"Windows has been plagued with all kinds of bugs in the last decade or so," commented Microsoft chairman and chief software architect, Billy G. "By switching to Linux, we hope to eliminate problems with reliability and security in Windows, bringing stability to computing worldwide. We will begin the process of licensing all our code under the GPL, to allow the community to fully participate in the development of the world's best software, allowing Microsoft to concentrate on service and customization for specific enterprises."
In an interview over the recent change, SCO CEO Darl McBride said, "Microsoft is infringing on our intellectual property rights by legally incorporating code invented, developed, trademarked, copyrighted and patented by IBM." When asked how Microsoft's move infringes on SCO intellectual property, McBride said, "I had a bad dream about a giant penguin going around eating everything." McBride was escorted back to the looney bin by two big black guys in pinstriped suits and dark sunglasses.
Linus Torvalds was unavailable for comment at the time. However, spokespersons from HP, IBM, Novell, Red Hat and the Free Software Foundation expressed their respective organizations' desire to work with Microsoft to advance the quality of the software market.

You never know... It might actually happen some day!

Re:You never know! by Poeir · 2003-08-13 15:14 · Score: 1

I think it likely that the blockquoted portion of the parent poster will begin to make as many appearances as "BSD is Dying" and "____ dead at ___."

--
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
Re:You never know! by Drakonian · 2003-08-13 17:29 · Score: 1

Haha, I loved this line: "By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions." It reminds me of the web economy bullshit generator.

--
Random is the New Order.

Just wait by segment · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

What if MS attempted to turn every single one of their programs into something like the lease-this-because-you-can-no-longer-buy-it. What would many do. Just because they've announced this means little. What they should be announcing instead of waisting everyone's time, should be, that they're going to reaudit ALL versions of Windows for security holes.

That would impress me. I wonder what would MS do if everyone just got pissed and did some form of protest to the tune of "secure this now or we won't buy". It would be a sys admins nightmare to migrate machines over to other OS' but in the long run, it 'could' (note the could instead of unproven WOULD) save companies much needed dollars.

As for the outlook article, to be honest didn't read it because I don't use it, nor does anyone in my company.

--
MoFscker

Shead a tear by Oper+Sorcerer · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 1

For the demise of the world's formost virus transmission protocol. Snif.

--

karma: Marianas Trench (mostly blub blub)

Hopefully Outlook.. by Safrax · 2003-08-13 14:25 · Score: 1

will be next. What the point is continuing development on a piece of software that is fundamentally flawed? It's one gaping security hole the internet would be better off without!

Hrmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:26 · Score: 0

Where would our next worms come from?

Re:Hrmm... by hdparm · 2003-08-13 15:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Apparently, there are quite a few options available. Latest developments teach us that all we need is Windows itself, no applications required.
Re:Hrmm... by mAIsE · 2003-08-13 15:48 · Score: 0

suck all the oxygen out of a market and as soon as M$ is the only one left in the space they get out...

Thanks Bill, who really needs you anyway !!!

What's next I.E.

oh yeah wait too late for that ( http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/13/exp lorer/ )

Re:It seems many of the posters missed the last li by sTavvy · 2003-08-13 14:26 · Score: 1

So unfortunatly my company isn't going to put us back onto Groupwise as we once were..
I really prefer it to Outlook.

The fools, had to go and buy another server to run Exchange, where as our Novell Server handled everything..

Smart decision By microsoft though. Because most Home users are going to probbally, Purchase and install outlook, because the name sounds familar.

Mac version already long dead by Y-Crate · 2003-08-13 14:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Mac version was last updated in.....damn, I keep on top of this stuff but it's been what...3 years since the last update? Microsoft has been slowly reducing the number of Mac apps over the past few years (it seemed to coincide with their new 'commitment' to the Mac around 2000 or so) Apple had no other choice but to put out Mail.app, to fill the gap. IE is gone, but everyone in the Mac community felt it was dead long before Safari came out - not getting an update for years at a time usually leaves that impression.

Oh well, I guess it is a strategic move to isolate themselves for blame and constant embarassment over their inability to put out a secure app. Almost everytime "new, crippling virus" is mentioned, you hear "exploits a vunerability in Outlook Express" in the same sentence.

Re:Mac version already long dead by Alex+Thorpe · 2003-08-13 15:30 · Score: 1

About 3 years and 5 months since 5.02 came out, though there might have been a minor "security update" that I missed after switching to OS X. They also said there would never be an OS X version of OE, just that improved variant they call Entourage that only comes with Office.

--
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Re:Mac version already long dead by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:18 · Score: 0

Yes, but who really cares? Even if Outlook Express was up to date, I would still use Mail.app. I bet the same is true of most Mac users.
Re:Mac version already long dead by Drakonian · 2003-08-13 17:36 · Score: 1

Hmmm? I think it's replacement is Entourage. And that was just recently updated to support Exchange calandering, IIRC. That makes OS X a compelling business platform IMO.

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:Mac version already long dead by babbage · 2003-08-13 18:30 · Score: 1

But Entourage isn't an Outlook Express equivalent, it's an Outlook equivalent.
See, Outlook Express is & always was a mail client, able to speak the major mail protocols: POP3, IMAP4, & SMTP.
Outlook & Entourage, on the other hand, are Exchange server clients that happen to have rudimentary support for POP3 and SMTP, but not IMAP.
Comparing OE to Outlook is about as valid as comparing, say, Safari or IE to Sherlock or Watson: in each case, the former is a general purpose client that can speak the open protocol, while the latter is a special purpose client that uses part of that protocol in a restricted way. One isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, but the important bit is that they are not the same thing.
And that's the real news here: the attempted hijacking of an open protocol. To push the analogy a bit further, how would Mac users feel if Apple were to wait for Safari to get popular enough to crowd out most of the competition, then abandon it and go with Sherlock as their standard web application? While Sherlock provides the "same" access to web content, and in some ways does so in a much nicer interface, Sherlock is much less suitable as an all-purpose tool than the plain old web browser -- but at that point it would be too late.
This is the situation we're looking at now with Outlook/Entourage & Exchange. It is very bad news, because it indicates that Microsoft feels that their position is strong enough to make such a bold move. Let's hope they were wrong.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:Mac version already long dead by andrewski · 2003-08-13 21:08 · Score: 1

Actually, Mail.app came out LONG before windows 95 even. It has been a standard Nextstep (and Openstep, Rhapsody, and OS X) application since the beginning*. The web was also invented on this platform.

*1988
Re:Mac version already long dead by danielsfca2 · 2003-08-13 21:11 · Score: 1

> Almost everytime "new, crippling virus" is mentioned, you hear "exploits a vunerability in Outlook Express"

Change "Outlook Express" to "Outlook" and that would be about correct. OL had many more worms and such than OLE ever did (not that OLE was that great in that department). And look which product is still out there.
Re:Mac version already long dead by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 23:30 · Score: 0

I like Apple's Mail.app better anyway.
Re:Mac version already long dead by Drakonian · 2003-08-14 02:15 · Score: 1

Outlook & Entourage, on the other hand, are Exchange server clients that happen to have rudimentary support for POP3 and SMTP, but not IMAP.
Entourage IMAP configuration
And I've used IMAP on Outlook for years: Outlook IMAP Setup

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:Mac version already long dead by glenmark · 2003-08-14 04:21 · Score: 1

Hmmm? I think it's replacement is Entourage. And that was just recently updated to support Exchange calandering, IIRC. That makes OS X a compelling business platform IMO.

Hardly. Assuming that you can get the Exchange integration features to work (which doesn't seem possible here due to our Exchange cluster configuration), Entourage only provides a tiny subset of Exchange feature support. No support for delegates or meeting auto-acceptance for resource accounts. You get better support with OWA, or even the buggy monstrosity known as Outlook:mac. If only Microsoft would carbonize the latter and fix the bugs. But, alas, they have no plans to do so...

--
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***

It may go away but... by ebuck · 2003-08-13 14:26 · Score: 4, Funny

So Outlook express will go away. I'm not going to shed many tears over it.

Still, how long will it take before the users who download Outlook Express stop hunting around on the net and installing it? I still have people reaching around in their directory (or desk drawer) of important stuff installing horribly old versions of Netscape 4.x (where x is a very small number) so they can use it's email reader.

Most of the users are bound to the one product they chose when they REALLY NEEDED it to work. During that crisis period, they put in the time and effort to get THAT product to work, and that's the extent of their software understanding. Microsoft may try to wash it's hands of Outlook Express, but I imagine a day (ten years from now)

Hey, could you look at my home computer? It seems I have an email problem.

Really? I thought that email was totally autoconfiguring on your system!

Yea, but for some reason, Outlook Express, says it can't connect to my Internet.

Arrrggghhh....

Thunderbird by mao+che+minh · 2003-08-13 14:27 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/

All the functionality + security features and no "click and run" worm support

Re:Thunderbird by maxume · 2003-08-13 16:06 · Score: 2, Informative

It'll probably get quite a bit better. Mozilla Firebird isn't really done yet, and it is at the point where I don't bother following nightlies. I do pretty much use a nightly build all the time, it is just that whatever version I happen to have is usually working just fine, and it never occurs to me to go fetch the new build. I don't know what I would do without userContent.css adblocking and tabs. Plus, the interface has pretty much stopped lagging all the time. That's on a PII 333 with 192MB of Ram...

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Thunderbird by maxume · 2003-08-13 16:08 · Score: 1

I guess this probably is a troll, but is it trolling for Thunderbird replies, or for Java replies? Or is it flamebait? I do have to agree though, that Thunderbird is pretty sluggish, and takes its time doing things. On the other hand, message folder import suprised me with how fast it was.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Thunderbird by Compact+Dick · 2003-08-13 16:52 · Score: 2, Informative

The parent post is not a troll. While Mozilla Firebird is noticeably slicker than the browser from the Mozilla suite, Thunderbird has still a bit of ways to go before it bacomes usable for the general populace. I've been using Thunderbird 0.2a [2003-08-07] and there's a noticeable lag even when typing up an e-mail. Plus it uses about 35 MB while Mozilla Mail is much more usable and takes up ~20 MB.

However, Thunderbird holds a lot of promise for the future. It would also help if any developers with some free time on their hands joined the dev team as there's only one person at the helm.

--
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Re:Thunderbird by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 02:47 · Score: 0

Outlook Express was patched by my SUS server. How am I going to keep 400 thunderbird installs up-to-date?
Re:Thunderbird by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:53 · Score: 0

isn't that 'hover and run' for the latest worms? Its improved, you don't need to waste time clicking.

Although, as a voting member of the local Fat Albert Club, I could use a boob job... :)
Re:Thunderbird by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 08:43 · Score: 0

Mozilla MailNews/Thunderbird is nice and all but doesn't include some basic features that OE users might have been used to:

bug 75866 - Viewing message for very short time shouldn't mark it as read

bug 30057 - Use one Local Mail tree for all POP3 accounts

bug 43278 - Crossposts (same Message-ID) not marked as read in other groups

Excellent Smithers! by Cranx · 2003-08-13 14:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Take away their free email program and they'll be FORCED to buy our commercial products! Ha!

Quick Smithers, find the Mozilla development team and kill them all!

What are those crazy monkeys up to? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:27 · Score: 4, Funny

First they're cancelling IE, and now OE.

It's like that memo making security "job #1" was real or something...

Maybe... by Chordonblue · 2003-08-13 14:28 · Score: 1

... 'Glow' will have a chance to succeed now.

Oh, what is it?

Glad you asked!

http://groupware.openoffice.org/glow/

Glow is a groupware software for openoffice.org.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:05 · Score: 0

Which turns users into retarded dick monkeys unable to use a tags.

When can I do this.... by westyvw · 2003-08-13 14:29 · Score: 1

When will they get a clue, and let me look at an email and NOT go to the websites it has linked to it?
Evolution does it, why not Outlook.

This is Slashdot! by jstockdale · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 1

Do you think we care about Outlook Express? We're Unix zealots! I mean its not like most of us are checking email with OE while "surfing the web" on our Windows... erm... nevermind.

--
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes

Re:This is Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:01 · Score: 0

You stupid dick fuck, OE is aviable on REAL unixes, not your commie shit like Linux, but on the real shit, like Solaris, you can get quality (but slow as buggery) microsoft shit like Outlook and MSIE.

Wildcat is taht j00??????// by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 0

Is it true that your on TEH SPOKE???//

Re:Wildcat is taht j00??????// by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:33 · Score: 0

Completely. I have worked for years to get entirely on teh spoke. Only recently have I acheived the endeavor.
Re:Wildcat is taht j00??????// by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:48 · Score: 0

OMG i love finding forestre

what ? by ramzak2k · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 1

Their webmail (hotmail) has always been there - definitely not a replacement. I just see a company taking down a free product that has given them nothing but a bad reputation for security.

--

Siggy Say, Siggy Do

Thunderbird? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:30 · Score: 0

You might try Thunderbird.

There is a whole plethora of
free email prorgams, though.
Shop around.

Worm writer - Work wanted by simon_aus · 2003-08-13 14:31 · Score: 1

Totally missing the point - As people upgrade Windows and lose all the "functionality" of OE, the script kiddies will have nothing to do. Well maybe go outside and play a sport. Can only be a good thing if everyone gets a .NETpassport - we all know how secure Hotmail is. This can only lead to a reduction in spam and worms, freeing bandwidth for all ;-) The flip-side is that it will free all those MS developers engaged in patching this piece of @#$ to write something truly original and useful. REJOYCE and denounce your anti-MS cynicism

--
Stopping myself...Abort (core dumped)

Re:Worm writer - Work wanted by finkployd · 2003-08-13 14:42 · Score: 1

Upgrade windows? Nobody does that. Ok, sometimes corporations and universities may try to stay on the last supported OS. Let's face it though, joe sixpack runs whatever came on his PC, be it windows 95, 98, me, or (hopefully) one of the more recent ones. Most people do not know that 95 and 98 are out of support, nor do they really care.

Finkployd
Re:Worm writer - Work wanted by cbiltcliffe · 2003-08-14 04:02 · Score: 0

Can only be a good thing if everyone gets a .NETpassport - we all know how secure Hotmail is.

I sincerely hope you're kidding, here. Passport is no more secure than hotmail. There was a hole a month or so back where you could type something like:

http://passport.microsoft.com/someurltypething/use rid/resetemailpwd

and it would reset the password to something generic for the userid in question, allowing you to log in and hijack the account. I don't know that the syntax or URL are exactly correct, but that was the general gist of it.

This would not only hijack the hotmail account, but anything that was passport-enabled, including eBay accounts, which contain credit card information.

Yeowch! No pissport for me, thank you!

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......

Predictable and a good thing. by digitect · 2003-08-13 14:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

This seems a logical step given several factors:

Outlook Express is a completely different code base than Outlook. Twice as much to maintain means twice as many bugs.
No more free ride. As Linux (and other Free OSs ;) begin to become competitive, the scrappy, free software on the perimeter of the main encampment is the obvious first target to eliminate to save money and cut losses.
Plenty of people are hooked into Outlook Express that a forced migration at this point will bring plenty of profit. At least more than none, although probably the target audience already has MS Office, but maybe not all.
In moving to some global control / central services scheme (.net, Longhorn, whatever) there's no point in trying to migrate some basic client package.

I was an OE user for rather a long while and it had always seemed a bit nicer interface than Outlook proper. In maybe three years, I never had a data failure and it was quite reliable. Obviously the security angle was, er, non-existent (anti-secure perhaps) but it felt fast and mostly did what I told it.

But I'm an Evolution user now, so OE won't be missed. Better for all of us, if you ask me.

--
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...

Re:Predictable and a good thing. by freeweed · 2003-08-13 16:33 · Score: 1

As Linux (and other Free OSs ;) begin to become competitive, the scrappy, free software on the perimeter of the main encampment is the obvious first target to eliminate to save money and cut losses.

You're probably exactly correct, but you have to wonder at the irony of cutting free software in order to compete with free software.

We're losing money to free software? Then let's charge even more for ours!

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Predictable and a good thing. by Vaughn+Anderson · 2003-08-13 18:29 · Score: 1

Outlook Express is a completely different code base than Outlook.
One of the biggest fatest pains in the REAREND were trying to install Office after I had uninstalled Outlook Express.
Guess what? You can't reinstall outlook express, there is no installer for it that I could find (and there for sure won't be one in the future, maybe there was one and I couldn't find it)
SOOO, I had to reinstall Windows just so I could install Office. Now my memory is hazy on this, but I know for sure that Outlook will _not_ install if you have uninstalled OE, it says "Outlook needs OE to run, please reinstall OE before installing Outlook."
So the code base is shared... perhaps they are realizing how dumb this is now and will stop bungling...uh... I mean bundling their software together.

Re:To all my users... by AHumbleOpinion · 2003-08-13 14:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, and try explaining that to Joe Service Pack

Hell, try explaining that to Joe Slashdot. How many posts will we have since he won't even read the slashdot summary which includes "Microsoft's alternatives include, not surprisingly, the full version of Outlook".

efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:33 · Score: 0

They just want to make it easier to read your mail and study peoples habits.

*puts on his tinfoil hat*

No terrific surprise. by tambo · 2003-08-13 14:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Consider: What does Outlook Express allow one to do? Well, for no more than the cost of Windows, the user gets an email client that allows them to fetch data from a POP server and store it on their hard drives.

Now think about Microsoft's "next-gen tech" initiatives. Let's see, there's three, really:

1) Blackcomb, which promises an explosion of metadata (read: data bloat) and phenomenal background cycle usage (read: mandatory hardware upgrades) for not much user benefit. (Have you looked at how much metadata is stored in the "Properties" pages of a Word XP document? Good grief, there's tons. Now how often do you use that? Roughly... never? Bingo.) Not really any connection here.

2) Trusted Computing/Palladium. Again, not much connection here. (Interesting that when MS says it's interested in protecting copyrighted works, it means media distributors' copyrighted works... not the copyrights that you own regarding the email that you write, which is open for pilferage by Outlook worm du jour.)

3) Hailstorm. DINGDINGDING! We have a winner.

An' it goes a little somethin' like dis:

Microsoft has realized that it can't easily sell many more upgrades of Windows or Office. The "more stable Windows" line has been exhausted from re-use. The Office paperclip is already in 3D and can't be improved more. So, to continue reaping monopoly profits, they want to move sofware to the rental model. They drop the initial price on their software, but bill you monthly for the rest of your life, and for the same software.

Now - how can it do that? If they give you the software, they can't prevent you from using some dirty h@x0r trick to crack it and then stop paying. So, they retain much program functionality on MS's servers. You no longer own a functional copy of Word. You just own an input/output web interface to their copy of Word.

But while they're on this track - while they're pushing you to surrender your software to MS - why not convince you to surrender your documents to MS as well? They'll store the data on their servers. It will always be accessible (so long as you pay your licensing fees like a good little serf), and you don't have to worry about hard drive crashes or data loss (disclaimer: no guarantees, understand; you waived your rights through shrink-wrap.) So now you can't switch to some dirty pirate-OS like Linux without forfeiting all of your data.

Of course, Hailstorm died a PR-debacle death, because users aren't quite that stupid (or more accurately, tech-savvy users anticipated their treachery.) But Microsoft's dreams of rental pricing didn't die. After all, they have no other real improvements to offer for their core products.

Hence, no more Outlook Express.

Where's the tie? Easy. OE allowed you to store your mail on your server. But of course, Hotmail and MSN store your data on their servers. It's prepping you for the day when all of your data is on their servers.

Welcome to the future. Prepare to be assimilated.

David Stein, Esq.

--
Computer over. Virus = very yes.

Re:No terrific surprise. by popeyethesailor · 2003-08-13 15:40 · Score: 1

I'm surprised at the venom in this post. I would've thought webmail was good idea, unless you were running a personal mail server. Pop3 access to webmail is not a good idea IMHO, atleast for the common users. Virus propagation, Spamming etc are made a bit too easy with this.

If people are using OE to access mail in office, they still have the following options :
1) Keep using it - It hasnt changed much, and not much is needed eitherways.
2) Switch to another free mail client - Pegasus, Eudora, Opera M2, Mozilla mail or other CLI clients
2) Switch to MSO2K3 - Corporates have the money to buy this- and MS have supposedly reduced the bandwidth requirements of Outlook.

Doesnt sound too bad to me.
Re:No terrific surprise. by tambo · 2003-08-13 16:03 · Score: 1

Wait - why is pop3 inherently unsecure?

You mention virus propagation and spam. How are those promoted by pop3? Sure, the email doesn't remain on the server forever. But the admins can run the same blacklists on receipt. And until the user fetches it (rarely instantaneous), the admins can run the exact same Bayesian-filter/attachment-scanning mail tools on pop3 mail that they run on HTTP mail.

You're probably noting that, with web mail, attachments aren't downloaded unless the user actively downloads them. That's true, and that renders web mail somewhat more trustworthy than pop. But the security hole lies largely in Outlook's auto-execute-code functionality, which should have been disabled ages ago.

If you eliminate that, HTTP mail is exactly as (un)secure as Pop3. When the stupid user sees that "ClaudiaSchiffer.exe" attachment, it matters little if he has to download the file from the HTTP mail server vs. executing the attachment. Same result.

David Stein, Esq.

--
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Re:No terrific surprise. by dollar70 · 2003-08-13 16:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've always suspected Microsoft would one day make a move similar to what you're talking about, but then again, I also see a subscription based culture in so many other areas as well.
What to shop at a particular grocery store? First you have to be a subscriber before you can even enter the front door. Care to buy a car? Not in the future. You will only be able to lease it. Buy a TV? Think again. You lease your new HDTV from your TV Content Provider.
Essentially, you will be nickle and dimed to death with subscription fees for everything. The concept of "Ownership" will be used only in reference to the person(s) held legally responsible/liable. The brave new economy will have all the compassion of a fly-by-night cell phone contract:
"I'd like to cancel my service"
"Certainly, that will be $1000"
"What?! Never mind! It's cheaper to keep her."
"Whatever you say, that will be $750."
"For what?!"
"Sir, according to your contract, you agreed to pay $500 in the event that you initiated a cancelation of your service, and an additional $250 consultation fee for realizing that you didn't want to cancel after all. All totalled that will be $1250."
"What?! You just said $750 a minute ago."
"That was before I explained the agreement to you. That's an additional $500. You're up to $1750 now. Care to go for $2250?"
"Hold on a minute! I'm looking at the contract that I signed with you people, and NO WHERE does it state anything about..."
"I'm sorry sir, but paragraph 7c of that contract clearly states that you agree to accept the terms of all future contracts that we pull out of our ass. That will be $4500, please."
"FOR WHAT?! OH... Nevermind." [click]
--
Brian: Do you ever listen to yourself talk?
Peter: I drift in and out.
Re:No terrific surprise. by popeyethesailor · 2003-08-13 16:16 · Score: 1

My point was, moving from Hotmail-with-OE to pure webmail is an improvement, for most users. Sure, it requires a bit more management with its space limitations and all.

Free Pop3 access for webmail is bad because it provides Spammers with a low(no)-cost way to use their spamming tools. It could be done with free webmail, but its not as straight-forward.
Re:No terrific surprise. by LordSah · 2003-08-13 20:15 · Score: 1

Wearing your tinfoil hat?

After all, they have no other real improvements to offer for their core products.

Office 11 will be released soon. It's beta was out like 6 months ago. Read up on it, especially Outlook's improvements.

OE doesn't make Microsoft money. Outlook does, and will continue to since MS is keeping up work on it. It does everything OE does, and more. Even talk to your own mail server.
Re:No terrific surprise. by Chokma · 2003-08-13 20:36 · Score: 2, Funny

They'll store the data on their servers. It will always be accessible (so long as you pay your licensing fees like a good little serf), and you don't have to worry about hard drive crashes or data loss (...) So now you can't switch to some dirty pirate-OS like Linux without forfeiting all of your data.

Sounds like they are moving to an Everquest business model.

Profit: Sell your MSN-account on ebay once you have accumulated enough spam mail to advance to level 20.
Re:No terrific surprise. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 21:11 · Score: 0

me too
Re:No terrific surprise. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 01:38 · Score: 0

"After all, they have no other real improvements to offer for their core products"
Watch it kid, you might have to eat your words. gates@microsoft.com
Re:No terrific surprise. by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-08-14 03:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft needs to start living by the 10 commandments:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's information.

Thou shalt not hold any OS above the one true POSIX Compliant OS

Thou shalt not worship graven languages, like Visual Basic, C#, or Cobol.

Thou shalt not spread pestulence, disease, or internet worms in general.

Thou shalt keep the backup day and make it holy.

Thou shalt regression test agressively, for this is the way to heaven.

Thou shalt patch frequently, and tithe heavily for every bug that is found.

Thou shalt not let marketroids and suits guide your projects; this is the path to perdition.

Thou shalt share thy computer science knowledge freely with all those who grok; for all others: RTFM and FAQ.

Thou shalt not use proprietary standards, in all its cloven forms; just as Eve was seduced by the fork tongued devil, so too will you be expelled from the raised floor of the data center for your transgressions.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:No terrific surprise. by LazyBoy · 2003-08-14 05:39 · Score: 1
I've always suspected Microsoft would one day make a move similar to what you're talking about, but then again, I also see a subscription based culture in so many other areas as well.
I agree. Everyone wants a subscription.
- Tivo (which I love and bought the lifetime sub.)
- Cable VOD. I already pay monthly for HBO, now for an additional $X per month, I can have HBO On Demand.
- Tivo-like cable boxes.
- Cell phone data plans. Why not just let me use my minutes?
- On line games. Remember the free, user-hosted ones? Friggin Planetside is $50 and $13/month!
- Every credit card I have wants me to pay $5/month extra so that they'll call the other credit card companies for me when I use my wallet. That's kind of a lot unless I loose my wallet more than once a month.
Everybody wants my money monthly.
--
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
Re:No terrific surprise. by geekoid · 2003-08-14 12:34 · Score: 1

What he posts fits into the MS 1000 year plan.
They want all computers conected all the tme. They want all the data centrally located. Alls Office 11 is going to offer is their XML. sure, sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but read there plan and think of there business decesions with that in mind.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

outlook schmoutlook by GooglyWoogly · 2003-08-13 14:34 · Score: 1

the outlook is bleak

Just wait Long and horny is coming! by ratfynk · 2003-08-13 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

When Longhorn comes out we are looking at a different ball game. No more security problems no more stupid users not patching no more need to worry if the Inet content is not certified, it just will not run. Good old Bill will make sure everything that ever gets on your computer is safe for you. After all that is what the trusted computing initiative is all about. Take back all control of the computer from the user. Hot Mail for all running on trusted BSD servers, the RIAA happy that you cannot get around security, and a nice big hole there for the government and their trusted computing partner MS to keep tabs on you, and your dangerous communication device sucker!

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!

Reminds me of Star Wars by Teahouse · 2003-08-13 14:35 · Score: 1

The tighter your grip on desktop users Govenor Gates, the more users will slip through your fingers.

Help the new Linux users rebels, we're their only hope.

--
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright

Don't really care by loconet · 2003-08-13 14:37 · Score: 2

I'll admit having used outlook express - it is fast and there already (/me hides) .. This news comes just in time after having switched to Thunderbird, a great, nice, simple, secure e-mail client with lots of potential. For what i need, it's perfect.

--
[alk]

Why yes... by bersl2 · 2003-08-13 14:38 · Score: 1

The sound you are hearing is the Ode to Joy midi bundled with Windows 95.

Or am I completely going insane? I know there was a midi file of Beethoven's somewhere in one of the Win9x's... wasn't there? AAAAARRGGGHHH!!!

It must be the thought of the midi that is sending me off the deep end. But what if they didn't exist? OH I'M SO CONFUSED!!!

Outlook Has No Newsreader! by ckotchey · 2003-08-13 14:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

One of the questions I've pondered over the years was why Outlook was never a proper super-set of Outlook Express. I have both available to me, but I still simply use Outlook Express because Outlook lacks the Newsreader function that Outlook Express has (and I use other software for my calendar, etc.).
Can anyone explain to my why they never folded this support into the full-blown Outlook? I'm sure it can't be difficult!

Re:Outlook Has No Newsreader! by tomasso · 2003-08-13 14:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wasn't there a recent story on SD about MS planning a new type of newsgroup idea? Something to the tune of they want to do to newsgroups what they did to e-mail (a la hotmail)?
Re:Outlook Has No Newsreader! by cranos · 2003-08-13 16:08 · Score: 1

What you mean make them bloated, prone to falling over and generally useless?

If you want a hotmail equivelant for news groups try groups.google.com. Perfect web base interface to the newsgroups.

Nothing new. by dtfinch · 2003-08-13 14:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

They had already announced that they discontinued development of IE.

My predictions:
Soon they will put a Hotmail icon on the standard Windows desktop which will be protected from removal or hiding by the EULA. It will come with the newest Media Player or MSN Messenger. Future versions of Windows will be cheaper, at least the home edition, but the product activation will require an ongoing passport account, which, two years later, will require a monthly membership fee.

Re:Nothing new. by pixelgeek · 2003-08-13 15:27 · Score: 1

-- They had already announced that they discontinued development of IE.

I believe that they stopped the development of a stand-alone version of IE and that future versions would be available, in one form or the other, as a Windows component.

Big Deal by Deathlizard · 2003-08-13 14:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Frankly, Other than adding Outlook's stupid "Block all Attachments" Feature and setting the Security Zone to restriced by default, Something that should of been done in the first place I might add, OE hasn't changed that much since it was introduced.

The only thing that OE really needed was a Spam filter, but since Blue Mountain Arts forced MS to throw that into the toilet there isn't much else it needs that can be added.

It's simple and it works well, and it all most people need.

--
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!

smells fishy by cr@ckwhore · 2003-08-13 14:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's an interesting thing to note ... ever try removing Outlook Express after installing Outlook?

"Hey, I've got Outlook ... why do I need Outlook Express installed?" --uninstall

Here's the catch ... when you launch Outlook after removing Outlook Express, you'll get a message indicating that Outlook NEEDS Outlook Express in order to view email. Go ahead and scratch your head for a few minutes on that one, but its true.

SO ... how is it then, that Microsoft can continue to offer Outlook while stopping development of Outlook Express? (Perhaps some merging of the development resources going on there.)

--
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com

Re:smells fishy by josquin00 · 2003-08-13 15:16 · Score: 1

IIRC, Outlook requires OE for nntp support. Of course, it loads this when Outlook starts, so OE is "required." Even if you have a different news browser.
Re:smells fishy by fearlessrogue · 2003-08-13 15:26 · Score: 1

So microsof made effective use of existing libraries and such. Are we supposed to be unhappy?

--

Everything Zen;
Everything Zen;
I don't think so!!!
Re:smells fishy by pixelgeek · 2003-08-13 15:33 · Score: 2

-- ever try removing Outlook Express after installing Outlook?

Yup. Did it on the XP box in the office last week. Works like a charm.
Re:smells fishy by thekernel32 · 2003-08-13 16:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, it all has to do with COM. The objects involved in reading mail are already distributed with Outlook Express. Since Full Outlook is using the same GUID in the CoCreateInstance call to instantiate the objects (such as email viewing windows) the libraries installed and registered with Outlook Express must be there for the functionality to work. It's exactly the same as if I decided to use IWebBrowser2 in a program. I would then require the installation of IE 4.0 or higher so that I would know the object is on the system.

I figure with how all this COM stuff works that I could write a full email client to replace outlook just by using all of it's objects (not that it's worth my time...).

COM, it's the briliance of the windows environment and it's also the part I hate programming in the most.
Re:smells fishy by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-08-13 16:21 · Score: 1

How on earth this got modded up in a place like /. is beyond me. Obviously there are some components in OE that Outlook uses. Obviously, the people at MS know that, and will be smart enough to include whatever was needed into Outlook, or the OS it's self.

bundling a mail client in windows? by Oaktree_b · 2003-08-13 14:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

So if I read the last line of the article correctly, they'll stop shipping stand-alone versions of IE, and put the mail client in the main OS instead? Wasn't it that "bundling" that got them in the whole mess of trouble with the judge in the first place? Why doesn't Billy learn. When I buy an Operating System, I want an Operating System. When I buy a Mail Client, I want a Mail Client. Not part of one included in the other... It just frustrates me to no end that they keep doing this and expect us to roll over and not notice/not care.

--
------ Will of Iron, Knees of Jello.

Re:bundling a mail client in windows? by Feztaa · 2003-08-13 15:02 · Score: 1

Sounds like it's time to install Linux.
Re:bundling a mail client in windows? by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-08-13 15:03 · Score: 1

Billy did learn his lesson. He learned that you can make a deal with the Bush administration and do whatever anti-trust shit you can come up with.

Why doesn't Billy learn.

OMG! I think we found the writer of the RPC worm! :p
Re:bundling a mail client in windows? by Oaktree_b · 2003-08-26 15:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, I could install Linux but then I'd have nothing to complain about. I like to complain.

--
------ Will of Iron, Knees of Jello.

great opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

now to get a well documented (fully documented and WELL ORGANIZED), well designed (WELL ORGANIZED and intuitive) and superior (in features, stability, security and reliability) and place it in front of the average user (i.e. those who most likely have never heard of slashdot). Then once they have been using that wonderful piece of software on the piece of sh... I mean Windows, then they will suddenly find out it is a port of what is commonly used in the Linux world. They may still not rush out and rebuild their system with Linux but it will become that much more of a household name. Mothers will ask their sons, "oh, so you probably use Linux, right?" instead of just assuming that everyone uses Windows.

Problem is, most open source software is still created by hackers for hackers. Documentation is incomplete, fragmented, outdated and inconsistent in its level of detail. FAQ's are rarely kept up to date and many websites simply are not organized well. HINT: an intro page of a toolsets site should very obviously contain an "about [toolset]", "download", "documentation", "support/forum" and "other resources" that flows easily under the fingertips of the reader. It should not however look and feel like some 15 year olds site dedicated to organizing his collection of sports memorabilia or video games.... unless of course said 15 y.o. has the previously mentioned well organized site.

One rule of thumb oft ignored by forum/bbs trollers is that of solving the problem of annoying and repetative "noob" questions. Saying RTFM when the manual is not accessable, complete, organized or just plain ol' well written is silly. Also it is silly to not solve the problem. Got a lot of people asking the same questions? Hmmm, the ol' pattern recognition and reasoning centers of the brain should be firing up then. Hint: update the FAQ, documentation and forums (sticky's work wonders).

The more someone has to spend just getting a tool to work, then figuring it out, then actually adapting it to their use (learning and applying/adapting its own idiosyncrocies and differences in approaching solutions) the less that system becomes a "tool" and the more it becomes a dead weight.

Hacking is fun and many great innovations come out daily from that environment... of those a solution to this problem alas has yet to surface. Everyone hates documenting yet a team does in fact communicate on some order when solving problems. Systems have dependencies and modular systems have API's and interfaces. Instead of using word of mouth (which includes chat and email) try actually planning out what you want to do. Use issue tracking and management systems to not only make it easier for you to document but then smartly use automated systems to generate documentation and guides from there. Save time and frustration by reducing redundant questions from newbies.

MS produces eye candy that sucks. Perhaps we can produce well organized and designed Human Interfaces that make eye candy useless. Analogy: If a group of independents want to make cars that are cheaper, more efficient, more reliable and just better to drive, then wouldn't it be in their best interest to ensure that there is as little learning curve as possible. Why do silly things like put the steering wheel at their feet or the gas and brake controls on the dash? Unless there is a clear reason to be different then don't change things. (if you ain't fixing it, don't change it... btw, is it broke in the first place?) Changing for the purpose of changing is like those self proclaimed goths that for about 15 - 20 years have tried so hard to be "unique" and "different" yet were all just the same.... they just happened to be the same but be a smaller group of butterflies with attitudes.

Re:great opportunity... by BenjyD · 2003-08-13 23:44 · Score: 1

>Hint: update the FAQ, documentation and forums (sticky's work
> wonders)

No, you always get idiots posting questions that are clearly in the FAQ, even in sticky questions at the top of the forum (check out the NVIDIA linux forum for an example of this. In fact, every forum I've ever posted to had the same problem - even those with a big link to the FAQ on the "post new message" page).

Yes, the free software community could do much much more to welcome new users. But never underestimate the stupidity of users. I use a piece of logic solver software in my research. All the users are academics - PhD students upwards. Yet the mailing list is frequently bombarded with the most simplistic questions about C syntax that could be solved with 30 seconds on google, or questions like "Why doesn't this code work?" followed by a page long code listing.

I can see it now... by precogpunk · 2003-08-13 14:46 · Score: 2, Funny

... the Microsoft Support Line rings off the hook, "I read you are discontinuing Outlook Express, how am I going to surf the web now!?????"

Re:To all my users... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:48 · Score: 0

Once one has perfect an application, there is no where else to go.

Three Words by Mr+Pippin · 2003-08-13 14:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Bait and Switch

Squzzing! by SWTP_OS9 · 2003-08-13 14:53 · Score: 1

All I can thing of is the line from the orginal Star Wars move when Leia says to Darth Vader, "The more you tighten your grip the more star system will slip through your fingers!"

I would love to see the Office Outlook go the way of the dodo along with Express! Both are junk and have way too many problems.

The best thing the goverment could have done is forced MS to clean up their code and fix the security holes. That would have been punishment enough!

This is really good news for 3rd party mail by tjstork · 2003-08-13 14:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Everyone needs an SMTP mail client of some kind. Now that OE is dead, we're bound to see the rise of 3rd party mail programs given that Outlook is expensive and not everyone likes hotmail.

--
This is my sig.

Re:This is really good news for 3rd party mail by Feztaa · 2003-08-13 15:04 · Score: 1

With any luck, thunderbird will be developed enough to be usable by more than just techies like me, and it will fill this niche, nicely.

think long-term, people by BigGerman · 2003-08-13 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

They stop developing "conventional" email client because they don't need it.
OE is simple and standards-based (pop, imap) client, works like a charm with Unix mailservers. Why MS would need it?
Instead, they do their standard embrace-and-extend trick -
customer is fed up with insecurity of traditional email and spam?
Fine, we are going to have new mail client built right-into the OS, working some proprietary protocol against Exchange backend (for corp users) or against monstrous SQL Server / .net/passport clusters for consumers.
No need to download another client just like with the browser. And guess what - in a little while SMTP/POP3/IMAP will become a niche, because everyone will have MS supermail on their desktops.
They are trying to do to email what IIS was going to do to the web - quetly and gradually replace open protocols.
Apache stopped IIS from monopolizing the web. What is going to stop this one?

Re:think long-term, people by IM6100 · 2003-08-13 16:15 · Score: 1

Actually, Apache stopped Netscape from monopolizing the web, too. Netscape had great plans for proprietary HTML extensions and a firm handshake between Netscape clients and servers.

That's one good thing that came out of Microsoft winning the 'web browser' competition against Netscape. And since the end result was that the Netscape 'beast' was tamed and out of the ashes of it came Mozilla, it turned out about as good as it ever could have.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:think long-term, people by binarytoaster · 2003-08-13 18:17 · Score: 1

I highly doubt that people will stop using POP3/IMAP/SMTP just because there's another protocol out there. And note that MS might actually (gasp) develop the protocol to be somewhat open, allowing for *nix servers to be placed - after all, if they wanted to put this into corps, they would need that sort of protocol to take over the corps that use unix-based servers and windows-based clients.
Re:think long-term, people by pavera · 2003-08-13 19:44 · Score: 1

if MS doesn't have a mail client that speaks pop3/imap/smtp, then corps will switch they will have to they'll just have to pony up and get exchange servers or else... if the mail client comes with the OS all home users will switch, and all ISPs will be required because of the new "standard" to install MS servers to service all of their customers screaming "I can't get email cause MS supermail won't talk to your system" this is a very nasty little lock in they are trying for

Cool me too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:54 · Score: 0

Wanna have sex?

Re:To all my users... by norculf · 2003-08-13 14:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice job missing the point entirely. The alternative isn't Outlook, it's MSN and Hotmail. Outlook Express has the feature of letting people use it for any email account, whereas Microsoft would prefer you to use MSN or Hotmail only. Including an email client that can connect to any POP3 or IMAP4 account is not consistant with their new policy of wanting people to use MSN or Hotmail.

what are the alternatives? by dbc001 · 2003-08-13 14:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know people sometimes get annoyed to see redundant posts like this, but it would be wise to list the alternatives every time articles like this are posted (mail clients, ogg vorbis players, alternative browsers). At least mention the alternatives and some pros and cons.

Even here on slashdot, there are people who are still using "the wrong products", and a friendly pointer to the alternatives may be just the thing to convert some non-believers. I myself am still using Outlook because I've never been satisfied with any alternatives, and I don't have the time to go testing all the options. But I would definitely benefit from the wisdom of the slashdot community (did i really say that?)

Translation by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2003-08-13 14:58 · Score: 1

"We see no reason to continue developing no-cost software for a market segment we already dominate. Perhaps you would like to sign up for MSN, or download the latest version of Media Player?"

Seriously, there's no big opportunity to increase market share, or even upsell something else, using a free e-mail client. They've realized that in order to take their monopoly to the next level, they have to rekindle their pre-Internet vision of a "closed loop" system that really is end-to-end Microsoft. For MSN, the Internet is an obstacle that they were forced to contend with. Presumably they now feel that they're in a position to move beyond the open 'net and back into the proprietary online service they've always dreamed of owning.

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!

Yeah, but what about the backend? by gotr00t · 2003-08-13 15:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is true that webmail usually has a frontend (the part that you see via your browser) that is secured with SSL, but the problem is, the server must recieve your message SOMEHOW. That is still through SMTP, and it is plaintext.

You simply can't compare PGP to SSL because they are not used for the same thing. PGP is used for the secure transmission of the mail AND the final delivery, but SSL only protects the final delivery. To that extent, a lot of webmail providers don't even give you a choice to use PGP. Because the transmission is still through SMTP, and it is not secured by PGP, your information is not protected even if you use webmail.

Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by Pharmboy · 2003-08-13 15:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wait a second, webmail does not require SMTP/port 25 to send mail. Your client isn't sending mail. Its basically sending a form to the server, via a CGI process (perl or php typically) and the SERVER uses port 25 to actually send it. You only need port 80 for insecure and 443 for secure webmail.

I block port 25 on my home windows and linux boxes simply because if I DO get infected, at least my box won't send out to anyone else on 25, regardless of what program is trying to do it, including the virus itself. I have not used stunnel to ssl my mail yet, but that is in the works. But I know I am not using 25 on SquirrelMail, and I am sure with any webmail server.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by gfody · 2003-08-13 15:34 · Score: 1

once all front-end access to email is web based (or webservice based). the back-end will be open for re-implentation with any other protocol.

it seems it would be the only way to get rid of smtp/pop3 once and for all.

--

bite my glorious golden ass.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:37 · Score: 0

Let's take a deep breath and visualize for a moment how the email got to the webmail server in the first place...

breathe in...

breathe out...

any revelations yet? If not, then look at the title of your post.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by bofkentucky · 2003-08-13 15:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

You think UUNET or AT&T encrypts that traffic on transcontinental fiber runs? PGP is not a fair comparison but it is the least likely to be used by the general public. You can TLS/SSL POP/IMAP/Webmail all day long but that traffic is sent unencrypted over SMTP if it ever leaves your ISP's datacenter

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:17 · Score: 0

Sweet Jesus! He got a Score: 2. Karma is evil.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by derF024 · 2003-08-13 17:17 · Score: 1

You can TLS/SSL POP/IMAP/Webmail all day long but that traffic is sent unencrypted over SMTP if it ever leaves your ISP's datacenter

If your SMTP server supports SSL on the client side, it also (usually) supports it between servers. If the recepient of your mail also has a server that supports SSL, you are infact, SSL all the way through from end to end. You have no guarantee that your recipients will support ssl, but it's possible. GPG (or personal certs) is still the only real way to guarantee that your mail will be encrypted the whole way.

However, having SSL'ed SMTP, IMAP or POP3 isn't currently to keep your individual mail messages from prying eyes in transit, it's to keep your password secure.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by Xrikcus · 2003-08-13 20:04 · Score: 1

I hasten to disagree. Your connection to your ISP could still be SMTP, the ISPs collectively are still free to reimplement with any protocol. Web, SMTP, carrier pigeon to the ISP matters little really once it's there.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by colinleroy · 2003-08-13 20:07 · Score: 1

SSL SMTP does exist, either via a special port (465 iirc) or via the STARTTLS command, which allows mails between two SSL-enabled SMTP servers to be encrypted. Mails I get from some friends (running their own SMTP servers, as I am) are encrypted the whole way from their mailer to mine - considering there are no relays between their SMTP server and my MX.
Unfortunately it must use too much CPU power to be used by most ISPs. Still, some big SMTPs use it, lists.sourceforge.net for example connects to my MX using SSL (Mails coming from them aren't that sensitive though ;-)).

--
blah
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by danielsfca2 · 2003-08-13 20:47 · Score: 3, Informative

> webmail does not require SMTP/port 25 to send mail

First, that's not what he said. He said "the server must recieve your message somehow," and that that was done with SMTP.

Second, you are totally wrong. You need SMTP to send or receive mail.

Here's an incoming message, if you had a Hotmail account.
1. I send you an e-mail, from a "real" e-mail account.
2. My SMTP server finds the MX record for @hotmail.com
3. My SMTP server makes an SMTP connection to said server; sends message.
4. Hotmail server serves up your e-mail in a big ad-laden MSIE-tailored webpage, IIRC not via SSL. Only the login itself was SSL a few years ago, the last I used a Hotmail account. Though I agree, a few "webmail" providers do offer this.

So in an incoming e-mail, it was exposed in plaintext once, or more likely, twice.

You reply to me:
1. You load another huge webpage.
2. You type a message and click "Send."
3. Hotmail looks up the MX record for @starseven.net
4. Hotmail uses SMTP to send the message to the given server.
5. I read the message via IMAP.

So, in an outgoing message, e-mail, it was exposed in plaintext twice.

The only way you wouldn't use SMTP is if oneguy@hotmail.com e-mails anotherguy@hotmail.com, since Hotmail will then proudly tell you it used the "HotmailDirect(tm)" System to "instantly deliver" your message. But that is by no means all the time.

For everyone's sake, people need to learn how e-mail works, before the stinking mass that is "webmail" engulfs us all.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by fyonn · 2003-08-13 23:02 · Score: 1

it seems it would be the only way to get rid of smtp/pop3 once and for all.

whats wrong with pop3 (and by extention, imap4)?

and smtp works fine, although I can accept that alot of people think that should be replaced due to spam issues.

dave
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by brunes69 · 2003-08-13 23:08 · Score: 1

Lets just say that someone digging 10-50 feet underground, and using a million dollar fibre reader to sniff my data is the LEAST of my security worries.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by Fweeky · 2003-08-14 00:16 · Score: 1

SMTP supports TLS, but of course, nobody bothers setting it up but me...
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by mwood · 2003-08-14 02:02 · Score: 1

Duuh, look through the RFCs which extend SMTP until you come to STARTTLS.

The actual problem is that you don't know (until delivery) whether each SMTP hop actually used TLS. So I'll still use OpenPGP regardless. But I'd like to see wider use of TLS by SMTP servers. It's called defense in depth.

(Heck, I'd just like to see my ISP accept CHAP logons. )-:
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by yakovlev · 2003-08-14 04:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

What it sounds like he's trying to say is that:

A.) He trusts the webmail server's connection to be more free from eavesdropping than his own. This is in a sense true as his mail will just be one among many, instead of all mail sent from his machine being his. This wouldn't be such an issue if most ISPs offered encrypted SMTP.

B.) With webmail your password is never sent cleartext, which is another advantage over the typical non-ssl encrypted imap/pop3 servers. This again is more a statement about lack of encryption at most ISPs than about a webmail technical advantage.

C.) Using webmail allows him to firewall off outbound port 25. This provides some security advantages, espescially in the area of intrusion detection.

While I don't think these marginal security advantages outweigh the benefits of downloadable mail, they are real.
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by apankrat · 2003-08-14 04:23 · Score: 1

Sure, but a majority of end-users wants to protect personal emails from being snooped upon by corporate firewalls/filtering systems, not by a Big Brother with an access to a transcontinetal fiber.

There is a big difference between generic paranoia and a fear of a job loss :)

--
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by bofkentucky · 2003-08-14 05:00 · Score: 1

Heck, I'd just like to see my ISP accept CHAP logons
From the freeradius FAQ

4.4.1 But CHAP is more secure, isn't it?
Not really.
Q: Does Section 4.4 really mean I must leave a file lying around with cleartext passwords for the more than 400 people who'll be using this thing?
A: Yes.
So what do ISP with (tens of?) thousands of customers do?
You have 2 choices:
1. You allow CHAP and store all the passwords plaintext.
Advantage: passwords don't go cleartext over the phone line between the user and the terminal server.
Disadvantage: You have to store the passwords in cleartext on the server.
2. You don't allow CHAP, just PAP.
Advantage: you don't store cleartext passwords on your system.
Disadvantage: passwords go in cleartext over the phone line between the user and the terminal server.
Now, people say CHAP is more secure. Now you decide which is more likely:
- the phone line between the user and the terminal server gets sniffed and a cracker (a GOOD one) intercepts just one password
- your radius server is hacked into and a cracker gets ALL passwords of ALL users.
Right. Still think CHAP is more secure ? I thought so.
This is a limitation of the CHAP protocol itself, not the RADIUS protocol. The CHAP protocol *requires* that you store the passwords in plain-text format.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:Yeah, but what about the backend? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2003-08-14 05:57 · Score: 1

If the recepient of your mail also has a server that supports SSL, you are infact, SSL all the way through from end to end.

I feel so good knowing that the Spam in my inbox got to me over an encrypted connection. I wouldn't want anyone snooping that.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

Sadly, Outlook Express was better than Outlook... by Phs2501 · 2003-08-13 15:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Sadly, Outlook Express was far more standards-compliant than full Outlook. And that's not saying much.

Here are just some of the things that annoy the hell out of me about Outlook:

Cannot use newsgroups without going through an Exchange server. Exchange servers really frell things up, as I'll explain below:
Exchange servers modify the Message-IDs of news messages they get via NNTP! This completely breaks threading for standards-complient stuff. This doesn't affect Outlook, though, because:
Outlook uses a completely different (and weaker!) threading system! One that's not compatible with standard References: or In-Reply-To: headers.
For more fun, Outlook uses the same stupid incompatible threading system when going through Exchange for email! Want to view your lame friend's messages threaded in mutt? If they use Outlook, too bad. Particularly bad on mailing lists.
Ironically, if Outlook connects directly to a real SMTP server to send mail and not via the Exchange backdoor, you get real In-Reply-To headers! *boggle*

Everyone in my office uses Outlook except for myself and a few others. I've wanted to set up a newsserver to replace our current policy of cc'ing random people when trying to have a discussion. Sadly, the only Microsoft solution would have been to use Outlook Express to connect to the news server. (No, installing Mozilla/Thunderbird on everyones machines and training people to use it is not an option, sadly.)

College webmail by jtdubs · 2003-08-13 15:03 · Score: 1

I'm only familiar with three universities:

1. North Carolina State University (my school)
2. Penn State University (my fiancee's school)
3. University of Ohio (my sister's school)

They all three offer secure webmail.
They all three offer IMAP with SSL.

So, even if it isn't everywhere, I'd say it's definitly taking hold.

Justin Dubs

Re:College webmail by finkployd · 2003-08-13 15:25 · Score: 1

2. Penn State University (my fiancee's school)
They all three offer IMAP with SSL.

I'm somewhat familiar with PSU myself, but I do not believe we offer IMAP with SSL. Perhaps some department runs their own mail server and does, but not the central email server.

We does however support KPOP, and Secure POP is coming soon.

Finkployd
Re:College webmail by jtdubs · 2003-08-13 15:28 · Score: 1

A quick google turned up a math department website descriping how to setup secure IMAP. So, I know the math department supports it.

I know the school supports secure webmail. Thanks for catching that mistake.

Justin Dubs
Re:College webmail by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 17:59 · Score: 0

University of Washington not only "supports" secure IMAP, POP, and SMTP -- they *require* it. Also, no FTP or telnet connections... all SSH. Pretty smooth, and the users get along just fine. What excuse do other institutions have for not implementing and enforcing similar policies?
Re:College webmail by mwood · 2003-08-14 02:09 · Score: 1

"University of Washington not only "supports" secure IMAP, POP, and SMTP -- they *require* it."

Well, of course *they* would! :-)

"Also, no FTP or telnet connections... all SSH. Pretty smooth, and the users get along just fine. What excuse do other institutions have for not implementing and enforcing similar policies?"

MS Exchange?

That was rather nice of them by BenZoate · 2003-08-13 15:03 · Score: 1

No really it was, no more crappy email client bundled with their "OS". I tried to use OE one day, kept me from opening attachments that I had mailed myself from work. OE said they were infected. I was not aware that Windoze came with an antivirus checker. So I said screw it, installed RH 9, like evolution.
In summary, thanks Microsoft for helping me see the light, your "OS" sucks. Thank you for forcing me to find alternatives to your crappy software.

Re:That was rather nice of them by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:15 · Score: 0

Actually thats just to protect Joe Averageuser from running potentially malicous code on their machine. It can be turned off in options.

Logical enough. by mcc · 2003-08-13 15:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

They've spent the last few years taking Hotmail from something that was absolutely *ubiquitous* (people who weren't advertising constructs used hotmail as a -verb-. few services can claim that) to an obscure and neglected also-ran. Now they want to do the same for Outlook Express.

And I wish them well at it! ^_^

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 15:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe this will cause peopel to realize that Internet Explorer and Outlook Express AREN'T the only way to use the internet. With any luck, mozilla and its ilk should be seeing a lot more customers once the EOL for Internet Explorer 6 and Outlook Express 6 hits

My primary browswer is Mozilla. My second choice is Opera. Internet Explorer is a distant third. I've got bootable Linux, *BSD, and BeOS OS systems. I'm no Microsoft shill.

For e-mail clients, I had been using Outlook Express and just switched to Outlook in the last week. I have fairly demanding e-mail needs with several domains, multiple e-mail addresses, list subscriptions, and so forth. I tried quite a few shareware and public domain e-mail clients and found all of them lacking in one critical way or another. The list included the Mozilla e-mail client, Eudora, PocoMail, The Bat, and Pegasus Mail. Most had usability issues.

At least two of the clients pretended to have imported all of my messages in all of the folders (probably about 70,000 messages for the last 7 years sent and received) only to have failed to import a substantial portion of them. No error messages were displayed during the import process. Sorry, but that's a no-go. I'm unwilling to give up my message archive for professional and legal reasons. Nor am I willing to trust a program that would silently fail in that manner.

In those years, I have never contracted a virus, trojan horse, or worm through Outlook Express. I kept it patched and up-to-date. I had it set to use the "Restricted Sites" security setting which disabled such things as scripting, Java, ActiveX, .NET, and so forth. I normally kept OE6 set to display messages as plain text, disabling HTML. I've heard plenty of whining about Outlook Express security, but the majority of "security" issues were caused by idiots opening executable attachments.

All of that said, I'm not blind to the faults of Outlook or Outlook Express. It was idiotic for Microsoft to include scripting of any kind for incoming messages. What were they thinking? Making an e-mail client that would retrieve from web sites without the user's permission was responsible for many people telling spammers "hey, my address is live!" The inability in OE to pick up from multiple mailboxes and have each go to its own folder is a glaring fault. There are, of course, other flaws and foibles.

All in all, though, Outlook Express was a damned good e-mail client for me. It had a well-designed user interface, was reliable, and served my purposes, and those of millions of other users, very well. Maybe this will spur on the development of other clients to the point that they rival or exceed Outlook Express, but right now, OE6 is still one of the best Windows e-mail clients available.

Re:No, not "good!" by gothic · 2003-08-13 15:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Outlook Express can pick up from multiple mailboxes and dump them into seperate folders. I do it all the time. It's under their Mail Rules.

Tools -> Message Rules -> Mail -> New -> "Where The Message is from the specified account" -> "Move it to the specified folder" ..

Done... Now when my Work email gets checked with my six other accounts, Work goes into a Work folder.
Re:No, not "good!" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:14 · Score: 0

For e-mail clients, I had been using Outlook Express and just switched to Outlook in the last week. I have fairly demanding e-mail needs with several domains, multiple e-mail addresses, list subscriptions, and so forth. I tried quite a few shareware and public domain e-mail clients and found all of them lacking in one critical way or another. The list included the Mozilla e-mail client, Eudora, PocoMail, The Bat, and Pegasus Mail. Most had usability issues.
That's bunk, man. Use a real MUA, like mutt.
Re:No, not "good!" by RealityShunt · 2003-08-13 16:20 · Score: 1

I agree with you on most points, but calling OE "reliable" is not one of them.

I've lost count of the number of crashes I've gone thru with OE in which I've lost emails that were downloaded...or had folders disappear mysteriously....

I quit using it on the windows box about a year ago. Went to Mozilla's email client, which, while not perfect, at least didn't mysteriously lose messages.

Oh....and the import functions suck.

realityshunt

--
Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
Re:No, not "good!" by jpkunst · 2003-08-13 16:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

At least two of the clients pretended to have imported all of my messages in all of the folders (probably about 70,000 messages for the last 7 years sent and received) only to have failed to import a substantial portion of them. No error messages were displayed during the import process. Sorry, but that's a no-go. I'm unwilling to give up my message archive for professional and legal reasons. Nor am I willing to trust a program that would silently fail in that manner.

It might be that the problem is not with the import function of the other mail clients, but with the OE mail database, which could be corrupt in some subtle way. When I moved from OE to Eudora (on an OS 9 Mac) I had to fight hard to extract all my mail from a corrupt OE mail database. I decided then to never use anything else but plain text files for e-mail archiving anymore.

JP
Re:No, not "good!" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 17:35 · Score: 0

You're probably too used to Outlook to switch, but have you tried Sylpheed yet?

Posting with links cause the /. site is hella sluggish on the images.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 17:49 · Score: 1

It might be that the problem is not with the import function of the other mail clients, but with the OE mail database, which could be corrupt in some subtle way.

If the database is corrupt, then I expect the importing programs to tell me so via some kind of error message. If OE can find the messages in the database, then so should the programs that import the messages. Netscape found all of the messages, so it's not like they were unrecoverable.

I can deal with the concept of a corrupted database. What I cannot deal with is a program that silently fails.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 18:00 · Score: 3, Informative

That's bunk, man.

No, it's not "bunk." It's a factual representation of my experiences.

Use a real MUA, like mutt.

Mutt is text-based, can't easily import the messages that I already have, and does not work under Windows -- which is the primary OS that I use personally and professionally. Therefore, it does not meet my needs.

It's also no more "real" than any of the more sophisticated e-mail clients that I mentioned.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 18:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with you on most points, but calling OE "reliable" is not one of them.

Different people have different experiences. Yours may not be typical (or mine may not). For me, it was reliable. I think that most users don't experience the problems that you describe for, if they did, I believe that there would be much more "chatter" on the net about it.

Oh....and the import functions suck.

I agree and extend that to most e-mail programs. E-mail database storage formats should have been standardized years ago. This crap of 50 different formats is incredibly annoying.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 18:12 · Score: 1

You're probably too used to Outlook to switch, but have you tried Sylpheed yet?

Outlook is new to me. Outlook Express had a much different UI.

Sylpheed looks interesting, elegant, and powerful. But I'm really not comfortable trusting my e-mail to a version 0.X e-mail client with screen shots in Japanese. I will keep an eye on it though. I'm always looking for something better.
Re:No, not "good!" by zerocool^ · 2003-08-13 19:34 · Score: 1

All in all, though, Outlook Express was a damned good e-mail client for me.

See, my thing with outlook express is that it's simple. It's my main mail client. Flame away, but all the added features in eudora did as much to confuse me as they did to make me feel better.

I don't want spell check. I don't want all my folders to open in seperate tabs (eudora). I don't want more buttons than I use on a daily basis. I want 1.) send/receive, 2.) reply, 3.) reply all, 4.) forward, 5.) address book. That's it. Not all this other crap.
I want my folders on the left, in an XML-tree-kind of expandable menu. I want my message pane on the right, with the list of messages in the currently selected mailbox at the top and the message at the bottom. Plus those buttons, and that's it, that's the perfect mail client.

Outlook express is rediculously simple. The setup is simple. The message filters are simple. The interface is simple.

I have to agree with this guy. I mean, i've used 'em all, from mh/mutt/pine to squirrel mail, evolution, eudora, etc. Outlook express, while it has it's faults, is really pretty damn good.

~Will

--
sig?
Re:No, not "good!" by fruey · 2003-08-13 19:37 · Score: 1

The import issue is mostly to do with Outlook using a proprietary format for its mail store, or at least slightly strange format.
You could use IMAP to acheive something of an import, especially if you can run your own IMAP server on the LAN - then copy your email from OE to a separate IMAP account that you create with OE too. Heck, there might even be a util you can use to convert OE mailboxes into UNIX mbox or CYRUS maildir formats that you could read directly with Mutt.
Once you store all your email locally, rather than leaving it in an IMAP repository somewhere, then you are going to be a little stuck for keeping email, that's par for the course.
What I hate about Outlook Express is that sender names are plainly visible but no option to view email addresses too. That is the biggest security issue I have with it. I don't like not knowing if My Best Mate suddenly has become My Best Mate without being able to see it without message properties.
Did you try Mulberry, by the way?

--
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Re:No, not "good!" by fruey · 2003-08-13 19:40 · Score: 1

By the way I messed up there
I meant My Best Mate <okguy@trust.com> and My Best Mate <dodgy@strangee.com> ... forgot I was posting in HTML

--
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Re:No, not "good!" by phaze3000 · 2003-08-13 20:02 · Score: 1

Mutt is text-based, can't easily import the messages that I already have, and does not work under Windows -- which is the primary OS that I use personally and professionally. Therefore, it does not meet my needs.

Whilst I don't know enough about your need to know if mutt meets them, it is available for Windows: http://www.geocities.com/win32mutt/win32.html

--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Re:No, not "good!" by perlyking · 2003-08-13 21:14 · Score: 1

Mutt is text-based

Oh no! A text based email program, whatever will we do! ;-) sorry couldn't resist.

--
no sig.
Re:No, not "good!" by daveewart · 2003-08-13 22:12 · Score: 1

E-mail database storage formats should have been standardized years ago. This crap of 50 different formats is incredibly annoying.

Agreed, however there are some standards that are 'more standard' than others. The generic mailbox format used by pretty-much all Unix mailers and by Mozilla/Netscape under all platforms is, IMHO, the Right Way To Do It.

There was absolutely no excuse, other than monopolistic marketing, for Microsoft to introduce their own folder format for Outlook.

--
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
Re:No, not "good!" by N1KO · 2003-08-14 01:01 · Score: 1

Does your email come written with pictures or hieroglyphs? My email is text-based
Re:No, not "good!" by Penguin2212 · 2003-08-14 01:36 · Score: 1

Why even use that when you could just use Hotmail?

Sorry, for my blatant sarcasm, but I find it a little disturbing that many people think that web based E-mail is the only e-mail available. And that if you use anything else (e.g. a stand alone e-mail client) it's considered somehow substandard or inadequate. Oh well, but I guess it's the same as when somebody confuses the "Web" and "Internet".

--

--
Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
Re:No, not "good!" by John+Allsup · 2003-08-14 02:17 · Score: 1

The time involved in opening and indexing a large
mbox format mailbox can be considerable. (I recall, for example, someone using pine on our department Solaris server with ~5000 messages in his inbox---since he doesn't like deleting or organising them, and the time it takes to do things is ridiculous!) maildir (I think) was supposed to help by getting the (increasingly advanced) filesystems to do the indexing and access, but that is not an option for Windows on FAT32 (possibly not even NTFS.) Thus some other format is called for. There isn't a standard for what is required, so an ad hoc solution needs to be written, and that is what we have in OE.

Though why OE and Outlook don't use the same storage format is another matter, and the fact that there isn't a freely downloadable .dll from microsoft which houses the Outlook/OutlookExpress message storage system is another matter.

--
John_Chalisque
Re:No, not "good!" by Em+Ellel · 2003-08-14 03:25 · Score: 1

I use 4 IMAP mailboxes in regular use, ballancing 5 email ID's between them. I am yet to see a client that works even nearly as well with this setup as OE. I am not a big fan of MS. I keep trying other clients just to go back to OE. And OE is definately head and shoulders above Outlook proper.

I hear you on message loss though. I would not use a client that can loose messages like that, but I use IMAP and one of the big benefits of IMAP is that you never loose your email to your client, do not need to worry about importing your messages, you can run clients on multiple machines and not worry about it. (other than buggy new mail flag in most email clients that does not get reset when said new mail has been read elsewhere - thought the client sees it as read)

Why could not they just dump Outlook and just add calendaring to OE and call it Outlook? Then again, maybe they did.

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Re:No, not "good!" by jaywee · 2003-08-14 03:42 · Score: 1

Well, while I used mutt for quite long time and was very happy, it become a bit unusable when i started to get tens/hundrets mails a day, not mentioning high traffic ml's.
Then i moved everything to cyrus(imap)+Evolution. It really helps when you have cuddly outline showing all your folders with number of unread messages. Yes, mutt supports folders too, but when one has multilevel hiearchy it's not that easy to use (as opposed to just taking a quick lookat folder outline)
Re:No, not "good!" by GarfBond · 2003-08-14 03:45 · Score: 1

Then you're in luck. Eudora, Mozilla, Netscape 4, and a fair bunch of Unix-based clients use something called "mbox format". It's not compressed very well, because it's basically ALL your messages in one giant text file, but it's more or less a Unix standard. Obviously, importing Microsoft mail is a little harder because, hell, they don't need no Unix standard. They'll just create something call PSTs and ignore everybody else.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 03:53 · Score: 1

Does your email come written with pictures or hieroglyphs?

Yes. I often get e-mail with pictures attached. I also get e-mail with HTML formatting and, whether you are an HTML fan or not, the formatting it allows can make for a much more readable document.

More importantly, the text-based nature of MUTT means that I would lose the ability to use GUI features like mouse-based operation, cut & paste, and so forth.
Re:No, not "good!" by bahamat · 2003-08-14 03:54 · Score: 1

Mutt is text-based, can't easily import the messages that I already have

You didn't try very hard did you?

Seek FreshMeat, and you will find

mbx2mbox attempts to convert Microsoft's proprietary .mbx and .dbx format mailboxes to the standard RFC822 mailboxes used by programs like Pine, Eudora, and Netscape.

This took me about 5 seconds to find, and 15 seconds to post the link. You owe me 10 seconds.
Re:No, not "good!" by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2003-08-14 04:12 · Score: 1

The inability in OE to pick up from multiple mailboxes and have each go to its own folder is a glaring fault.

Not a fault. I just use Tools->Message Rules->Mail, and set up a rule "Where Message is From Specified Account", or read the To: line.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 04:27 · Score: 1

Then you're in luck. Eudora, Mozilla, Netscape 4, and a fair bunch of Unix-based clients use something called "mbox format". It's not compressed very well, because it's basically ALL your messages in one giant text file, but it's more or less a Unix standard

I'm only in luck if I like those clients. And I would only be in luck if the "standard" lent itself well to very large numbers (tens of thousands) of messages. It is painfully slow when there are that many messages. Compression, I don't care about. Hard drives are so big now that I don't even have to delete apps to make room for my porn collection.
Re:No, not "good!" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 05:42 · Score: 0

You must have one THICK tinfoil hat. Or a properly configured firewall to get by without Outlook catching -something-.

I guess that proves a properly configured network connection can avoid many of the nasties out there.
Re:No, not "good!" by JCholewa · 2003-08-14 06:33 · Score: 1

> And I would only be in luck if the "standard" lent itself well to very large numbers (tens of
> thousands) of messages. It is painfully slow when there are that many messages.

It does lend itself well to large numbers of messages. I have all my email from early 1998, heavily filtered into hundreds of mailboxes. Before I started backweeding to get out the tens of thousands of old spams, I probably had something on the order of over a hundred thousand emails.

Despite the larger size of the file, access to emails is very quick due to the index files. And the plain text nature of the files means that reading from and writing to are very quick (the lack of compression, in fact, makes it faster, for obvious reasons). It helps, for me, that attachments are taken out of the mbox code as it downloads from the server.

> Compression, I
> don't care about. Hard drives are so big now that I don't even have to delete apps to make room
> for my porn collection.

Wow. I had to buy another 160GB hard drive space in order to make room for my TV episode collection, and that's with a couple hundred burned CD-Rs. I don't even bother much with porn anymore. You're not trying if you're not working with a nearly full disk.

--
-JC
http://www.jc-news.com/coding/SFi/
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-14 06:49 · Score: 1

the text-based nature of MUTT means that I would lose the ability to use GUI features like mouse-based operation, cut & paste, and so forth.

What modern terminal emulator doesn't support cut and paste?
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 07:53 · Score: 1

What modern terminal emulator doesn't support cut and paste?

The Command Prompt window under Windows. Sure, if you remember to click on weird buttons and use mouse buttons to cut and paste, you can, but try using the standard control-X, C, and V. I can't count the number of times that I've marked text in a Command Prompt window and hit control-C only to have the text marking disappear with nothing going into the clipboard.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 08:02 · Score: 1

You didn't try very hard did you?

I looked at the Mutt documentation and it didn't support importing Microsoft's proprietary formats.

Seek FreshMeat, and you will find mbx2mbox attempts to convert Microsoft's proprietary .mbx and .dbx format mailboxes to the standard RFC822 mailboxes used by programs like Pine, Eudora, and Netscape.

From the mbx2mbox homepage:
Mailboxes from newer versions of Outlook and Outlook express may not be supported. (i.e. Your mileage may vary.) ...

Also be aware that this script has not been tested for Outlook versions since circa 1997, and may not work.
Hardly reassuring...

This took me about 5 seconds to find, and 15 seconds to post the link. You owe me 10 seconds.

Consider my debt paid with this post. ;-)
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-14 12:36 · Score: 1

And you put up with this?
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 15:46 · Score: 1

And you put up with this?

You're right! Screw those clients who have paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. From now on, I only work in Linux! If the clients won't switch, then they can go to hell! If they send me source that compiles under Visual C++, I'll just tell them to convert to Linux. Maybe I could even grow a really bushy beard and mustache and mutter about them needing to get a real computer...
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-14 19:13 · Score: 1

It's not their fault that you don't have an adequate terminal emulator.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-15 02:56 · Score: 1

It's not their fault that you don't have an adequate terminal emulator.

You don't know what you are talking about. Go to a Windows machine. Start a command prompt window. That's where text-based applications run. No choice. No control-x/c/v cut & paste.

Stop calling it a terminal emulator. It's not a terminal emulator. A terminal emulator is software which causes a PC to emulate a terminal (e.g., VT52, VT220, Wyse 50, etc.) while connected to a remote host. Hyperterminal, which ships with Windows, is an example of terminal emulator software. You can't run a local text-based application in a terminal emulator window.

Mutt doesn't run on a remote host to which I would connect with a terminal emulator. It runs on the local machine as a text-based app and, hence, runs in the command prompt window.
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-15 04:13 · Score: 1

If I don't know what I'm talking about, then apparently FOLDOC, everything2, and wikipedia are all equally misled. I'm not picky, though. Call it what you like. Too bad changing the name won't make it better software.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-15 12:45 · Score: 1

Are you just trolling now? Oh well, I'll take the bait if you are...

If I don't know what I'm talking about, then apparently FOLDOC, everything2, and wikipedia are all equally misled.

You just provided three links that confirmed what I said and completely contradicted your earlier posts. What I said in my previous message:

Hyperterminal, which ships with Windows, is an example of terminal emulator software.

What Wikipedia said (via the link you provided):

Example programs that provide this capability under Microsoft Windows include the built-in programs HyperTerminal and Telnet.exe

Now, I defy you to download Mutt for Windows and run it via Hyperterminal. Go ahead. You're the one who swears that Mutt runs in a terminal emulator, so prove it.

I'm not picky, though. Call it what you like.

I am picky because I'm a professional software engineer with over two decades of paid experience. A terminal emulator is not a Command Prompt window any more than it is a web browser. The Windows version of Mutt runs on the local machine in a Command Prompt window, not on remote host with a terminal emulator making the PC act like a dumb terminal.

Too bad changing the name won't make it better software.

Changing the name of what? You are the one that can't seem to understand the difference between a Command Prompt window and a terminal emulator. Whats next? Are you going to tell me that I should run Mutt in my web browser or text editor?
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-16 13:28 · Score: 1

I think you should read those links again, all the way through, this time. They all support my position. Some of them support your position as well, but of the five of us, you are the only one who seems to think that the two are mutually exclusive.

Now, I defy you to download Mutt for Windows and run it via Hyperterminal. Go ahead. You're the one who swears that Mutt runs in a terminal emulator, so prove it.

The first full sentence of the xterm man page reads, "The xterm program is a terminal emulator for the X Window System." I can run mutt just fine in xterm. Hyperterminal is an irrelevant distraction to this conversation, since it is neither the only terminal emulator in the world nor an advisable way to run mutt.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-16 14:57 · Score: 1

The first full sentence of the xterm man page reads, "The xterm program is a terminal emulator for the X Window System." I can run mutt just fine in xterm.

But you can't run the Windows version of Mutt in xterm and this entire thread has been about running the Windows version of Mutt.

Hyperterminal is an irrelevant distraction to this conversation, since it is neither the only terminal emulator in the world nor an advisable way to run mutt.

I don't care if it's "advisable." It's a terminal emulator for Windows and you say that Mutt for Windows runs in a terminal emulator. So make it run.

You keep swearing that there is some "terminal emulator" software which, under Windows, will let me use the standard GUI-based cut and paste with Mutt. Well, what is it? What package will replace the Command Prompt and allow the Windows version of Mutt to use those standard cut and paste commands?

You don't want the Hyperterminal example? Fine:

Download Mutt for Windows and make it run in ANY terminal emulator on the Windows box.
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-16 17:47 · Score: 1

Your thickness astounds me. Windows Command Prompt is, in fact, a terminal emulator.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-17 00:28 · Score: 1

Your thickness astounds me.

I am far more intelligent, perceptive, and informed than you. I have the credentials and resume to support that claim. You, on the other hand, appear to be no more than a troll. I try to engage you in debate, ask you questions, and you just ignore them and, instead, resort to childish name calling.

Windows Command Prompt is, in fact, a terminal emulator.

WRONG! When I type in Windows Command Prompt, data does not go out a serial port. It does not go out of a network port. It does not go through some virtual port. It cannot be used to connect to a remote host. If Windows Command Prompt is a terminal emulator, what terminal does it emulate? (ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN YOUR REPLY!)

Windows Command Prompt is a command shell, not a terminal emulator.

I asked before and you weren't man enough to admit you were wrong, so I will ask again:

You keep swearing that there is some "terminal emulator" software which, under Windows, will let me use the standard GUI-based cut and paste with Mutt. Well, what is it? What package will replace the Command Prompt and allow the Windows version of Mutt to use those standard cut and paste commands?
Re:No, not "good!" by Zorikin · 2003-08-17 05:37 · Score: 1

I try to engage you in debate, ask you questions, and you just ignore them and, instead, resort to childish name calling.

Oh, sorry. I figured that was your par for the course after you presented your selective reading of my references and accused me of being a troll.

If Windows Command Prompt is a terminal emulator, what terminal does it emulate?

It emulates a Command Prompt terminal. As far as I know, this terminal hasn't been implemented in hardware. An analogous example is the "Linux" terminal type, which also exists only as software.

Windows Command Prompt is a command shell, not a terminal emulator.

It's both. Microsoft, as usual, has ignored the subtle distinction between two traditionally separate functions, and written them into a single program.

mutt uses a full-screen terminal display mode, which is beyond the scope of a pure command shell. Command Prompt provides all of the necessary capabilities to run mutt in this mode, so it is a terminal emulator.

You keep swearing that there is some "terminal emulator" software which, under Windows, will let me use the standard GUI-based cut and paste with Mutt.

Don't put words in my mouth. I haven't sworn anything in this thread, let alone had the delusion that there is a good terminal emulator for running windows software.

This will be my last post unless you can provide an interesting argument against my position. I also won't reply again to the resume ego game, the manliness ego game, any other ego game, shouting, straw man arguments, or any other logical fallacy.
Re:No, not "good!" by fmaxwell · 2003-08-17 07:46 · Score: 1

I figured that was your par for the course after you presented your selective reading of my references

I presented one example that supported my position. You find that surprising?

accused me of being a troll.

I did not accuse you of being a troll. I wondered aloud if you were and said that you "appear to be no more than a troll."

It's both. Microsoft, as usual, has ignored the subtle distinction between two traditionally separate functions, and written them into a single program.

It's not "both". If it was, I would not need a separate terminal emulator to connect to a remote system. Mutt for Windows won't work in a terminal emulator -- just as I've said all along. It requires a Windows Command prompt window. There is no choice. There is no option.

And Microsoft didn't "ignore the subtle distinction between two traditionally separate functions." If you had some years of experience under your belt, you would remember that the PC came out in 1981 and shipped with a whopping 64K of RAM. It was competing against Apple IIs, Ataris, and TRS-80s, none of which had a virtual terminal model. Expecting Microsoft to adopt features of mainframes and minis when it ran at 4.77mhz on an 8-bit bus with 64K of RAM is pretty silly. The Command Prompt window is simply a throwback to the DOS days and was never intended for new application development. That Mutt developers chose not to create a standard GUI application is not a reflection on Microsoft.

Don't put words in my mouth. I haven't sworn anything in this thread, let alone had the delusion that there is a good terminal emulator for running windows software.

Then why did you ask me "And you put up with this?" and write "It's not their fault that you don't have an adequate terminal emulator" when a the Windows version of Mutt won't run in a terminal emulator? There are plenty of good terminal emulators for Windows, but, because text-based applications under Windows don't use the virtual terminal model, it's impossible to use terminal emulators for running local applications.

This will be my last post unless you can provide an interesting argument against my position.

Good. You've wasted enough of my time and now we're right back where this started: My posting to which you commented was dead-nuts-on when it said:

More importantly, the text-based nature of MUTT means that I would lose the ability to use GUI features like mouse-based operation, cut & paste, and so forth.

Oh no! by pair-a-noyd · 2003-08-13 15:10 · Score: 1

How will everyone get their 1337 worms, viruses, trojans and other buffer overflows now??

This is a sad day indeed...

Re:(signature reply) by Pharmboy · 2003-08-13 15:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

R: I'll pay you $6
D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes
Who helps the poor?

You left out part of it. It should be "I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve your local schools."

I think you made a typo: It should be:

R: I'll pay you $6
D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve local schools for people who won't get jobs, or are here illegally.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Dang by sef · 2003-08-13 15:11 · Score: 1

This is disappointing. For a long time OE has been the my best choice of mail client on Windows:

fast read/send
fast search (best feature)
imap and exchange
ldap
stable

I've never had luck with Outlook proper. May be time to look at Firebird or others again. - Sef

Re:Dang by dpete4552 · 2003-08-13 15:15 · Score: 1

You can try out the nightlies of Thunderbird here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/nightly/

You can see all the changes as they happen here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/change s.html

--
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

As Microsoft announced an end to Outlook by Siriaan · 2003-08-13 15:12 · Score: 3, Funny

A bright sun shone above the horizon. Songbirds lilted sweetly in lush green trees, bunnies danced across the meadow, and all disease came to an end. A Microsoft spokesperson said in a press conference - "You know folks, from now on I think everything is gonna be ok."

Re:(signature reply) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:12 · Score: 0

You forget the government makes no money itself
R: I'll pay you $6, but I need $10 of that in taxes.
D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $15 of that in taxes

They're doing everyone a favor, really by tkrotchko · 2003-08-13 15:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

They're opening up the market for small, inexpensive email clients. I mean, if the alternative is full-blown office (to get Outlook), or web email, then it seems there's a big hole between the $0, lousy Hotmail interface, and the $400 MS Office interface.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you

Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by pixelgeek · 2003-08-13 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

-- They're opening up the market for small, inexpensive email clients.

Don't think so. All they are doing is trying to move people to Hotmail, AFAIK the basic version of Hotmail is free and if the "email" icon on the Desktop of the default Windows install leads to a personalised Hotmail account based on th info in your MSN Messenger account then I am willing to bet that people will use it...and not go hunting for a third-party app.
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by forkboy · 2003-08-13 15:36 · Score: 1

I think what he's saying is quite a good number of people won't WANT to use hotmail but will still want a decent mail client and can't afford Office. (and aren't interested in pirating it)

Even if this number is "low" enough to be in the hundreds of thousands, that's a market.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by Edmund+Blackadder · 2003-08-13 16:14 · Score: 1

People will use hotmail for a while. But after a while they will get so utterly sick of the spam they will look for alternatives.
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by pixelgeek · 2003-08-13 16:17 · Score: 1

I think we all under-appreciate the minimal requirements of computer users. I don't think that most people use the basic feature of Outlook Express so for them the move from OE to Hotmail would probably be minimal.

If slashdot users can't be bothered to find a better mail client than OE then why would you expect even a small percentage of current OE users to try to find an alternative to Hotmail?
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by shibashaba · 2003-08-13 16:23 · Score: 1

They won't realize it's because there using hotmail. They'll just assume it's normal and go about their lives.

--
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by shibashaba · 2003-08-13 16:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, but what about all the isps? They'll have to set something up for their clients because they won't want them seeing tons of ads for MSN.

--
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by forkboy · 2003-08-13 20:49 · Score: 1

I think you're missing my point. The point being, quite a few people just plain don't like webmail. I can think of several people I know that won't use webmail accounts, and a few of them even use OE. They'd most likely move to Mozilla's standalone mail client. (can't remember the name, I use the unified Mozilla package's mail client)

Not that this is going to be an issue for the next 5 or 6 years anyway. They stopped developing OE, that doesn't mean all the copies out there are just going to stop working. Who knows what the state of email will be in 5 years...maybe we'll be checking it on our TV/telephones like in Bladerunner. =P

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:They're doing everyone a favor, really by sufehmi · 2003-08-13 23:15 · Score: 1

Don't think so. All they are doing is trying to move people to Hotmail, AFAIK the basic version of Hotmail is free and if the "email" icon on the Desktop of the default Windows install leads to a personalised Hotmail account based on th info in your MSN Messenger account then I am willing to bet that people will use it...and not go hunting for a third-party app.

Spot on.

And then they'll be so frustrated with the spam, they'll sign up for the paid service.
Microsoft is indeed VERY clever.

I shudder though at the very thought of people flocking to pay Microsoft for SUCH inferior service.
I'd recommend Fastmail every single time over Hotmail. Spam-free, lightning-quick access, very flexible and robust, and priced fairly.

But hey, Microsoft have been doing it for years now, so I guess they're pretty good at it. :(

This is great news for OSS by Trolling4Dollars · 2003-08-13 15:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

One thing that still tends to suck these days is mail access. With the exception of Evolution and Mozilla Thunderbird, the e-mail experience is really lacking these days. Web mail is nice, but it's still really slow unless you are dealing with proprietary packages. MSN and Hotmail suck compared to what could be if the right combination of technologies were used.

With the departure of Outlook Express, a void will need to be filled and I believe that this opens the door to new alternatives. If there was a project that combined web mail, a mail client and an IM client to produce a seamless user experience no matter which component is used,I think it could blow away anything that MS has to offer. Couple that with a solid backend and a new spam proof protocol and I think e-mail would be revolutionized. As it is e-mail doesn't scale well at all when it comes to content. It should be media rich, but capable of being thinned down to be able to work within a simple text only interface. That's something that is totlaly lacking right now. There's lots of work to be done to turn e-mail into something universaly useful and valuable. Let's take this opportunity to start something now.

--
Un-news

Re:It seems many of the posters missed the last li by Osty · 2003-08-13 15:17 · Score: 1

The full version of Outlook is still supported

"Full version"? You say that as though Outlook Express is "Outlook Lite", based on the same codebase but with fewer features. It's not. The two are completely separate.

A factual error by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:17 · Score: 0

OE supports IMAP and HTTP email (yes! You can get hotmail/msn directly from within OE).

Its really an excellent little mail client.

Another university heard from... by lpret · 2003-08-13 15:23 · Score: 1

Baylor University has IMAP etc. as well as OWA (Outlook Web Access) which is basically webmail off the exchange server.

--
This is my digital signature. 10011011001

Interesting coincidence by ReyTFox · 2003-08-13 15:23 · Score: 1

I decided to go about getting a GOOD e-mail client today for college(previously using Yahoo webmail since I can reach it from anywhere and I don't really care who gets in that, so long as they aren't clever enough to start using it to request passwords to other places...but now I have a new account, so time to shift things around). I soon settled on Moz Thunderbird because I wanted to support the project and I expected it to be a lot more secure than OE.

It is fitting, then, that MS should decide not to support the client I don't want to support.

Re:Interesting coincidence by too_bad · 2003-08-13 16:41 · Score: 1

Exactly my sentiments, after I moved a bunch of my colleages
off of OE to evolution , MS office to crossover office which
pretty much unblocked their laptops to get ready for linux
instead of windows!

--
DO NOT PANIC

Noooo! by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-08-13 15:23 · Score: 1

I guess the number of "Lookout!" jokes will be significantly reduced. :(

All I have to say is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:26 · Score: 0

FINALLY!

Are these your requirements? by lpret · 2003-08-13 15:29 · Score: 1

Is that what makes it your favourite? "It starts quick, has message rules etc, and is easy to use." My friend, any e-mail client worth it's beans can do that. And so much more. I use M2 (with Opera) personally since it's all integrated so nicely into a bitchin browser. But Mozilla has theirs, and there are millions of quicker loading, more features and easier to use programs that OE.

--
This is my digital signature. 10011011001

More "embrace and extend" borg crap by raw-sewage · 2003-08-13 15:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is a stretch, but I think this is another Microsoft ploy to own email: let's kill Outlook Express, then concentrate on getting everyone on Outlook, MSN and/or Hotmail. Unfortunately, between their marketing and obscenely huge cash reserves, they might be able to pull this off. Or at least, let's get an identifiable critical few hooked on these systems and change the standard to Microsoft proprietary. Microsoft would be so happy if it could start to whittle away the number of people not using Microsoft products to read their email.

I wish that a few large, influential companies would stand up to Microsoft and call them on their lame business strategy: closed, proprietary standards that keep everyone else out of the game. Microsoft simply does not compete on innovation. Why doesn't this get more press? Why does the main stream media not criticize Microsoft more often? They appear to be going out of their way to keep data formats and protocols both closed and unnaturally complex just to keep other systems out of the game. I think that alone says that they recognize that their software is not superior!

I work at a large Fortune 100 company and we use Lotus Notes as our groupware. I hate Lotus Notes: it has the worst user interface I've ever encountered, is fairly buggy, and just generally kind of sucks. Everyone at work wishes we'd switch to Outlook! In my mind, that's the only advantage Lotus Notes has: it's not Outlook! That's all Microsoft wants: a few large influential companies to use Outlook so they can play the vendor lock-in card, start changing standards, and have another Office-like monopoly on their hands... but with email.

The Internet Explorer monopoly is scary enough. Now Microsoft is working on email. Microsoft is working very hard at destroying the openness of the Internet; they want to own the Internet.

Re:More "embrace and extend" borg crap by too_bad · 2003-08-13 16:37 · Score: 1

Well, I hope the market takes care of this. Remember this is exactly why MS became so huge in the first place ... their compitetors trying to "embrace and own" ... Someways the more MS does these things blatantly, the more the transition from MS -> open systems can be easy.

--
DO NOT PANIC

Well...crap! by harlows_monkeys · 2003-08-13 15:39 · Score: 1

I work at an anti-virus company. This could reduce demand for our product!

No HTTP mail - no deal. by melted · 2003-08-13 15:42 · Score: 1

There are some 50 million hotmail users out there, and most of them are using OE for Hotmail access. Works like a charm. Hotmail is simply the best free email service I've ever used. What do I have to do now?

Re:No HTTP mail - no deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:47 · Score: 0

Come on fhqwhgads I see you jocking me, trying to play like YOU know ME?
Re:No HTTP mail - no deal. by Drakonian · 2003-08-13 17:40 · Score: 1

Most of them? I'd guess 1%, max. If you want a great free email service try fastmail.fm. It has IMAP support so you can check it with any email client too.

--
Random is the New Order.

Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by mikeage · 2003-08-13 15:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ok... I still use Outlook Express... for one reason. I have several IMAP servers (yes, all over SSL), and in OE, I have them set to syncronize all messages, without having to go offline. I know this is not exactly the main use of IMAP, but I like it-- I don't have to download a message each and every time I view it. No, it's not a speed (bandwidth) issue-- but a latency one. Even over my home network, if it has to hit the server for each message, it's not as fast as if it's cached locally. Evolution doesn't do this, nor does Thunderbird, so far as I can tell. Or do they? And if so, how?

P.S. Please no "feature = bug in OE that I can't find anywhere else" replies. There's enough threads with those already.

--
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?

Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:53 · Score: 1, Informative

In Mozilla/Thunderbird, Account settings... "Offline & Disk Space" - "Make Messages in my inbox available when I am working offline"? Also, right click on an imap folder, "Offline" tab, "Select this folder for offline use."
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by mikeage · 2003-08-13 16:09 · Score: 1

Ok, but then I have to switch to offline mode. That's my point... OE does this automatically (which I suppose may or may not be the "correct" thing to do, but I find it useful).

On another note: Perhaps I'm just missing it, but how do I get thunderbird to hide deleted messages, instead of showing them with a strikethrough?

--
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:21 · Score: 0

I've never noticed an "Offline mode" in Thunderbird. I assumed offline meant... when I was offline, and there was no net connection. And that's how it appears to work, at least when I unplug my connection. All of my messages were available without internet (and a warning about being disconnected from my server).

And, I don't think it can just hide them if they're in the same folder, but in the account options, "server settings" you can make the behavior move it to the trash folder. I'm sure there's some way to hack at the theme to change it though.
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:35 · Score: 1, Funny

Evolution ??
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by mikeage · 2003-08-14 00:42 · Score: 1

And, I don't think it can just hide them if they're in the same folder, but in the account options, "server settings" you can make the behavior move it to the trash folder. I'm sure there's some way to hack at the theme to change it though.

But that's wrong! (I know, so is starting a sentence with but.) I don't WANT to move them to a deleted folder, nor do I want to purge them, I just want them hidden. OE does it, every other mail client does it... putting a line through it does not cut it (no pun intended).

--
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by curious.corn · 2003-08-14 02:11 · Score: 1

Evolution does (actually I found it quite annoying and looked around to disable the feature); perhaps you're tied to MS platform but if you can give Evolution a run on a *NIX workstation.

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by mikeage · 2003-08-14 02:33 · Score: 1

I know... I wanted thunderbird to do it. I use evolution on my desktop at work, where I use Linux exclusively, but at home, my workhorse machines (file servers, ssh, mail) are liunx, while my main machine (because of gaming mostly) gets the real hardware. Yes, I have exceed running, which kinda solves the problem, but I still prefer running applications locally. Thunderbird, of course, has a windows build.

--
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Re:Feature in OE that I can't find in any client by GarfBond · 2003-08-14 03:56 · Score: 2, Informative
I don't know about tbird (haven't really moved my mail over to it yet) but in Mozilla 1.4, you need to do the following:
1. Edit>Mail and Newsgroup Accounts (this is in a different location in tbird, try Tools)
2. Select your account from the list on the left.
3. Expand the options below it, and select "Offline and Disk Space"
4. Under Offline, select either the Inbox or Other Folders option, depending on what you need.
You're on your own to find thunderbird compatible instructions, but it shouldnt be terribly different.

Re:(signature reply) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:44 · Score: 0

And so the political rants continue ... ;)

D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve local schools for people who won't get jobs, or are here illegally.

R: I'll pay $1 to that foreigner we just hired at our new overseas location to take over your job. But in the meantime, I'll pay you $6 to train him to take over your job for the rest of the week.

Defeating key loggers 101 by yerricde · 2003-08-13 15:44 · Score: 1

Don't forget all those wonderful Internet kiosks that have key loggers installed.

Get around key loggers by bringing a laptop computer (even my four-year-old PII 333 MHz laptop can run Mozilla Firebird fast enough after a RAM upgrade), asking for "Internet access over 10BASE-T" rather than "web kiosk access", and connecting to sensitive servers only through an encrypted tunnel technology such as TLS or SSH.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Defeating key loggers 101 by Steven+Blanchley · 2003-08-13 21:58 · Score: 1

Or use the mouse instead. Duh.
Re:Defeating key loggers 101 by cbiltcliffe · 2003-08-14 00:48 · Score: 1

Or use the mouse instead. Duh.

And how, exactly, do you propose I send my user id and password to yahoo to check my email, by only using the mouse?

Duuh.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Defeating key loggers 101 by juhaz · 2003-08-14 01:09 · Score: 1

Well, you copypaste them letter at time from charmap or something!

Not that anyone in their right minds would go trough all that hassle, not to mention would be just as easy as keyboard (if not easier) to sniff as well.
Re:Defeating key loggers 101 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 01:11 · Score: 0

Oh, simple. To enter a username of "bob", you browse to some page with a "b," highlight that "b," copy it, then paste it into your login text box. Repeat for remaining letters. I bet you could work up to a blazing 5 words-per-minute, if you worked at it.

Free backup utility for Outlook Express by Amsterdam+Vallon · 2003-08-13 15:51 · Score: 1, Funny

My friend Steve Cochran just released a new free utility called OE Backup. It will backup everything in OE, including multiple Identities, mail folders, newsgroups, address book and customized Identity settings.

It's incredibly easy to use as well, although I hate Windows and tell Steve this all the time. But, I guess that's why he has a job and I'm just a dirty Linux hippie ;-)

Anyway, youu can back up only selected items, such as rules, much like my Partial Backup procedure, but without having to edit the registry. This is a great tool, and it's free. Manually doing backups is so '90s!

http://www.oehelp.com/OEBackup/Default.aspx

--

Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.

Jobs? by yerricde · 2003-08-13 15:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve local schools for people who won't get jobs, or are here illegally.

People who "won't" get jobs? What about people like myself who have a four-year degree but get turned down everywhere but food service??

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Jobs? by Alan+Partridge · 2003-08-13 23:01 · Score: 0, Troll

Why not start your own business, then? Americans are always boring the rest of the world with their land-of-opportunity crapola.

Face it, the USA is Victorian Britain 2.0.

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:Jobs? by Pharmboy · 2003-08-14 00:33 · Score: 1

People who "won't" get jobs? What about people like myself who have a four-year degree but get turned down everywhere but food service??

I can't explain. Meanwhile, guys like me that do not have a 4 year degree are doing quite well, and turn down opportunities regularly. I guess some companies are more concerned with what you can do instead of where you went to school.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Jobs? by mwood · 2003-08-14 01:56 · Score: 1

"Why not start your own business, then?"

Indeed. See the comment about how most ISPs' email services are insecure. (No TLS) Be the first to offer secure mail transport and own the market!

There are all sorts of little things that the big boys are too lazy to market because they won't make 900% profit in the first 100 hours. Offer those improvements and the money that some are willing to pay for them will become yours.

It's all about control by daffmeister · 2003-08-13 15:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Excellent analysis. Throughout Microsoft's history they have made some moves which seemed strange when viewed through the perspective of simple financial gain (giving away IE for instance) or product offering.

But they always made complete sense when viewed through the perspective of gaining control. Looks like this may be another example.

original link to the story by ilovestuff · 2003-08-13 15:54 · Score: 1

I think the story should link to the original ZDNet Australia article:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0 ,2000048590,20277192,00.htm

Re:original link to the story by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 15:57 · Score: 0

A dingo ate my Outlook Express!

Web-based e-mail isn't for everyone by ziegast · 2003-08-13 15:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

They think webmail is going to be more popular than imap, or pop3 mail boxes.

If Microsoft lets its market share for desktop-based e-mail clients slip, it could be short-sighted.

I use web-based mail at work (iPlanet/SIMS) and web-based mail (Yahoo) at home as my primary mail-reader. I have broadband in both locations and the responsiveness of web-based e-mail conpared to desktop e-mail clients is negligible.

My work-at-home CEO has satellite at home. He can't use the web-based product because the interactive sluggishness from delay and packet loss would kill his productivity. SSH-tunneled POP works great for him because his local e-mail client (Outlook) downloads new e-mail in the background and sends messages out in the background while he is composing/reading mail quickly in the foreground.

When I administered e-mail for a dialup ISP, the primary method our users preferred to access their e-mail was POP to Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger. It is painfully slow to browse through e-mail over a dialup connection. There are still millions of dialup users out there. They are the majority of users on the Internet.

If people use wireless devices in the future, their experience will be more similar to dialup/satellite than broadband, and they'll demand a product that isn't web-based-only. Some of the ideas brought to light by Central or similar technologies could satisfy both broadband/fixed and narrowband/mobile users.

Microsoft makes an excellent user interface for e-mail. They're good at that. Their enterprise/corporate customers may continue to pay for it. Other products like M2, Evolution, and Mozilla will help fill the consumer niche if they open it up. If it weren't for Microsoft's early monopoly bundling tactics vs Netscape Navigator (founded on a "beta/intro is free, production version costs money" business model), we might not have nor expect free browser and e-mail software. We're spoiled. If it weren't for security or playform supportissues, more of us Slashdotters might use Outlook Express.

-ez

PS: I lied. My primary mail reader is MH.

Re:Web-based e-mail isn't for everyone by Vaughn+Anderson · 2003-08-13 17:53 · Score: 1

I have broadband in both locations and the responsiveness of web-based e-mail conpared to desktop e-mail clients is negligible.
After clicking "compose" in Yahoo, just the refreshing of the page on my plenty highbandwidth cable connection is easily 10 times slower than the click of the "compose" button in Mozilla's mail client... how can these 2 be compared in speed?
Also the ease of use of such things as auto-finishing the email address (as I only type about 4 characters for each of every email address I send too) is easily 10 times faster if not more so than using the address book in Yahoo...
Just an aside, I've been using Netscape email client in Communicator since 98' (might be 99, I forget) I've never used Outlook Express or Outlook, and I've never, ever (not even one time) gotten a virus...
Also, yahoo can't force it's corporate spam down my throat with my pop3 account, unlike my anon Yahoo accounts, ugh...
Yahoo and Hotmail have a use for me and most other people, but faster or even close to as fast as a local email client, they are not.
Re:Web-based e-mail isn't for everyone by DashEvil · 2003-08-13 20:44 · Score: 2, Informative

My ISP (http://www.sympatico.ca), offers both webmail and pop3, on the same account.

So I can check to see if I have new email from wherever, and still use pop3 to save it, etc.

--
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
Re:Web-based e-mail isn't for everyone by LordBodak · 2003-08-14 00:15 · Score: 1

My guess is Outlook Express really isn't "going away," just like IE isn't really going away. They'll probably integrate it, or something similar, into the next Windows release and stop distributing the standalone.
Lots of people use Hotmail, and lots use MSN, but even more use neither. They're using their school or ISP accounts... is MS really going to just give up this market and send those users off to Eudora or Mozilla Mail? I doubt it.

--
LordBodak's journal.
Re:Web-based e-mail isn't for everyone by LifesABeach · 2003-08-14 05:30 · Score: 0

If it weren't for security

'security' is kind of important, don't ya think?

Mozilla mail 1.4 by pr0ntab · 2003-08-13 16:01 · Score: 1

I don't know if you've tried it, but I have 1 POP and 2 IMAP servers I connect to with thousands of messages, and it works just fine.

It's a far cry from the days of yore (1.0).

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

Re:Mozilla mail 1.4 by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 17:54 · Score: 1

I don't know if you've tried it, but I have 1 POP and 2 IMAP servers I connect to with thousands of messages, and it works just fine.

I tried Mozilla's mail client and was underwhelmed, but perhaps we have different needs and priorities. If you're happy with it though, congrats on finding an e-mail client that you like.

Invention by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:11 · Score: 0

You forgot guilt and whining. Oh wait...was that the catholics? No, that's right, it was the Jews.

Webmail will be the end of us by useosx · 2003-08-13 16:19 · Score: 1

I hate webmail without POP or IMAP access. All my tech-dumb friends are always asking me how to get their email off the webmail servers when they start to get full. It's a goddamn plague, I tell you. I recently upgraded to an IMAP account. Now that's style...

Re:Comcast doesn't. by symbolic · 2003-08-13 16:25 · Score: 1

Maybe Comcast should get off its hind end and take care of this. But even so...this only deals with the passage of mail between two endpoints. It does nothing for the mail as it sits on the server, waiting to be delivered. And whose to say that a sniffing proxy of some kind can't sit between the SSL decryption point and it's final storage location?

Have your really learned Open Office? by ratfynk · 2003-08-13 16:37 · Score: 1

Open Office has an e-mail full featured client ware if you spend the time learning it. Open Office mail does just about everything you need. It has spell check, integrates with writer, takes any kind of attachment, uses a good address book, (that is not available to VB scripts, thank God) and can sync with a palm. How it integrates with the pocket PC is not something I know about but OO does everything you need very well in one place. It is getting better and better all the time and the best thing is you do not even have to use Windows! Trouble comes when you expect it to run all the stupid .NET functions MS adds to simple e-mail.Things like running flash in your e-mail is just plain stupid. The video candy of MS is the problem, learn to live without it and you will soon find peace on the net. For that matter with the Mozilla client I filter out to trash anything with flash or any animation in it. You can bet the great filters that you can set in Mozilla will soon be available in Open Office! That is the power of OS software it cannot keep how the best features work a secret.

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!

What's their strategy? by ihummel · 2003-08-13 16:38 · Score: 1

What does MS have to gain by not further developing Outlook Express? Do they think that most OE users will by Outlook? Do they think they'll go MSN? Do they not care about losing their monopoly on email? Perhaps they believe that people will still use an outdated version of OE over anything else that's out there, that there isn't any competition. If so, they're being overconfident. This could enable Mozilla to give them some real competition, which would be a Good Thing.

Re:What's their strategy? by too_bad · 2003-08-13 16:45 · Score: 1

MSN/Hotmail -> 100 - 150 spams per day
OE -> Discontinued
Outlook -> $$$$$$

Good strategy bill.

--
DO NOT PANIC

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-08-13 16:41 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:(signature reply) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 16:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

R: I'll pay $1 to that foreigner we just hired at our new overseas location to take over your job

What? Believe me, outsourcing crosses political lines...

In an unrelated story ... by too_bad · 2003-08-13 16:43 · Score: 1

North Korea decided to stop developing their nuclear bomb.

--
DO NOT PANIC

Wha? by Valar · 2003-08-13 16:43 · Score: 2, Funny

says Dan Leach, lead product manager for Microsoft's information worker product management group

Coincidence? I think not. Ok, so there's spelling, but since when have I cared about that?

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games

Newsgroups? by drwtsn32 · 2003-08-13 17:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does this mean MS will finally put newsgroup support in the full Outlook product? About freakin' time.

Re:Newsgroups? by Shaklee39 · 2003-08-14 01:25 · Score: 3, Informative

I beta tested for the new office coming out (2003 they call it) and once again outlook is lacking support for newsgroups. Better luck next time.

good timing by SKPhoton · 2003-08-13 17:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Once the RPC/DCOM vulnerability is released and a worm spreads rapidly through the internet, Microsoft announces it will no longer work on the email client it bundles with its own operating systems. "Microsoft executives are hoping those users will now switch to the full-blown Outlook client (and pay for an Office licence in the process)."

I guess Microsoft isn't taking the joke in the WinBlast virus too seriously. "billy gates why do you make this possible? Stop making money and fix your software!!"

Not just a client, but a protocol is being dropped by babbage · 2003-08-13 17:08 · Score: 5, Informative

As some commenters have noted, while OE certainly can be blamed for a lot of security gaffes, in usability terms it really has been excellent software.

I've never spent much time with the Windows version, but the old MacOS version was superb, and I know a bunch of very savvy tech folks -- people that were generally of the Linux & Free software persuasion -- that swore by OE/Mac as their favorite mail client.

However, it has been obvious for a while that that software probably didn't have a future. Outlook Express was never updated to be a native OSX application, so you had to run it in Classic mode. That was enough to start turning away users, but I understand that even still it's fairly popular.

But I digress.

If you read between the lines here, it's not just OE that's being dropped. Consider this quote from the article:

"IMAP is just not a very rich protocol," Steve Conn, Exchange Server product manager, told ZDNet Australia during the company's Tech Ed conference. "The great majority of people used Outlook Express because they weren't on a LAN environment, and Outlook was just too fat for them."

In other words, Microsoft saw OE as their IMAP client, and so by dropping OE, they are also abandoning the IMAP mail protocol. In spite of what Mr Conn says, IMAP is a very rich protocol: it allows you to maintain multiple mail folders on the server, it allows you to keep your mail client configuration on the server, and in principle it allows you to store arbitrary files on the server.

All of this allows the user to have great mobility: leave the office and you can have all the same data available at home, or at school, or while travelling. All of this, in other words, is open competition for Exchange.

This isn't just abandoning OE, this is vendor lock-in. Microsoft is trying to steer us towards a world where you have two choices for mail access: get a Passport & sign up for MSN Hotmail, or buy a copy of Office and use Outlook to connect to your corporate or ISP provided Exchange server.

There is no room for open protocols in this worldview, and so no room for alternative servers (Sendmail, Postfix, Qmail, Exim) or clients (Mozilla, Thunderbird, Mail.app, Pine, Mutt, Eudora, etc).

The death of an open protocol is the real headline here, but both the journalist & the story submitter seem to have missed it.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

Outlook express = unimpressed by wittace · 2003-08-13 17:10 · Score: 1

Microsoft was battleing offering a full rich version of Outlook along with a stripped down, and highly unsecure Outlook Express. They were faced with the task of providing a client that was stripped down enough as to warrant the cost ($0.00), provide some degree of difference with the full version of Outlook (with a hefty cost) and incorporating security into Express. I think it is a wise move on their part. If however, they see Hotmail or MSN as the equivalent alternatives, there, they are sadly mistaken. Look for the evolution of the POP email to form a hybrid webmail with SSL.

In related news.... by Stinky+Glen20 · 2003-08-13 17:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Stocks in all major Antivirus vendors were down on the news.

CEO's of major Antivirus vendors were unanimous in advising their shareholders that "there's nothing to worry about - there are plenty of other Microsoft products out there..."

Kinda funny... I mentioned this article.... by magores · 2003-08-13 17:21 · Score: 3, Funny

... to a few people at work.

--COO shrugged... Eudora
--CEO shrugged... Eudora
--CTO shrugged... Eudora
--Project Manager #1 Shuddered... (Sky is falling!!!)
--Project Manager #2 shrugged... (But he shrugs at everything, so not sure what it means.)
--IT guys #1 and #2... "Out what? Servers are up, everything running fine. Nothing is Out."

Basically, it seems to be a big, "Yeah. So?"

Indeed by phorm · 2003-08-13 17:24 · Score: 1

Webmail interfaces will end up using SMTP when the actual mail goes out to another server. POP3/IMAP are often also part of the equation, as mail webmailers simply grab from a pop3/IMAP account (squirrelmail uses IMAP).

I'm wondering why an outgoing SMTP server is even needed though. I can telnet straight to my mail recipient and clank out a manual message - no outgoing server required.

Re:Indeed by yummysoup · 2003-08-13 18:05 · Score: 1

I'm wondering why an outgoing SMTP server is even needed though. I can telnet straight to my mail recipient and clank out a manual message - no outgoing server required.

This is probably for simplicity in designing+implementing the email client (which is the webmail server in this case). By using SMTP, the client does not need to perform an MX lookup; try to send the message to the remote host; retry based on failure, including trying lower priority MX hosts (and keeping the message in a queue); handle other errors connecting; etc.

Plus, SMTP servers came first, and it's far easier to plug into existing components.

While we're talking about mail clients.. by ProtonMotiveForce · 2003-08-13 17:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why the hell aren't there any good, modern CypherPunk/Mixmaster/Nym enabled clients out there? The only good one I know of is Jack B Nymble, which is ancient.

I've seriously thought of writing a new one from scratch in Java, but I'm way, way too lazy.

Re:While we're talking about mail clients.. by MonTemplar · 2003-08-15 02:10 · Score: 1

Perhaps because everyone else took off their tin-foil hats a while back... :-)

--
-MT.

then give me Evolution by JW+Troll · 2003-08-13 17:26 · Score: 1

I'm still waiting for a Win32 version of Evolution.
It's a great program, but being tied to Linux limits its possibilities dramatically. When Evo comes to my platform, nobody will care about Outlook at all.

--
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net

outlook express by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 17:33 · Score: 0

Good, never did like those excess stuff they put in outlook anyway.

its better if they go backwards and remove the news, and other things think THINK that one might use ;d

Insightful? You are kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 17:38 · Score: 0

How do you think the mail is transferred between the mailservers? SMTP, maybe? ...genious...

Re:Insightful? You are kidding, right? by finkployd · 2003-08-14 01:27 · Score: 1

How do you think the mail is transferred between the mailservers? SMTP, maybe? ...genious...

First up, when you are sarcastically refering to someone as a genius, it helps to spell it correctly, otherwise it somes across as sadly ironic.

Second, I am fully aware of the fact that SMTP is a plaintext protocol. The solution to this is to encrypt your email using PGP or S/MIME. However, that has NOTHING to do with what protocol you use to connect to the mail server, which is what we were talking about.

Two different issues, two different solutions. Arguably both should be used for total security but they do not have anything to do with each other otherwise.

Finkployd

Cease what development? by ahziem · 2003-08-13 17:40 · Score: 1

What OE development has there been to cease? The new version looks like the last one to me.

Well, they would say that ... by Mostly+a+lurker · 2003-08-13 17:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

"IMAP is just not a very rich protocol," Steve Conn, Exchange Server product manager, told ZDNet Australia

... considering that, bad as the IMAP support in OE is, the IMAP support in Outlook is even worse. If they are going to try to move users onto Outlook, they had better try to build the impression that IMAP is intrinsically bad, not that MS (deliberately or otherwise) has a terrible implementation in their flagship email client.

OT: Mailbox Consolidation? by bucky0 · 2003-08-13 17:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Hey, while we're on they topic of mailboxes and such, I was wondering if anyone had a question to my problem.

I have 3 POP3 accounts, and I'd like to have them all accesable by one IMAP account(i'm back and forth between school and I'd like access to my messages anywhere). I'm using cyrus+procmail+postfix to try and get them to all go neatly into their own subfolders, but it doesn't work. It downloads from the POP boxes ok, but somehow, it's not making it's way to the IMAP box...

Anyone know a solution or something? All of the HOWTO's i've read are a bit vague, and don't work (althouh it's equally possible that I'm an idiot).

Thanks-

--

-Bucky

Re:OT: Mailbox Consolidation? by doon · 2003-08-14 00:34 · Score: 1

I do this for my boxes @ home. Are you using tetchmail? All I do is run fetchmail in daemon mode, and have it deliver to the local boxes. Works like a charm. Not sure if there is a howto or anything, but I am sure a quick google for fetchmail howto might turn up something. You say you download the mail via pop, where on your system does it go. ? Does it go back into your mail spool or wind up in some other folder?

--
To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @
Re:OT: Mailbox Consolidation? by bucky0 · 2003-08-14 15:48 · Score: 1

If I understand you correctly, I think that I'm shooting for something else.

I want to be able to check the mail via an IMAP client. If I type mutt or something and look at the mailstore, I see the messages there, but they don't make it to the IMAP box, if that makes any sense.

Thanks for the help.

--

-Bucky
Re:OT: Mailbox Consolidation? by doon · 2003-08-15 00:55 · Score: 1

Makes sense. What I think is happening if your IMAP servers inbox and your mutt Inbox are not the same place. I had the same problem. What I wound up doing was using procmail to put the mail back in my mail spool.

What I have is fetchmail grabs all the mail in my accounts, and redelivers to the mail server at home. Which runs it throug all the anti spam etc. In procmail I set my default to be /var/mail/doon (you location my vary). I also adjusted pine etc to not copy messages out of the spool so I can use IMAP or pine to read my mail.

--
To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @

Now you tell me! ;-) by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 17:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Tools -> Message Rules -> Mail -> New -> "Where The Message is from the specified account" -> "Move it to the specified folder" ..

Damn! You learned me sumthin' new. I thought "Where The Message is from the specified account" referred to the sender's address (as in "From:").

Think harder. by fasura · 2003-08-13 17:56 · Score: 0

Just about every webmail I've seen has been on an https connection, which is lightyears more secure than pop3 and imap

Shut up and go home. Thats your connection to the interface (read that sentance slowly and try not to move your mouth) not the transport mechanism. The mail (that's the stuff you send and recieve) is transmitted using smtp. It is sent as plaintext, this is unsecure.

--
-- Be careful what you say. Someone might remind you about it another day.

Re:Think harder. by finkployd · 2003-08-14 01:23 · Score: 1

Wow, aren't we bitter and rude.

There are two completly different issues here, one is authentication into the mail server, another is the privacy and authenticity of the email itself.

Now try to keep up with this, it is not complicated:

When I am comparing IMAP, POP, and HTTPS we are talking about the protocol used to connect to the mailserver itself, and how secure it is with regard to your account id and password. This method of connecting has absolutly no relevance to the privacy or integrity of your email once it has left your mail server and it on its way to another. Mail you send with POP, Secure POP, KPOP, IMAP, Secure IMAP, or over webmail via HTTP or HTTPS can be either encrypted or plaintext. The protocol has NOTHING to do with this.

The issue you being up can be solved via either PGP or S/MIME. This again is TOTALLY independant of the protocol used to connect to the mail server.

Up until your post, this thread was only about the protocol used to connect to the mail server, not about the integrity/privacy of the email itself as it traverses SMTP servers. I agree both issues need addressed but they have nothing to do with each other.

Finkployd

Unfitting Name by Icephreak1 · 2003-08-13 17:56 · Score: 1

More like Outlook Exploit.

- IP

Re:Not just a client, but a protocol is being drop by Jman314 · 2003-08-13 17:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The death of an open protocol is the real headline here, but both the journalist & the story submitter seem to have missed it.

Just to make it clear, I did notice Microsoft's casual dismissal of IMAP, but I didn't mention it for journalistic reasons. I reported the facts; this discussion inteprets them. I do agree, however, that stopping OE development is stupid and replacing it with Hotmail is really stupid, but I left that for the reader.

So you see, there can be journalistic neutrality on Slashdot!

Feeding the Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 17:59 · Score: 0

I thought your post was pure stupidity, so I had to put you in your place with an explanation.

And now they want to leverage their monopoly on Windows to get people to use Hotmail and MSN -- two Microsoft online services that compete with other companies' offerings.

How exactly are they leveraging their monopoly to do this? Windows doesn't come with anything related to Hotmail or MSN, idiot.

Windows XP DOES come with links for MSN and MSN explorer on the Desktop. It also asks people to get a PASSPORT account constantly until you turn it off-- which is the same thing as a HOTMAIL account. Windows Messenger (a version of MSN Messenger) is also integrated with XP and nags you until you tell it to go away & stop loading with OE. This is XP which currently tries to trick users into getting a hotmail account and convince you to try MSN.

The POINT, if you'd bothered to read it, is that Microsoft intends to INTEGRATE Hotmail with the NEXT version of Windows along with several MSN services. They're using their Operating system (Windows) as LEVERAGE to convince users to use thier hotmail and MSN services -- probably by annoying them with popup messages, wizards, and such until they do & possibly by removing outlook from future versions of windows so that they have no choice but to use hotmail or download another e-mail client.

There was a time when "probably less than 1/4 of computer users" chose Internet Explorer as their browser, but Microsoft's bundling of that browser changed that.

Exactly. Neither MSN or Hotmail are bundled, so they're irrelevant, and you're completely incapable of thought.

MSN Explorer and MSN Messenger are bundled with Windows XP & so is an annoying message to get you to get a passport account (Hotmail) in order to use them.

No they are not. The average consumer does not know where to find another mail client. They don't know how to install it. They don't know how to configure it. They think that 99% of the software downloaded over the net has viruses in it or is part of some clever ploy to steal their credit card number.

You're completely ignorant of the common user. Most common users I know are smarting than you, even, because at least they're capable of rational thought.

Actually, he's right on target. Most people are scared to click on anything they don't understand. Most don't know what all the programs on their computer do or what the names of them are. More than half of normal computer users wouldn't know how to download and install a program. We're talking all ranges of people from ages 14 to 70. Those that are over 40 barely understand the internet and how it works. Those that are under 20 rarely know how to install programs & those in-between are sort-of knowledgable, but not very many can do things without calling their friend who's "good with computers" to fix things for them or tell them how to do things.

Most people use AOL. AOL is not owned by MS.

THIS made me laugh. Most people DO NOT USE AOL. AOL has had a shrinking marketshare since broadband came out. AOL is the internet w/ training wheels & most people get rid of it once they figure that out. Especially since they can get about the same service for less $ elsewhere. Most people I know that used AOL are now on Roadrunner w/ Time Warner. A few are with cheap 'net services like NetZero b/c roadrunner doesn't reach them yet.

But your last sentence makes no sense anyway in the context of this discussion. The point of this discussion is that Microsoft is discontinuing OE and is, instead, pushing future Windows users to sign up for MSN/Hotmail. So there won't be a version of OE, whether it sucks or not.

OE was bundled, that's how it's relevant to your post. MSN and Hotmail are services, so can't be bundled, so they aren't relevant to this discussion, so your post obviously isn't, either.

While you are somewhat correct... MSN and

ZDnet have been misinformed by Sandi_H · 2003-08-13 18:01 · Score: 1

The story is not true; its based on a misunderstanding/lack of information on the part of the person/s quoted. Check out main OE group on the microsoft.public servers for more info.

It's about TIME! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 18:06 · Score: 0

And so the sun sets on one of the greatest security risks in the history of computering! Now, if only IIS and then Windows would be next!

This is an evangelism opportunity by hirschma · 2003-08-13 18:06 · Score: 2, Informative

A friend of mine decided to toss Outlook Express a couple of weeks ago (this headline makes him feel better about that decision). He asked me what to use.

I steered him towards Mozilla. He's very happy with it.

Even more important is the fact that he cannot believe how good something FREE is. Yeah, free as in beer, but he gets the Free thing too.

My guess is that he'll be a lot more receptive to a Linux desktop in the future. Mozilla makes a good preview of Free software.

Shooting themselves in the foot by The+Wicked+Priest · 2003-08-13 18:08 · Score: 1

Are they trying to put themselves out of business, or what? For a long time, Microsoft has been making moves that alienate its customers; but telling them all to move to Hotmail/MSN has got to be the worst yet. I can't see people standing for that. Maybe I'm overly optimistic here, but I think this could be the event that finally makes it unambiguously clear to the average user that M$ isn't on their side.

And such timing, too...

--
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot by Da+VinMan · 2003-08-13 20:23 · Score: 1

I guess I see where you're coming from, but I think your reaction is over the top a bit. Most casual users that I know have switched to a server side email solution of some sort. They're using Hotmail, Yahoo, or their ISP web email account to read their email. So most people aren't even going to miss OE. For us power users, OE doesn't cut it; it's Outlook or else. So that means the market is pushing OE into a decline anyway. So, why support it?

I do think that Microsoft is deluding themselves though if they think that this is going to drive up sales of Microsoft Office. Anyone who is currently satisfied with OE will probably be satisfied with web mail.

--
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!

Re:Not just a client, but a protocol is being drop by babbage · 2003-08-13 18:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

But dropping the protocol is the story!

If things do go according to my interpretation, then the relevance of open protocols like IMAP, POP, and SMTP will be diminished, and the end result will be that all non-Microsoft mail software (both client & server) will be crowded out. This is a doomsday scenario, and I don't expect it to be quite that bad, but it seems obvious to me that this is what Microsoft is pushing for.

I think it would have been fair to press them on this angle in the article, as the significance of this is far greater than the mere discontinuation of a particular piece of software. But it sounds like you did put some thought into this, so I'll accept that it was your call to make... :-)

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

Why? by eWarz · 2003-08-13 18:12 · Score: 1

Why use thunderbird?

Re:Why? by eWarz · 2003-08-13 18:19 · Score: 1

Asleep at the wheel, should read "why use outlook?"

Woohoo! by Vampyre_Dark · 2003-08-13 18:14 · Score: 1

Thank you Microsoft. This is really a step in the right direction. Now we can move on to bigger and better things, like halting development of IE and the Windows OS.

Thank you. by fmaxwell · 2003-08-13 18:20 · Score: 1

I just wanted to say "thanks" for the effort you put into that post -- even if you think that, because I am 42, that I "barely understand the internet and how it works." ;-) Does using the Arpanet back in '78 count?

I think that we were composing replies at the same time as we hit many of the same points that the rude little troll didn't understand. Your post was intelligently worded and quite effective. If you weren't posting anonymously, you'd be on my Slashdot "friends" list. Thanks again.

In other words... by fupeg · 2003-08-13 18:20 · Score: 1

All your email are belong to us?

Seriosuly, move everything to the server and let people interact via thin client? Doesn't that sound more like Sun than MS?

Good! by SquireCD · 2003-08-13 18:21 · Score: 1

I'm glad they're finally going to ditch Outlook Express. Being a Linux user, I know this is blasphemous to say -- but I actually like Outlook but I never understood Outlook Express ... It has half the features of Outlook, it eats just as much memory and they both come preinstalled with windows! Why would anyone want to use Express?!

isn't this a non event? by trystanu · 2003-08-13 18:22 · Score: 1

i don't understand this story - it seems to be a major non-event.

I've been using Outlook Express for a couple of years and I've never seen an upgrade during that time. I'm happy with the feature set it has now so what's the big deal?

It's not like email is changing and so won't be supported by Outlook Express any more. In many ways I'd prefer Microsoft to admit it's stable so that they won't muck with it.

It's kinda like road engineers saying "we've finished tarmac and we're not going to update it anymore. it seems stable."

Re:isn't this a non event? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 18:32 · Score: 0

If there are holes in the road, they patch them. OE won't be getting any patches, even if needs them. Not to mention it's not a great road in a lot of ways.

meh by mrdisco99 · 2003-08-13 18:34 · Score: 1

Oh sure. Nobody really needs a simple POP/IMAP client, right?

I guess that means Eudora will be getting more business.

--

+++
NO CARRIER

Re:Good chews for Evolution! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 18:35 · Score: 0

Choke it down, byteboyz ... folks use *nix like any other OS --- to get a job done, not as a place to cool their thumb.

Based on common street corner marketing strategy. by sn0wcrash · 2003-08-13 18:35 · Score: 1

This is an advanced version of the marketing the guy on the conroer downtown uses. He calls it "the first one is always free".

Re:(signature reply) by CrowScape · 2003-08-13 18:46 · Score: 1

Well, since Republicans aren't in the habit of giving out cash to individuals (corporations, on the other hand...)

R:I'll give you defense and take $4 and your 4th and 14th Amendments
D:I'll pay you $10 and take $15 and your 1st and 2nd Amendments

--
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.

Short of cash ? by Rayder · 2003-08-13 18:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

What really happens is that Outlook does not generate any kind of revenu stream for Microsoft, while Hotmail does, spam, advertisment, extra space, and msn are a wealthy influx of money for Microsoft.
Look for more stringent conditions on hotmail usage in the near future.

you say that like it's a bad thing..... by gnuguru · 2003-08-13 19:07 · Score: 1

If only they'd bury IE as well.

Gnu

Do we need an Outlook Express upgrade ? by EqualSlash · 2003-08-13 19:14 · Score: 1

All the protocols POP,SMTP,IMAP are going to be the same. So I feel most people are not going to switch to another EMail client. They will just continue using Outlook Express 6.0. I have seen people still using OE 5.0 and who don't want to upgrade as they are satisfied with it.

They will still use Outlook Express for the next 4-5 years till they install a Microsoft OS that won't run OE.

But in 4-5 years, I wonder whether most people will still be using EMails for communication. I foresee Mobile Gadgets with Advanced Text Messaging facilities that will put Email Communication to shame.

Cause and effect by Stonent1 · 2003-08-13 19:42 · Score: 1

Cause : Major virus hits the internet
Effect: Outlook Express development gets wiped.

Does this mean an end to viruses as we know it?

Re:It seems many of the posters missed the last li by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 19:45 · Score: 0

Actually, they share the same backend and even some of the configuration dialogs.

A good wizard is a valuable tool, in my experience by Kjella · 2003-08-13 19:47 · Score: 1

Don't you think it would be better if they wrote straight forward apps for everyone so you didn't need wizards in the first place?

The need for "wizards" is a sign of usability problems.

Let's say I have an application that needs to set settings ABCDEFGHI (say e.g. pop server, smtp server, username, password, folder setup, signature and so on.) The first thing user needs to find out, is that these actually are the steps (ABCD? ABCDE? there's more?) to set up, which may not be obvious at all if you can also set the exotic options JKLMNOPQURST.

Having a wizard that walks you through the "normal" steps (and keeps sane defaults so you don't have to set every damn setting in the book) is a good thing.

On the other hand, you should also have the following "quicksteps" for tech users. "Set new smtp server=newsmtp.domain.com" (only step D) and "Set smtp server port = 5654, Set authentication method=X.something certificate" that wouldn't be part of any normal set of steps, but should be configurable somewhere in the menus.

You can emulate wizards by having a "simple" menu, and then "advanced" menu, but it's still the same basic problem. No program that I know of is "straight forward" if you give them every possible setting that could be tweaked. So you present them only with those that it is likely that they want to change, and leave the rest to defaults. That's what wizards do as well.

To use a car analogy, to make a car start, you just need to turn the key. But if you set all the engine tunings right, you could probably get better performance (and screw up bad too). Tell me, how do you make a start-up routine that is both straight forward and powerful enough for both Joe Sixpack and an auto mechanic? You don't. You let Joe Sixpack turn the key and make the "wizard" set the engine defaults, while the auto mechanic can adjust the timings and whatnot. You just can't make both happy with the same procedure, no matter how "perfect" you try to make it.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Tough Crowd. by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-13 19:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ouch I didn't realize that many moderators used OE.

But seriously folks, I've been fighting pitched battles to keep our place off of Outlook/OE and Exchange. For reasons technical, logistical, and financial.

One of the big claims that users have is "well, Outlook Express is built in. Why can't I use it?" Because

It has a nasty set of default values that clobber our IMAP server
Every email worm out there is designed to pull from it's address book.
It has a tendency to take a complete dump on your settings stored in your roaming profile
The address book has a habit of spontaneously combusting on our network.

That's why.

Now they no longer have the "It's built in" excuse.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:Tough Crowd. by jdgreen7 · 2003-08-14 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Minor nitpick:
Every email worm out there is designed to pull from it's address book
OE doesn't have an object model to be able to programatically retrieve the address book. Outlook definetly does, but OE does not. The most effective worms/viruses for OE were ones that were able to attach themselves to all outgoing messages undetected. None of them (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) were able to email everyone in your address book.

Blimey by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 20:01 · Score: 0

Do you have trouble forming a metaphor! How in the world is a mechanic anything like a wizard?

Funny, try telling that to the 27k ppl at our Uni by Kjella · 2003-08-13 20:06 · Score: 1

Remember, this is for end/home users, not for power users.

They have long time storage of attachments and mail (60mb/user quota)

They do have multiple accounts (I got one "general" account, and one from two different institutes.

Rich features? Filters are good enough to kill most spam. I can move them to different folders to keep them sorted (schoolmates/friends/staff/etc.). That's good enough for me.

HTML vs. text? This is the only uh-oh. On the other hand, I think the mail service rips out any scripting code/most viruses in the messages anyway, before it reaches either webmail, pop or imap. The webbugs will still load, but they're not directly dangerous.

Personally, I find that webmail has been working just fine for me, then again my requirements are primarily accessability (sit down at terminal/at home/with laptop, log in) where webmail is as good as any.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:(signature reply) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 20:09 · Score: 0

What, you believe hospitals and local schools are turning away the children of citizens who are actively employed?

I especially like your "won't get jobs" bit, in the "Ha ha I have a job and being made redundent or unable to find employment will never, ever happen to me!" sort of way. I believe there are a couple of million unemployed people right now who had the exact same attitude as you before the recession.

Still, it'll never happen to you. Right?

Notepad by starX · 2003-08-13 20:13 · Score: 1

Well as long as they continue their Notepad development, I'll be a happy man.

Re:Notepad by MonTemplar · 2003-08-15 02:07 · Score: 1

You still use Notepad? That's lame. Everyone knows that Wordpad is the choice for the power user! :-)

MT.

--
-MT.
Re:Notepad by starX · 2003-08-18 17:45 · Score: 1

I use Notepad in so far as I use windows on computers that I don't have install perms on. I do remember a nifty alternative to note pad called edit pad that I used back in my pre-linux days, it was basically notepad on caffeine (tabbed windows being its big selling pojnt), but lacking any of the excesses of their other software. You can keep your fancy fonts and other excesses of the Eunoch Word program, real power users work in ASCII :)

Almost forgot Hushmail.com by gad_zuki! · 2003-08-13 20:14 · Score: 1

Its still free and does 2048-bit encryption from hushmail user to hushmail user. Now that's secure webmail. PC mag review here

Re:Not just a client, but a protocol is being drop by LordSah · 2003-08-13 20:28 · Score: 1

Microsoft is trying to steer us towards a world where you have two choices for mail access: get a Passport & sign up for MSN Hotmail, or buy a copy of Office and use Outlook to connect to your corporate or ISP provided Exchange server.

*sigh* Yes, Hotmail and Outlook are the two Microsoft mail choices in the post-OE world. You're still free to use whatever non-MS client you want.

they are also abandoning the IMAP mail protocol

Outlook supports IMAP, no problem. The copy of Outlook I'm running right now talks to three servers simulateneously: my Exchange server at work, Hotmail, and the IMAP server provided by my ISP.

Exchange also supports IMAP, so you can point your favorite IMAP client (OE included) to it for your mail needs.

Death of IMAP indeed.

Re:It seems many of the posters missed the last li by LordSah · 2003-08-13 20:39 · Score: 1

They both use MAPI as the middle layer between the client and server. They are totally disparate otherwise.

Recent versions of Eudora, AOL and Netscape Messenger also utilize MAPI.

Oh yeah, email will be dead in 5 years. by TCaM · 2003-08-13 21:01 · Score: 1

And dont forget the flying cars.

Losing Perfectly-good Protocols by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 22:05 · Score: 0

It seems that yet another nice, machine-oriented protocol suite is going to get sucked into "the web". No longer will people be able to choose their own email client: instead they will have to put up with whatever atrociously bad HTML interface their provider has for them today.

The web will cause the death of the Internet as a network and the birth of it as yet another consumer brainwashing medium. Count me out. The day everyone forgets that email clients are used to read and send email is the day I'm out of here.

I'm confused by EmagGeek · 2003-08-13 22:28 · Score: 1

I thought they stopped developing OE a long time ago?

Mixed emotions... by Millennium · 2003-08-13 22:28 · Score: 1

...on one hand, OE was quite possibly the single most effective vector for worms ever, and this alone makes its demise cause for rejoicing.

However, as others here have mentioned, read between the lines. This is yet another attempt by Microsoft to Own The Net, this time by undermining IMAP. In fact, this time they're not even trying to disguise that fact, having been emboldened by successfully buying their way out of the DOJ suit. Forgive me if I fail to see that as a Good Thing.

got booed? where? by fantomas · 2003-08-13 22:30 · Score: 1

which lecture were you at? are the lecture notes online?

Newsgroups? by AndroidCat · 2003-08-13 22:58 · Score: 1

What about newsgroups? Is MS planning on shifting newsgroup functions to Outlook or are they planning to drop support completely?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

So, guess what will happen next ? by sufehmi · 2003-08-13 23:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Can anyone guess what will happen next?

My guess is something like this:

User clicked on email icon on desktop
The browser tried to load Hotmail.com
The user hasn't got any Internet account. So IE "offered" him/her to sign up with MSN
User sign up with MSN
User immediately presented with his/her own mailbox in Hotmail.
After 4 weeks of being spammed, suddenly user was offered help from Microsoft "to be spam-free" (among others) "by signing up to the Hotmail premium service"
User very happy at the help offer, and sign up instantly
Microsoft saves money on OE development
Microsoft get money from MSN and Hotmail signups

Scary.

Outlook IMAP = ICRAP by lordDallan · 2003-08-13 23:24 · Score: 0

Outlook Express is hardly the greatest mail client. But it was pretty good at IMAP. On the other hand Outlook 2000/XP is kind of shitty at IMAP.

Of course IMAP is open, standards-based mail, so what the fuck does Bill care if it goes to hell. And I'm supposed to use what in exchange, MSN, Hotmail, or an Exchange server? Give me a fucking break!

And how easy is it going to be to move any of this "new breed" of mail accounts to another platform. It's probably going to suck. Oh well.

Gnus does that as well by Per+Abrahamsen · 2003-08-13 23:29 · Score: 1

Gnus to treat various webmail providers just like another mail souce (like pop3, imap or a unix mailbox), and treat webboards just like another news server (like nntp).

Advertising and Banners by sh0rtie · 2003-08-13 23:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe they are dropping it because users wont accept advertising in their email client (OE did for 1 version but was quickly dropped perhaps people complained?) but if its on the web (in a browser) they can advertise all they like (look at the mess that what they call hotmail now)
then they can get advertisers to focus on associating users email accounts with user names and all that lovely personal information (courtesy of your "msn wallet(TM)" and "msn passport(TM)", tie that to your machines GUID and msn's cookie stealing exploits (notice hotmail.com does not exist anymore and is now a msn subdomain) and voila , you have WindowsXP 2004 marketing machine where you are not the customer any longer, you are the product and you will even hand over 299$ (cost of XP) for the privilege while assigning all your IP rights to them and their "partners".

Microsoft isnt a software company, its a marketing company that creates software.

not that it will affect me or you but you have to feel sorry for the sheep that have no idea whats going on.

cheers

Happy news! by Per+Abrahamsen · 2003-08-13 23:33 · Score: 1

I have never used OE, but I have suffered the poorly formatted and overly long messages that OE appear to encourage. Not to mention getting zillions of mail viruses from OE users who do not know how to protect themselves.

Maybe OE is a good client for the experienced user who know how to use it, but in the hands of the inexperenced masses it become a menace to society.

Release the source! by chronos82 · 2003-08-13 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I know it very unlikely they would, but it would be very cool if they did, what the Open Source community could do with it would be great, iron out bugs, add functionality etc....

Anyone want to send an email to Bill and ask nicely?

Saw this coming... by hankaholic · 2003-08-13 23:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

...well, almost.

A few days ago when the Paul Graham article was posted to the frontpage, I was thinking about the fact that MS hasn't implemented Bayesian filtering (or any powerful filtering) into OE.

The three possibilities I came up with were:

MS wanted to give Hotmail/MSN a competitive edge over other ISPs and mail services.

MS didn't consider it worth the money to add Bayesian filtering to OE.

MS is using Hotmail as a testbed for various versions of filtering software; by making changes and observing user behaviour, they could determine whether people generally agreed with the filters, thus roughly gauging their effectiveness. Since changing source on a central server is a faster method of deploying updates than forcing users to require a new client, Hotmail is the perfect place to test new filtering schemes.

Honestly, I thought that either the first or the third was true. Here, it turns out that the first and the second are true.

I wonder what ISPs will be left to do? I suppose they'll either have to seek out a cheap/free mail client for Windows, or switch to webmail.

--
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!

I use OE, but not for email by psyclo · 2003-08-14 00:19 · Score: 1

What about those of us who just use OE for NNTP access? I use Eudora for email, and it works great there, but OE is a convenient newsgroup client. In this instance, it appears that Microsoft is actually encouraging 3rd party vendors. Now, I get to try out all of the other newsgroup clients out there. Many are free, but someone might get a few bucks from me.

Thanks, Microsoft!

--
=======================
Psyclo, the dark night.
Mike, the computer geek.

Re:(signature reply) by Pharmboy · 2003-08-14 00:40 · Score: 1

I especially like your "won't get jobs" bit, in the "Ha ha I have a job and being made redundent or unable to find employment will never, ever happen to me!" sort of way. I believe there are a couple of million unemployed people right now who had the exact same attitude as you before the recession.

Still, it'll never happen to you. Right?

No, it HAS happened to me. At 38 years old, I have worked for more than a few companies. Some, I quit. A couple went out of business. I have even been fired. But I have never seen an unemployment check, partially due to the fact that I am motivated enough to keep looking, live modest enough that I don't get behind in my bills, and have enough self respect that I WILL take a job that is "beneath" me rather than take Govt. charity.

Not everyone is so "lucky", but most the unemployeed people I know look at it as a paid vacation while the checks are coming in. If you are not looking everyday 8 hours a day (same as you would work) then expect no pity from me. Been there, did that.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Changed priorities by tprime · 2003-08-14 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

The idea that you could get your buggy, insecure software for FREE with the purchase of the OS was too much for the Microsoft brass. You need to pay to have your PC vulnerable. Basically what this gets down to is that too many casual users were opting NOT to purchase Outlook as their POP3 mail clients in favor of, the stripped down but functional, Outlook Express. I expect to see an inexpensive (relatively speaking) stand-alone Outlook being actively marketed to fill the void in the future.

--
http://www.tomandemily.com

Outlook Exp vs. Outlook by acegik · 2003-08-14 00:42 · Score: 1

Well Outlook express was just a very thin light version of its big brother Outlook any way. I think outlook exp didnt add anything new to what exist in the market and it will be better if they continue in developing Outlook.

--
Dont just mail it - Maileet

mailto: by kisrael · 2003-08-14 00:44 · Score: 1

Great, now I'll click on mailto:s and be taken to the hotmail site...

--
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death

No more M$ newsreader then? by sproketboy · 2003-08-14 00:46 · Score: 1

LookOut has no news reader. LOL!

Re:No more M$ newsreader then? by Razzious · 2003-08-14 01:48 · Score: 1

Exactly my question....

What I find amazing is if you have OE installed and add outlook, if you try to access newsgroups it opens OE. The stupid thing is it then says "Outlook Express is not currently set as your default contacts manager, would you like to make it default now?"

or something stupid like that.

--
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
Re:No more M$ newsreader then? by Nick+Watkins · 2003-08-14 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

What is even more amazing is that if you install Outlook and you do not have OE installed, Outlook will automatically install it. You have to have the entire OE application installed to only use the news reader.

Oh well, I guess disk space is cheap.

Why do i not blame them? by Eudial · 2003-08-14 01:00 · Score: 1

Who would continue development on such a bloated, buggy and virus-infested application anyway?

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!

Praise the Lord for in his allmight he shows mercy by Qbertino · 2003-08-14 01:01 · Score: 1

Halleluja!
At last one of the crappiest pieces of software ever concieved by the human mind goes the way it should have 7 years ago.
Outlook (Express) is responsible for a whole generation of mass users not grasping the most basic concepts of Email commuication and wasting our time and productivity with 'fullquote below' replys (an Outlook invention and default), shoddy HTML Mails, broken Emailthreads and viruses and worms bringing down the internet.
This is nothing less than good riddance at last. I think Microsoft should be held liable for the timewaste I put up with while dealing with Outlooks misbegotten way of dealing with the email process and 'What's an Emailprogramm?'-Outlook-N00bs not wanting to see the light.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

No more Outhouse Express???? by killergreen · 2003-08-14 01:03 · Score: 0

How the crap are we supposed to get our macro viruses to propogate now? Are they gonna integrate it as a "feature" in Word? Hope they do something to remedy this obvious oversight on their part. Tracking down viruses keeps me employed. My next post may be "Micro$oft cost me my job!"

--
Funny how the monitor has a brightness knob, but the users don't get any smarter. >:-)

Step in the right direction by bathmatt · 2003-08-14 01:29 · Score: 1

Now, if they just stop producing outlook, IE, office WMP and all the rest we would be set....

Best free email service...? by juhaz · 2003-08-14 01:31 · Score: 1

Hotmail would be more accurately described as best free SPAM service.

Thunderbird's bayesian filtering could in theory make it at least somewhat usable, with web and/or OE interface you might as well be looking at crap coming from /dev/urandom, around 1 mail in thousands spams ratio doesn't make finding the real stuff very easy.

42 spam-mail in 1 Min by drmaxx · 2003-08-14 01:33 · Score: 1

About a year ago I was dumb enough to open a hotmail account. Answered all the questions, chose a login and password, logged out and logged back in immediately. There were already 42 Spam e-mail waiting for me! Two days later I had something over 200 e-mails (Spam, Spam, Spam....)! There need some seriouse improvements on hotmail if they want to use that as a main e-mail client!

Re:42 spam-mail in 1 Min by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 04:11 · Score: 0

About a year ago I was dumb enough to open a hotmail account. Answered all the questions, chose a login and password, logged out and logged back in immediately. There were already 42 Spam e-mail waiting for me! Two days later I had something over 200 e-mails (Spam, Spam, Spam....)! There need some seriouse improvements on hotmail if they want to use that as a main e-mail client!
BS. I've had a hotmail account for 6 months that hasn't been used for anything, I've never sent out the address to anyone or used it on any online forms. To date that account has received about 10 messages all from Hotmail about new services, don't let your account freeze that sort of thing.
If you got 200 spam in one day on a new account you or someone else used that address somewhere.

Outlook Express != Outlook by Junks+Jerzey · 2003-08-14 01:36 · Score: 1

Lots of confusion here, I see.

Outlook Express is the freebie email client and newsreader that comes with Windows. This is what's going away.

Outlook is the corporate email client that's used at tens of thousands of large businesses. This is NOT going away. All of the Outlook-targeted email worms are still going to work.

OE has no free spellcheck by javajeff · 2003-08-14 01:39 · Score: 2, Informative

You have to buy Microsoft Office, Word, and maybe Works to get a spellcheck. If you do not own any other Microsoft products, the spellcheck will not be functional. Furthermore, it states this information in the OE help.

Re:Attention ungrateful fuckers: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 01:48 · Score: 0

Jews also invented Christianity.

Re:To all my users... by cHiphead · 2003-08-14 01:48 · Score: 1

Gee that sounds like the behaviour of.... a...
monopoly.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

It's been an orphan for a while now... by jliverse · 2003-08-14 01:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

After my internship @ Microsoft Redmond, I went back for a full-time interview with a couple different groups. My first interviewer asked the "So which products do you like?" question. I immediately said 'Outlook Express!', since I was using it religiously at the time. (It really is one of the more elegant pieces software ever to come out of the Pacific Northwest.) Later, they took me up to see someone else. It was the Program Manager for Outlook Express. ('The Godfather!') As of 1999 (or early 2000), there was only one guy. He was really cool and smart and all and I remember his eyes lit up when I mentioned that sometimes people just want a new version with better UI and graphics. That was a big part of his job, I guess. It didn't seem like there was any interest company-wide at that point (four years ago) to do anything else to Outlook Express, depite the fact that jillions of people use it every day. He implied that some of the crap features (like the Ivy/Party templates or whatever) were pushed by upper management and no one used it. :)

I'm not terribly surprised that they're forgoing future development, but I hope they don't drop it in favor of some .NET-enabled solution. As far as Microsoft software goes, it was one of the best. Here's to you, Outlook Express.

Perl! Re:Good news for Evolution! by SpikeSpiff · 2003-08-14 01:54 · Score: 1

"two modes of operation" like what you're suggesting is demonstrably not a good thing.

Where are all my Perl zealot friends? There is more than one way to do it!

--
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Re:Perl! Re:Good news for Evolution! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-08-14 06:38 · Score: 1

Where are all my Perl zealot friends? There is more than one way to do it!

Yep, and anyone who's ever had to maintain Perl code wishes there was only one... ;-)

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Examples of Monopoly Power? by nurb432 · 2003-08-14 01:56 · Score: 1

Saturate the market with your 'free' sofware, and once you have control, cripple the product ( a result of stopping development ) and offer only a 'pay' replacement.

Where else will you go?

( yes i know there are alternatives, but for most people out there they will just go with what is fed them as they dont know about the choices available. )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

...migrating Hotmail from FreeBSD? by MS · 2003-08-14 01:57 · Score: 1

our investment in the consumer space is now focused around Hotmail and MSN

Does this imply, Microsoft will finally switch Hotmail fully to WindowsXX, migrating the backend database from Oracle-Solaris and the rest of the webservers from Apache-FreeBSD to a MS-Win2K/MS-IIS/MS-SQL solution?

For those who don't know: Hotmail is still running on FreeBSD with Apache for Webserving and Oracle on Sun-boxen for the database. Have a look here for prove!

ms

Re:...migrating Hotmail from FreeBSD? by MonTemplar · 2003-08-15 01:57 · Score: 1

Which site listing are you looking at? That link brings up 893 matches. The stats for www.hotmail.com show it running Windows 2000 and IIS 5.0 .

(Some of the other matches look like either jokes or traps to try and harvest passwords from the clueless, by the way).

I'm not suggesting that you're trolling, but I've no idea which of those 893 are the actual Hotmail back-end systems.

MT.

--
-MT.
Re:...migrating Hotmail from FreeBSD? by MS · 2003-08-15 09:41 · Score: 1

Most of the ad.law.* servers (usually serving the graphics and advertisement parts of the Web-Interface) are running Apache on FreeBSD.
ad.law11.hotmail.com
ad.law14.hotmail.com
The backend is not visible from the Internet, but it is known running on a pool of Sun Enterprise Servers (E4500). Microsoft itself never stated, they migrated Hotmail "fully" to Windows - they simlpy migrated most of the most-visible front-end Webservers (which is also clear by reading their migration-papers).
:-)
ms

this can only be a beginning... by multi+io · 2003-08-14 02:06 · Score: 1

...it would be sad if they stopped there. I propose the natural next step for them should be to kill their server product line :o).

WebMail requries a server by nurb432 · 2003-08-14 02:07 · Score: 1

At least with a local email clent you dont have to have use more resources at your host's site..

You have to have something to run the web app on.

Its also one more thing to break.

Sometimes web mail the right solution, but not as the *only* choice in the future..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Not just a client, but a protocol is being drop by wfberg · 2003-08-14 02:07 · Score: 2, Funny

"IMAP is just not a very rich protocol," Steve Conn, Exchange Server product manager, told ZDNet Australia during the company's Tech Ed conference. "The great majority of people used Outlook Express because they weren't on a LAN environment, and Outlook was just too fat for them."

In other words, Microsoft saw OE as their IMAP client, and so by dropping OE, they are also abandoning the IMAP mail protocol. In spite of what Mr Conn says, IMAP is a very rich protocol: it allows you to maintain multiple mail folders on the server, it allows you to keep your mail client configuration on the server, and in principle it allows you to store arbitrary files on the server.

But it's not as rich as, let's say, MAPI.. And by "rich" I mean that IMAP isn't bloated, and everyone can write clients that use it! There are no proprietary secret extensions! That sucks!

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty

And others can't? by spineboy · 2003-08-14 02:16 · Score: 1

Last time I looked I was using Kmail, Evolution and Mozilla to do that. Mozilla has been pretty good at recognizing spam too and rejecting it.

--
..........FULL STOP.

Re:Examples of Monopoly Power? yep! by mabhatter654 · 2003-08-14 02:25 · Score: 1

This is exactly what they're doing.

IE hasn't been updated in years...all the cool new stuff is in MSN [tabbed browsing, shared browsing, etc.] Now they're going after OE too. Like alot of other posters, I love OE. It does lots of things better than Outlook [except Exchange mail...but who cares] it's a classic example of MS developers' skill when unleashed...and MS marketing's having to put a stop to it! [developing too good a product..other than viruses]

Once Win98SE and Win2K fall off the chart there will be no more of these pesky "free" programs left to support. They served their purpose to kill off the competition and are now keeping people from spending money on MS software.

Couldn't the puplic file a class action antitrust suit...after all, MS said that IE and OE were needed by users and they should be able to add them. Why are they taking them away NOW when all the competition is gone....or were they lying before?

Hallelliuah! by Baloo+Ursidae · 2003-08-14 02:27 · Score: 1

All rise for the Hallelliuah Chorus, we want everything to look right in time for the Second Coming of Jesus, which should be any minute now.

--
Help us build a better map!

fetchyahoo by Baloo+Ursidae · 2003-08-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Never mind fetchyahoo could do the same thing for Yahoo and you looked less like a monopolistic shill using Yahoo.

--
Help us build a better map!

Different code, but enmeshed in the OS by swb · 2003-08-14 03:08 · Score: 1

Outlook may have a different code base than OE, but if you've ever tried to use them on the same computer at the same time, you'd wonder..

To this day "Reply via Email" to a newsgroup posting in OE brings up a reply in Outlook, which, since it's a seperate account/server/address, isn't what I wanted.

Great -- more for us by werdna · 2003-08-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Its odd for them to abandon a market space, rather than leave it weakly filled -- that simply presents an opportunity for an excellent alternative client to fill, and another foothold to grab, in the ancilliary-to-OS marketplace.

Anyway, good news. Far too many people used that claptrap instead of a real client -- now we can offer an alternative that is actually likely to be used.

End of development /= End of life by gristlebud · 2003-08-14 03:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just because Microsoft is chosing not to continue further developement of OE does not mean that they are abandoning it.

Microsoft hasen't done squat to notepad, paint, or solitare since Windows 3.0 (maybe earlier) but continues to ship them, because they work and are stable (although I admit that functionality may be low.)

I use OE every day, and I happen to really like it. I read all message as plain text, and have never recieved a virus through OE. I can't see any reason to think that I'll be changing e-mail clients anytime soon

--
OK...
I can do this. I am, after all,
a superhero!

Re:End of development /= End of life by shumacher · 2003-08-14 11:33 · Score: 1

Paint supports more file formats than it did in Windows 3.0 and Solitare got new card backs since 3.0.

Good Bye Outlook Express by garymedina · 2003-08-14 03:16 · Score: 0

Hello, Third Party email apps (of which there are many!). I would not begin to pay the outrageous prices Microsoft wants for the full Outlook when there are many much cheaper alternatives, like Eudora, Pocomail, etc.

I object to using HotMail because I have to sign up for that #$#@^^!!!23 Passport Account!

Create/Use XML based Webmail by trboyden · 2003-08-14 03:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

An XML based Webmail application could solve a lot of the issues brought up here. As I understand XML (through the various XML apps we use) Once a user hits the database for the requested data, that data is then stored on the client side in cached or in browser memory XML pages. With the data then stored locally, when a user manipulates that data it doesn't have to go back to the server, it just manipulates the local copy therefore it doesn't have to rely on a stable or fast internet connection, and then it just sends updates to the server afterwards in the background. Also through the transformable nature of XML it should be theoretically possible to click a button and have emails stored in some email message standard that various email readers could read or just as a text file.

That kind of makes sense.... by greymond · 2003-08-14 03:25 · Score: 1

I like to use Outlook Express just cause it comes with Windows and I don't have to buy any other email program. It's simple in that I use it to check my email - I don't have/need a Calenda and I don't need to connect to an exchange server since my emails are pop3 accounts.

However I could see why MS would get tired of making BOTH Outlook and Outlook Express, where if I just used Outlook I could do everything. Of course i'm sure they will charge for it instead of bundling it for free - but it's not like Outlook Express is going away anytime soon (read: if they don't include it in the next version of Windows X - that still won't be for another 1-2years 2004-2005)

--
Ave Molech Setting

I beg to differ. by lysium · 2003-08-14 03:26 · Score: 1

"...having "two modes of operation" like what you're suggesting is demonstrably not a good thing.... -snip-

How about full-featured command line with full-featured GUI, a la OS X? They keep the interface clean and intelligent, while at the same time providing expansive text operations for those that need it (IT Support, developers, hackers, and whatnot). If they had brought the 'expert command-line mode' functionality into the GUI, Apple would be cursed instead of praised right now.

----------

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

Should be a good thing.... by wizardmax · 2003-08-14 03:27 · Score: 1

... seeing how Outlook and Outlook Express are seen as number 1 propagator of email viruses. This should shift some of the use away from Outlook and such to web based interfaces, reducing risk of virus infection from email based viruses, since I assume that not everyone who will loose Outlook Express will move to Outlook.

--

Free speech is getting expensive...

Text-based (and conversion) by autechre · 2003-08-14 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I had an interesting moment the other day. My father works several doors down from me; I'm IT support for the Physical Plant, he's the Auto Shop supervisor.

His new laptop (for running auto diagnostic software) came without an SSH client installed, so he had been trying to use Netscape Mail to read his email. He found it impossible; it was way too inefficient for the volume of email that he gets from various technician's groups. He requested that I "put PINE on the machine so I can check my email like I do at home."

Here is a guy that doesn't like PCs at all, only using them to get info about cars and ask me where we should meet for lunch on Sunday, and a text-based MUA works better for his needs than a GUI one. Someone who gets the volume of email that you do may want to take a closer look at an MUA with the efficiency, flexibility, and power of Mutt.

Also:

http://freshmeat.net/projects/mbx2mbox/

"Converts Outlook Express .mbx files into standard RFC822 mail files."

On the first page of results for "outlook". Written in Perl and supposedly cross-platform.

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.

Re:Text-based (and conversion) by fmaxwell · 2003-08-14 04:02 · Score: 1

Here is a guy that doesn't like PCs at all, only using them to get info about cars and ask me where we should meet for lunch on Sunday, and a text-based MUA works better for his needs than a GUI one. Someone who gets the volume of email that you do may want to take a closer look at an MUA with the efficiency, flexibility, and power of Mutt.

Generally, those who are less computer-savvy prefer to have a text-based interface and a less complex program. I use the power of Outlook. I have multiple rules to automatically put e-mail into the appropriate folders based on sender (e.g., listserver), receiving address, sender, content, etc. I make extensive use of the ability to drag and drop messages into folders. I value the ability to click on a column to change the sorting order.

I do find Mutt interesting and may consider it for an older knock-around laptop that really is too sluggish and memory-limited for a modern GUI. I also might consider it for my mother, who just doesn't get the whole GUI interface thing.
Re:Text-based (and conversion) by autechre · 2003-08-14 06:21 · Score: 1

You can change the sorting order of Mutt with single-key shortcuts, and you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that Outlook has better filtering capabilities than Procmail. Mutt is certainly not a less complex program, although as you say, it (and moreso PINE) can be very easy for novice users. But Mutt is really more like Vim: it can be incredibly efficient, but there is certainly more of a learning curve. I like it because you can learn as much of it as you want. I'm not using the full capabilities of either Mutt or Procmail, because I don't need them (yet). Debian does make it easy since most of the defaults are exactly what I want. One thing that I would really hate to do without for my mailing list reading is the threaded view for messages. Going back to the "normal" way (sorted by date received alone) would seem like a traffic accident. Plus I can edit my email in whatever editor I want (Vim), and display the least-annoying version of a multi-part message in the order that I specify.

PS: for mailing lists, you should really filter by X-Mailing-List or similar rather than sender; it's more reliable.

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.

IMAP support in Outlook is inferior.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 03:47 · Score: 0

.....to that in Outlook Express. Hopefully they will integrate the IMAP code from OE into Outlook

Consumers Don't Want Change by msobkow · 2003-08-14 03:57 · Score: 1

Monopoly doesn't take any great effort to make things "difficult" to replace or install as Microsoft often has. All it takes is "typical" consumers who are afraid to touch anything.

Just over 8 months with his new computer, and last night my dad finally decided to watch what I did to download and install some packages for the neices and nephews.

Three months ago my mom just realized you could move windows by dragging the title bar.

"Replace" their Netscape mail client? What email client is so much better that "typical" consumers like my parents need to spend another three months just figuring out how to find the inbox/queued/sent emails? They still curse that the computer "lost" the mail because it got moved from to-be-sent queue to the sent history, until you remind them again.

I installed Eudora, Mozilla, etc. to show them "better" and "safer" tools. But they'll have none of that -- the Netscape 4.79 email client and the IE browser that were there when their internet connection was first set up is all they want.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Remember the Halloween Documents? by HopeOS · 2003-08-14 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is just the next phase of Microsoft's "decommoditization" of basic internet services. Pay attention kids.

1. Embrace. Microsoft provides Outlook Express to connect to "commodity" internet services like POP and IMAP accounts. OE is the default mail client for Internet Explorer and quickly becomes the preferred application for many ISP's POP accounts since no additional software is needed.

1. Extend. Microsoft buys Hotmail email accounts, provides web-based interface, and launchs proprietary authentication system called Passport.

2. Extinguish. Microsoft discontinues Outlook Express, leaving ISP's in the lurch, and paves the way for a proprietary, web-services based solution.

Want to connect to Yahoo mail? Not with Microsoft's mail program. Want to connect to your ISP's mail? What? You need a separate application for that? Why can't I just click the mail icon? Of course, that takes me to Microsoft's mail system.

The big question is whether Microsoft is premature in step three. I think not.

-Hope

You're exagerating a bit by msobkow · 2003-08-14 04:42 · Score: 1

Unless you count the "MSN 8" nagware email as spam, my most recent hotmail account was spam free for almost an hour. Of course by the end of the third day it was back to 20-60 spams/day, same as every other account I've had on hotmail.

I have other "regular" addresses which get less than 20% of the spam flood the hotmail account does, despite having been used for domain registration, software download registrations, and other such "spam prone" activities.

I don't think they're selling addresses to the spammers, I think they're selling broadcast accounts for sending the spam to the suckers^?^?^?^?^?^?^?users.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Even more fishy by hellfire · 2003-08-14 05:04 · Score: 1

You want to know something even weirder? On my Win2000 PC at work, I know where the outlook express folder is and it has the entire application. Its been "removed" from every control panel I can find but the folder remains.

I then try to delete the folder, and a few seconds later the ENTIRE FOLDER returns, including contents.

So now I have a software package that they no longer support that I can't get rid of. I need a drink I can't process this!

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

Outlook Distress by dbhankins · 2003-08-14 05:25 · Score: 1

Maybe now that they don't want to spend any more money improving Outlook Express, they'll open-source it so the community can improve it at no cost to them.

(pause)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sometimes I crack myself up!

Re:Outlook Distress by QueenOfSwords · 2003-08-14 11:41 · Score: 1

If M$ got their heads out of their asses it would actually be a brilliant idea, for them, Joe Sixpack, and thre industry in general. But they know the code is probably crap, heheh.

--
-- INTX Grouch. http://www.midnightblue.net

Re:(signature reply) by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2003-08-14 05:54 · Score: 1

I WILL take a job that is "beneath" me rather than take Govt. charity.

I don't know where you live, but in the US, unemployment is paid for by the companies that employ you. It's not a charity so much as a buffer that has the effect of reducing instability for people that just lost their job.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

nooooooooo.... by lerouxb · 2003-08-14 05:58 · Score: 1

Outlook Express is the only microsoft app I ever liked. Now I'll be forced to use the Outlook that comes with office....

Hooray!!!! by Dwonis · 2003-08-14 06:10 · Score: 1

Thank you Microsoft!!

Re:Not just a client, but a protocol is being drop by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-08-14 06:27 · Score: 1

"...I mean that IMAP isn't bloated, and everyone can write clients that use it! There are no proprietary secret extensions! That sucks!" - wfberg

Is this a 'ha-ha! only serious', or are you for real?

90% of Micro$oft's problems stem from malformed proprietary extensions and/or standards.

I am appalled. *blink*

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

What about NNTP [pr0n]? by Full+Meat · 2003-08-14 07:56 · Score: 1

I'm disappointed that MS is not continuing to develop my primary pr0n client. I know OE is not the "best" NNTP client, but I have not found a "better" one. There are some (like Agent) with nice features, but none of them conform to the expectations I have of a modern professional Windows application. Lets face it, Agent looks like a Windows 3.1 app, and I'm not going to touch any of those other homegrown "pr0n buddy" NNTP clients out there. OE sorta sucks, but it is intuitive, has standard Windows metaphors, menus, and keyboard shortcuts, and generally behaves like a good little Windows app. But perhaps the most compelling part of OE is that it is just _there_ with every installation. Someone show me a good Win32 NNTP client, now that my hopes have been dashed by MS.

No, you are not a home user. by Sanction · 2003-08-14 10:35 · Score: 1

Just using a computer at home does not mean you are a "home user" in the way the term is used in this field. You set up your own mail server, and you think you are a home user? You are a power user or an admin, and in such a vanishingly small minority that Microsoft does not much care what you would like.

--
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!

How do you do that? by JimmytheGeek · 2003-08-14 11:45 · Score: 1

As far as I know, there is no way to force receipt of text only in OE, and the directions I have for Outlook 2000 do not work.

Re:How do you do that? by Em+Ellel · 2003-08-14 12:07 · Score: 1

Tools:Options

on "Read" tab select "Read all messages in plain text"

on "Send" tab select "Plain text" for sending in plain text vs HTML.

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...

yahooPops is the best of both worlds by JimmytheGeek · 2003-08-14 11:55 · Score: 1

It sets up a virtual pop server, which you point your email client at. When the client contacts the pop server, the pop server cycles through your yahoo mail and turns the web pages into real email messages.

Once a month or so I run it and empty out my webmail.

Spam filters by FxChiP · 2003-08-14 12:21 · Score: 1

Or you could check for open proxies from the originating sender, open relays, and valid e-mail addresses (i.e. if they're doing a "dictionary" attack it'll be slightly more difficult if you have a limit of say 5 e-mails that can be invalid, and if five are, the mail just doesn't get sent).

That could be slow, but *shrugs* that's some of the most talked about tactics

You must be using antivirus by yerricde · 2003-08-14 14:30 · Score: 1

How did you manage to avoid Sircam, Nimda, Klez, Bugbear, and the rest of the worms that mass-mail themselves to everyone in the user's Outlook and Outlook Express address books and IE cache? Do you have a corporate virus filter?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:You must be using antivirus by jafuser · 2003-08-15 02:32 · Score: 1

How did you manage to avoid Sircam, Nimda, Klez, Bugbear, and the rest of the worms

- Set Outlook Express to "High" security zone
- Turn off preview pane
- Quarantine messages with attachments using mail rules
- Critical Update Notification
- Don't be stupid (most important)

I've been using OE since it came out and never had my computers infected with a virus from it.

While it's a shame to see it dropped, it has been *mostly* stagnant since IE4 anyway, so this announcement really doesn't change anything.

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF

Your ISP's setup CD by yerricde · 2003-08-14 14:32 · Score: 1

Want to connect to your ISP's mail? What? You need a separate application for that? Why can't I just click the mail icon?

Because you can click the mail icon that was placed there by your ISP's setup CD. At least Earthlink dial-up installs client software.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

RTFM... R T F M!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 16:44 · Score: 0

I just like saying that like many others...

if you spend the time learning it.

Ahhh, sweat melody brought to mine ears. Lets require horrific learning curves of everyone and drown out any real desire to use the app for productivity purposes and just make it a contest of willpower. Who can sift through the internet and patch together the assortment of pseudo-documentation, forum posts and other odds and ends and filter out erroneous or outdated info. Then go and learn the product. Make sure you have NOTHING else to do in life and have several weeks of daily (multi hour) sessions and forget weekends being anything BUT learning this tool.

Ok, OOo is not really like this... but go easy on the quickdraw to fire off a RTFM-like post. If the self proclaimed hacker code was applied to cars then every driver would be required to know every detail of every square inch of not just the vehicle but evey alternate part, fuel, lubrication, road tar type and road paint reflective rating. Then they would need to either enjoy manually controlling 99% of the internal operations and timing methods of the engine not to mention using a system of 11 pulleys for steering.

Going into your garage to build a hotrod or invention/toy is great and the spice of life. Expecting everyone to actually comprehend your own personal method of madness in how it works and how you use it is silly (unless you are using existing standars like Steering wheels, pedals, etc).

Re:RTFM... R T F M!!!! by ratfynk · 2003-08-14 17:01 · Score: 1

Funny my experience with Open Office was a very short learning curve! However if you move the gui buttons and settings around in MS office then watch your boss freak if she has to do formatting! I am a mean son of a bitch. She tried OO on my behest and found that the learning curve was acceptable for new employees. If you can run MS office you can certainly run Open Office without difficulty, or much learning. In some ways it is actually easier to use than Microsoft software.

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!

as time progresses, velocity reaches nil by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-14 17:33 · Score: 0

(with velocity being technical competence, and time progression as duhhhh) At least that is my "academic theory of relativity" for modern times. Your problems with these idiots with credentials is more spawned from the credentializing blindless that is sweeping the world than with any documentation or lack there of. Also, as more and more ZIdZO (Zombie In, degreed Zombie Out) situations take hold the level of quality of teaching drops as "demand" drops. I myself have been in and numerous times witnessed situations where the instructor is told to just "make sure they pass the test" and not actually being given time or resources to TEACH.

Your comment of "...the most simplistic questions about C syntax" is understandable since experience is either seen as a detriment to the academic-ladder climbing of many institutions (not just educational either) or is at best just another shallow check mark on your resume. Why worry about actual implementation experience or problem solving ability when you can just say you have X years of exp with project type Y? It doesn't matter that you just lightly scripted something that was on a machine that happened to be on the same subnet as the machine using the language or algorithm in question... you were THERE!

I myself have seen an army pass before my eyes of clueless zombies who passed through the moronic HR or Management filter whom clearly do NOT understand either the fundamentals of programming, software, engineering, and especially not the problem domain on hand. Meanwhile I am forced to get code from 15 year olds or people only programming as a light hobby as they are more ethical, focused, professional, competent and enthusiastic about solving the problem.

"nailed" Sorry by yerricde · 2003-08-15 03:34 · Score: 1

I use roughly the same techniques you do. I guess I misunderstood your use of "nailed". You were using it to mean "infected", but I was using it differently. At the height of the outbreak of each of the viruses I mentioned, with loads of 200 KB virus attachments to my inbox every day, I was getting pretty "nailed" in that my inbox got so full that I could not receive legitimate mail.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Pine! by hearingaid · 2003-08-15 03:49 · Score: 1

Fergawdsakes. Pine doesn't show images, and it deals with HTML mail just perfectly fine.

The point here is: if Pine can do it, everybody can. :)

--

my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

Re:web images indeed! by wawadave · 2003-08-15 16:52 · Score: 0

hello well well my msn mail gets flaged by my fire wall as haveing web bugs yes web bugs 1 pixel images used for spy ware lol have a nice day Acquaintance, n: A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not well enough to lend to.

Re:no hmtl would make it a lot smaller as well by wawadave · 2003-08-15 17:09 · Score: 0

hello no hmtl would make the email a lot smaller as well. would make checking email on dial up a lot faster. i,m all for it ban hmtl now!! have a nice day:) Acquaintance, n: A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not well enough to lend to.

Re:(signature reply) by Beliskner · 2003-08-17 04:12 · Score: 1

But I have never seen an unemployment check, partially due to the fact that I am motivated enough to keep looking, live modest enough that I don't get behind in my bills, and have enough self respect that I WILL take a job that is "beneath" me rather than take Govt. charity.

You pay taxes, therefore you are *legally* entitled to claim welfare. It's not "Government charity", it's your obligation to penalise the Government if they can't adjust economic conditions to provide you with a job.

--
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?

Re:(signature reply) by Pharmboy · 2003-08-17 06:49 · Score: 1

You pay taxes, therefore you are *legally* entitled to claim welfare. It's not "Government charity", it's your obligation to penalise the Government if they can't adjust economic conditions to provide you with a job.

If I ever lose a limb, or get in a serious accident and CAN'T help myself, then I would consider getting unemployment until I could get work. But as long as I am able, I feel I shouldn't. Its a moral thing, taking more than your share. (not religious, just moral)

The fact is, it is NOT the govt.s job to create economic conditions. Its the govt.'s job to allow free enterprise to create the conditions. The goal of the govt. (IMHO) is purely to act as a buffer by adjusting rates, and to provide incentives when necessary. Since I am an American, by and for the people, I AM the govt. so punishing myself and neighbors isnt very effective.

Keep in mind, lots of very lazy people blame the govt. for their lack of a job, when often it is the fact that they want something handed to them. I have been to hell and back, and expect nothing from anyone, period. This may also have something to do with the fact that I have found reasonable success in all environments and all economies.

There is an old expression: Even when unemployment is 90%, the top 10% will have jobs. The key is to be the best at what you do. Some people just want to be paid for showing up, not for accomplishing something.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Re:(signature reply) by Beliskner · 2003-08-18 06:08 · Score: 1

Since I am an American, by and for the people, I AM the govt. so punishing myself and neighbors isnt very effective

Nobody HAS to give you a job, THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET A JOB isn't a Commandment). If you refuse to take Government handouts and starve to death duing a 1 year recession, then that robs the United States of your potential future 50 years of contribution after the massive taxpayer investment that went into your School education. Recessions happen, and good people can't find a job for years, that's why welfare must always exist.

Even when unemployment is 90%, the top 10% will have jobs

Uhhh, and what will the 90% do? Move to Ethiopea? If they did that instead of penalising the Government, then Bush should give all his trillions of dollars to 10% of people, and throw 90% of the people into Mexico or let them starve to death. When the economy gets better, it won't be able to expand unless those people come back, but why should they come back when they've made homes for themselves in another Mexico?

--
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-08-20 07:30 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Quit Blaming HTML by jon3k · 2003-08-28 03:07 · Score: 1

The problem isn't HTML, its 50% VBscript, 10% javascript, and 40% microsoft's implementation of the two!

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Stops Development Of Outlook Express

769 comments