As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an alternative, 
and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?

Ron 



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Windows Live Mail is the successor to OE and Windows Mail and runs in XP 
and Vista as well. There are third party programs as well such as 
Thunderbird.

Windows Live Mail (Overview, Features & Download)
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview

Transferring data from Outlook Express to Windows Live Mail:

For Messages:

Copy the *ENTIRE* OE message store folder to a flash drive. (Folders.dbx 
must be included). Place this on the Desktop or other location on the 
machine using WLMail. Open WLMail and: File | Import | Messages | 
Microsoft Outlook Express 6 and point to where you saved it.

OE Message Store Location:

In OE: Tools | Options | Maintenance | Store Folder will reveal the 
location of your Outlook Express files. Write the location down and 
navigate to it in Windows Explorer or, copy and paste it into Start | Run.

In WinXP, Win2K & Win2K3, the OE user files (DBX and WAB) are by default 
marked as hidden. To view these files in Windows Explorer, you must enable 
Show Hidden Files and Folders under Start | Control Panel | Folder Options 
Icon | View, or in Windows Explorer | Tools | Folder Options | View.

For Addresses:

Open the Address Book in OE and File | Export | Address Book (wab) and 
save it to the Desktop. Copy to a flash drive. Place this on the Desktop 
or other location on the machine using WLMail.

Open the Contacts list in WLMail, (Go | Contacts on the Menu Bar), and 
File | Import | Windows Address Book (wab) and point to where you saved 
it.

Note: If you use a CD or DVD instead of a flash drive, after placing on 
the new machine you must remove the Read Only attribute in Properties 
before you import.

For Account Settings:

In OE: Tools | Accounts, select the account and export it to the Desktop. 
This will be a .iaf file. Copy it to the new machine's Desktop and in 
WLMail: Tools | Accounts and import the settings from the location you 
saved them.
-- 
           Bruce Hagen
         MS-MVP  [Mail]
      Imperial Beach, CA


"Big Ron" <ron@nospam.inv> wrote in message 
news:i057hf$244l$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an 
> alternative, and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?
>
> Ron
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- 

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:49:01 +0100, Big Ron wrote:

> As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an alternative, 
> and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?

One of the more popular alternatives is Mozilla Thunderbird. I don't think
I've ever attempted to copy messages to T-bird, though.

I stopped using MSOE in favor of Pegasus Mail so many years ago that I don't
remember how I copied messages into PM.

Both SeaMonkey (the full browser suite) and Opera (another browser suite)
also have email clients.

So my list, plus some others:

Mozilla Thunderbird
Pegasus Mail (my personal favorite, but with a steep learning curve)
SeaMonkey
Opera
Eudora (a free version is still out there, but I think it is not supported)
The Bat! (strictly an email client, but I've not tried this one)

And two from Microsoft:

MS Outlook (a component of MS Office, and you have to pay for it)
Windows Live Mail (I only use for the HTTPMail access to Hotmail)

-- 
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Big Ron wrote:

> As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an alternative, 
> and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?


You are trying to convince us that you have no clue what is Google and
have never used any online search engines?  Uh huh.  So do you want to
continue using OE under Windows 7?  It is possible if you have the right
version of Windows 7.

When it was supported, OE came bundled with IE.  OE has long been
unsupported.  It is a dead program.  The last program updates were back
in 2002 with one later functional change in SP-2 for Windows XP to add
registry hacks for top/bottom-posting and signature placement.  The
development team was disbanded in 2006.  You cannot get OE separately
from IE.  They came bundled together.  As of IE7 and later, OE is no
longer bundled with IE.  IE6 was the last version that bundled OE with
it.  Microsoft isn't going to bundle unsupported products with supported
products. 

Windows XP comes with IE6 as its baseline version hence why OE is
available.  Vista comes with IE7 and Windows 7 comes with IE8 as their
baseline versions of that web browser.  You cannot install earlier
versions of IE on those Windows platforms.   

You could run VirtualPC, VMWare Server, VirtualBox, or other virtual
machine managers (VMMs) on Vista and then install a pre-Vista version of
Windows in a virtual machine (VM) to have OE running inside that virtual
machine.  That requires installing the VMM, installing pre-Vista Windows
in a virtual machine (VM), and then load that VM when you want to run
OE.  According to Microsoft's EULAs, you will need another license of
Windows to run it inside a VM.  That is a lot of work and nuisance to
run a long-dead e-mail client.   

For Windows 7 (Professional and Ultimate editions), a license of Windows
XP SP-3 is included called XP Mode.  If you install XP Mode and then
Windows VirtualPC (WVPC), you will have Windows XP available as a guest
OS running inside a virtual machine.  Windows XP comes with IE6 so OE6
will be available; see http://preview.tinyurl.com/Win7xpmode-IE6OE6.

  Note: Windows 7's XP Mode had required the CPU to support hardware-
  assisted virtualization (http://preview.tinyurl.com/wiki-CPUvm).   
  Microsoft removed this limitation and now permits software-based 
  virtualization (http://preview.tinyurl.com/XPmode-noHdweReq).  Some 
  VMMs will run faster using their own software code than the 
  virtualization extensions added to the CPU (e.g., VirtualBox); 
  however, VirtualPC 2007 is not so blessed.  A guest OS running in a
  VM is significantly slower than the host OS.  Software-based VMs 
  are slower than hardware-assisted VMs.

Windows Mail (WM) is the e-mail client included in Windows Vista.
Windows *Live* Mail (WLM) is the replacement for both OE and WM.
Windows 7 does not come with an e-mail client pre-installed so you will
have to install one.

  For WLM:
  http://download.live.com 

After installing just WLM, go into Add/Remove Programs and uninstall the
unwanted extra fluff software that Microsoft pushes onto you, like the
SignOn Assistant.  While WLM is reminiscent of OE, it has some
functional differences.  For help, the WLM newsgroup is at: 

  microsoft.public.windows.live.mail.desktop 

There are plenty of other e-mail clients available, some of which are
free, like Thunderbird (and a derivative called Sunbird), or PIM
programs that have an e-mail functions, like EssentialPIM.  You'll have
to decide what e-mail client you want to use under Windows 7 since that
OS doesn't include one.  What e-mail client you choose is a highly
personal decision base on your unidentified criteria.

> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
<which is NOT a signature>

So you feel the need to spam Usenet with your choice for an NSP.

"Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i057s0$1ag$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Windows Live Mail is the successor to OE and Windows Mail and runs in XP 
> and Vista as well. There are third party programs as well such as 
> Thunderbird.
>
> Windows Live Mail (Overview, Features & Download)
> http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview
>




Bruce,

Looking that the link above I found this.  Could not find any reference to 
SP3.

Any thoughts on if there will be a conflict with XP SP3 and WLM??  Thanks,

=======================================================================

Windows Live Essentials requires the following:

Operating system: Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (32-bit edition only), 
Windows Vista (32-bit or 64-bit editions), Windows 7 (32-bit or 64-bit 
editions), or Windows Server 2008.

=======================================================================

"ABLE1" <royboynospam@somewhere.net> wrote in message 
news:mbRVn.523899$vr1.254329@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:i057s0$1ag$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Windows Live Mail is the successor to OE and Windows Mail and runs in 
>> XP and Vista as well. There are third party programs as well such as 
>> Thunderbird.
>>
>> Windows Live Mail (Overview, Features & Download)
>> http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview
>>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> Looking that the link above I found this.  Could not find any reference 
> to SP3.
>
> Any thoughts on if there will be a conflict with XP SP3 and WLM?? 
> Thanks,
>
> =======================================================================
>
> Windows Live Essentials requires the following:
>
> Operating system: Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (32-bit edition only), 
> Windows Vista (32-bit or 64-bit editions), Windows 7 (32-bit or 64-bit 
> editions), or Windows Server 2008.
>
> =======================================================================


Other than WLMail stinks, (my opinion), there is no conflict. Those are 
either the minimum requirements, or it just hasn't been updated. I have 
WLMail on an XP 32-bit machine with SP3. Not sure if it will run on a 64 
bit XP or not.
-- 
           Bruce Hagen
         MS-MVP  [Mail]
      Imperial Beach, CA

Bruce (and anyone)

Why do you think WLMail "stinks"?

I am still mulling over a transition.  I am still on XP SP3 but will 
probably move 'up' at some stage later this year.

My options appear to be (in no particular order):

- WLMail

- MS Outlook.  I have/had Office Pro 2000 and my son just loaded Office Pro 
2010 for me (school pupil's discount with 2 or 3 licences!)

- Pegasus (I have never myself seen it, though have probably received mail 
from it).


I have hundreds, possibly thousands, of messages marked (in bold or 
red-flagged) in OE for one purpose or other and would not like to lose those 
markings.  IIRC somebody told me in this NG that these settings cannot be 
retained in a move to WLMail.

Thanks.
DAS
-- 
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i08nrd$l8e$1@news.eternal-september.org...

[...]
>
> Other than WLMail stinks, (my opinion), there is no conflict. Those are 
> either the minimum requirements, or it just hasn't been updated. I have 
> WLMail on an XP 32-bit machine with SP3. Not sure if it will run on a 64 
> bit XP or not.
> -- 
>           Bruce Hagen
>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>      Imperial Beach, CA
> 

You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get Win7 Pro and use XPMode =
to run XP in a virtual environment so that you can run OE within the =
virtual machine, as a Computer within a Computer so to speak.  If you =
don't get the Pro version, you can still use Microsoft VPC 2007 to run =
XP (or Win98 or Win2000 or Vista) in a similar fashion.  You can even =
clone your current system into a virtual one and run that from the Win7 =
Desktop (see =
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ee656415.aspx).

steve

"Big Ron" <ron@nospam.inv> wrote in message =
news:i057hf$244l$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an =
alternative,=20
> and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?
>=20
> Ron=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

The reasons are too numerous to list. Try it for yourself. You can run it 
along side of OE.
-- 
           Bruce Hagen
         MS-MVP  [Mail]
      Imperial Beach, CA


"DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:SIOdneUxstxi2rXRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Bruce (and anyone)
>
> Why do you think WLMail "stinks"?
>
> I am still mulling over a transition.  I am still on XP SP3 but will 
> probably move 'up' at some stage later this year.
>
> My options appear to be (in no particular order):
>
> - WLMail
>
> - MS Outlook.  I have/had Office Pro 2000 and my son just loaded Office 
> Pro 2010 for me (school pupil's discount with 2 or 3 licences!)
>
> - Pegasus (I have never myself seen it, though have probably received 
> mail from it).
>
>
> I have hundreds, possibly thousands, of messages marked (in bold or 
> red-flagged) in OE for one purpose or other and would not like to lose 
> those markings.  IIRC somebody told me in this NG that these settings 
> cannot be retained in a move to WLMail.
>
> Thanks.
> DAS
> -- 
> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
> --
> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:i08nrd$l8e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> [...]
>>
>> Other than WLMail stinks, (my opinion), there is no conflict. Those are 
>> either the minimum requirements, or it just hasn't been updated. I have 
>> WLMail on an XP 32-bit machine with SP3. Not sure if it will run on a 
>> 64 bit XP or not.
>> -- 
>>           Bruce Hagen
>>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>>      Imperial Beach, CA
>>
>
> 

> You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get Win7 Pro...

Or Ultimate (or Enterprise) Edition.

Microsoft removes hardware virtualization barrier to running XP Mode
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-removes-hardware-virtualization-barrier-to-running-xp-mode/5607



Steve Cochran wrote:
> You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get Win7 Pro and use XPMode to
> run XP in a virtual environment so that you can run OE within the virtual
> machine, as a Computer within a Computer so to speak.  If you don't get 
> the
> Pro version, you can still use Microsoft VPC 2007 to run XP (or Win98 or
> Win2000 or Vista) in a similar fashion.  You can even clone your current
> system into a virtual one and run that from the Win7 Desktop (see
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ee656415.aspx).
>
> steve
>
> "Big Ron" <ron@nospam.inv> wrote in message
> news:i057hf$244l$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>> As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an 
>> alternative,
>> and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- 

Thanks, Bruce.

Three reasons for stinking?

Your preferred suggestion?

I shall try parallel evaluations.  I am only too aware that while in XP I 
can still do that.  Am stuffed after that...

Cheers.
DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i0a93r$64h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> The reasons are too numerous to list. Try it for yourself. You can run it 
> along side of OE.
> -- 
>           Bruce Hagen
>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>      Imperial Beach, CA
>
>
> "DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:SIOdneUxstxi2rXRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Bruce (and anyone)
>>
>> Why do you think WLMail "stinks"?
>>
>> I am still mulling over a transition.  I am still on XP SP3 but will 
>> probably move 'up' at some stage later this year.
>>
>> My options appear to be (in no particular order):
>>
>> - WLMail
>>
>> - MS Outlook.  I have/had Office Pro 2000 and my son just loaded Office 
>> Pro 2010 for me (school pupil's discount with 2 or 3 licences!)
>>
>> - Pegasus (I have never myself seen it, though have probably received 
>> mail from it).
>>
>>
>> I have hundreds, possibly thousands, of messages marked (in bold or 
>> red-flagged) in OE for one purpose or other and would not like to lose 
>> those markings.  IIRC somebody told me in this NG that these settings 
>> cannot be retained in a move to WLMail.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> DAS
>> -- 
>> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
>> --
>> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:i08nrd$l8e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Other than WLMail stinks, (my opinion), there is no conflict. Those are 
>>> either the minimum requirements, or it just hasn't been updated. I have 
>>> WLMail on an XP 32-bit machine with SP3. Not sure if it will run on a 64 
>>> bit XP or not.
>>> -- 
>>>           Bruce Hagen
>>>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>>>      Imperial Beach, CA
>>>
>>
>>
> 

"DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:QYGdnR84bbZFWLXRnZ2dnUVZ8kCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Thanks, Bruce.
>
> Three reasons for stinking?

Pastel skins.
No Source | Edit.
Message header in Reading (Preview) Pane takes up too much real estate.



> Your preferred suggestion?


Hack in Windows Mail.
Run XP mode in Win7 and continue to use OE.
Thunderbird.



>
> I shall try parallel evaluations.  I am only too aware that while in XP 
> I can still do that.  Am stuffed after that...


Wait till Wave 4 is released. (Beta now). The toolbar is a ribbon and as 
confusing as Word.
-- 
           Bruce Hagen
         MS-MVP  [Mail]
      Imperial Beach, CA

>
> Cheers.
> DAS
>
> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
> --
> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:i0a93r$64h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The reasons are too numerous to list. Try it for yourself. You can run 
>> it along side of OE.
>> -- 
>>           Bruce Hagen
>>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>>      Imperial Beach, CA
>>
>>
>> "DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:SIOdneUxstxi2rXRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> Bruce (and anyone)
>>>
>>> Why do you think WLMail "stinks"?
>>>
>>> I am still mulling over a transition.  I am still on XP SP3 but will 
>>> probably move 'up' at some stage later this year.
>>>
>>> My options appear to be (in no particular order):
>>>
>>> - WLMail
>>>
>>> - MS Outlook.  I have/had Office Pro 2000 and my son just loaded 
>>> Office Pro 2010 for me (school pupil's discount with 2 or 3 licences!)
>>>
>>> - Pegasus (I have never myself seen it, though have probably received 
>>> mail from it).
>>>
>>>
>>> I have hundreds, possibly thousands, of messages marked (in bold or 
>>> red-flagged) in OE for one purpose or other and would not like to lose 
>>> those markings.  IIRC somebody told me in this NG that these settings 
>>> cannot be retained in a move to WLMail.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> DAS
>>> -- 
>>> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
>>> --
>>> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:i08nrd$l8e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Other than WLMail stinks, (my opinion), there is no conflict. Those 
>>>> are either the minimum requirements, or it just hasn't been updated. 
>>>> I have WLMail on an XP 32-bit machine with SP3. Not sure if it will 
>>>> run on a 64 bit XP or not.
>>>> -- 
>>>>           Bruce Hagen
>>>>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>>>>      Imperial Beach, CA
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> 

Thanks.

I meant Thunderbird, not Pegasus (as an option).

But running XP mode in Win 7 means it's XP mode for all apps, doesn't it? 
(That's why I did not list it as an option, though I have seen this 
mentioned many times in this NG.)

If so, don't modern apps like MS 7 'run better' (not sure if that means 
anything) in Win 7?

Re Wave 4:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/windows-live-essentials-wave-4-public-beta-is-out.ars

Yes, this WILL be confusing in several ways, not least of which is the 
naming distinction between Security Essentials and Live Essentials... 
Somewhat like Sony laptop nomenclature.  Impenetrable except to the 
initiated working in the Holy of Holies.

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i0ahme$jeb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:QYGdnR84bbZFWLXRnZ2dnUVZ8kCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Thanks, Bruce.
>>
>> Three reasons for stinking?
>
> Pastel skins.
> No Source | Edit.
> Message header in Reading (Preview) Pane takes up too much real estate.
>
>
>
>> Your preferred suggestion?
>
>
> Hack in Windows Mail.
> Run XP mode in Win7 and continue to use OE.
> Thunderbird.
>
>
>
>>
>> I shall try parallel evaluations.  I am only too aware that while in XP I 
>> can still do that.  Am stuffed after that...
>
>
> Wait till Wave 4 is released. (Beta now). The toolbar is a ribbon and as 
> confusing as Word.
> -- 
>           Bruce Hagen
>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>      Imperial Beach, CA
>
>>
>> Cheers.
>> DAS
>>
>> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
>> --
>> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:i0a93r$64h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> The reasons are too numerous to list. Try it for yourself. You can run 
>>> it along side of OE.
>>> -- 
>>>           Bruce Hagen
>>>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>>>      Imperial Beach, CA
>>>
>>>
>>> "DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>> news:SIOdneUxstxi2rXRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>> Bruce (and anyone)
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think WLMail "stinks"?
>>>>
>>>> I am still mulling over a transition.  I am still on XP SP3 but will 
>>>> probably move 'up' at some stage later this year.
>>>>
>>>> My options appear to be (in no particular order):
>>>>
>>>> - WLMail
>>>>
>>>> - MS Outlook.  I have/had Office Pro 2000 and my son just loaded Office 
>>>> Pro 2010 for me (school pupil's discount with 2 or 3 licences!)
>>>>
>>>> - Pegasus (I have never myself seen it, though have probably received 
>>>> mail from it).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have hundreds, possibly thousands, of messages marked (in bold or 
>>>> red-flagged) in OE for one purpose or other and would not like to lose 
>>>> those markings.  IIRC somebody told me in this NG that these settings 
>>>> cannot be retained in a move to WLMail.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> DAS
>>>> -- 
>>>> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
>>>> --
>>>> "Bruce Hagen" <BRH@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>>>> news:i08nrd$l8e$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than WLMail stinks, (my opinion), there is no conflict. Those 
>>>>> are either the minimum requirements, or it just hasn't been updated. I 
>>>>> have WLMail on an XP 32-bit machine with SP3. Not sure if it will run 
>>>>> on a 64 bit XP or not.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>           Bruce Hagen
>>>>>         MS-MVP  [Mail]
>>>>>      Imperial Beach, CA
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0117_01CB17A6.BBD5C4B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The only real alternative to Outlook Express which will give you all the =
facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view stationery, is Dream =
Mail.  All those others are web based email programs that cannot do zip.
If all you want is text emails then anything will do.  Dreammail can be =
got free from here.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/DreamMail.sht=
ml


"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:uiMsPssFLHA.1868@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get Win7 Pro...

Or Ultimate (or Enterprise) Edition.

Microsoft removes hardware virtualization barrier to running XP Mode
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-removes-hardware-virtualiza=
tion-barrier-to-running-xp-mode/5607



Steve Cochran wrote:
> You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get Win7 Pro and use XPMode =
to
> run XP in a virtual environment so that you can run OE within the =
virtual
> machine, as a Computer within a Computer so to speak.  If you don't =
get=20
> the
> Pro version, you can still use Microsoft VPC 2007 to run XP (or Win98 =
or
> Win2000 or Vista) in a similar fashion.  You can even clone your =
current
> system into a virtual one and run that from the Win7 Desktop (see
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ee656415.aspx).
>
> steve
>
> "Big Ron" <ron@nospam.inv> wrote in message
> news:i057hf$244l$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>> As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an=20
>> alternative,
>> and is it backwards compatible with messages saved from OE?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- =


------=_NextPart_000_0117_01CB17A6.BBD5C4B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4 face=3DArial>The only real alternative to Outlook =
Express which=20
will give you all the facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view=20
stationery, is Dream Mail.&nbsp; All those others are web based email =
programs=20
that cannot do zip.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4 face=3DArial>If all you want is text emails then =
anything will=20
do.&nbsp; Dreammail can be got free from here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4 face=3DArial><A=20
href=3D"http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/Dream=
Mail.shtml">http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/D=
reamMail.shtml</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4 face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>"PA Bear [MS MVP]" &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:PABearMVP@gmail.com">PABearMVP@gmail.com</A>&gt; wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
href=3D"news:uiMsPssFLHA.1868@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl">news:uiMsPssFLHA.1868=
@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl</A>...</DIV>&gt;=20
You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get Win7 Pro...<BR><BR>Or =
Ultimate=20
(or Enterprise) Edition.<BR><BR>Microsoft removes hardware =
virtualization=20
barrier to running XP Mode<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-removes-hardware-vi=
rtualization-barrier-to-running-xp-mode/5607">http://www.zdnet.com/blog/m=
icrosoft/microsoft-removes-hardware-virtualization-barrier-to-running-xp-=
mode/5607</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>Steve=20
Cochran wrote:<BR>&gt; You can continue to use OE in Win7, if you get =
Win7 Pro=20
and use XPMode to<BR>&gt; run XP in a virtual environment so that you =
can run OE=20
within the virtual<BR>&gt; machine, as a Computer within a Computer so =
to=20
speak.&nbsp; If you don't get <BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; Pro version, you can =
still=20
use Microsoft VPC 2007 to run XP (or Win98 or<BR>&gt; Win2000 or Vista) =
in a=20
similar fashion.&nbsp; You can even clone your current<BR>&gt; system =
into a=20
virtual one and run that from the Win7 Desktop (see<BR>&gt; <A=20
href=3D"http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ee656415.aspx">ht=
tp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ee656415.aspx</A>).<BR>&gt;=
<BR>&gt;=20
steve<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; "Big Ron" &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:ron@nospam.inv">ron@nospam.inv</A>&gt; wrote in =
message<BR>&gt; <A=20
href=3D"news:i057hf$244l$1@adenine.netfront.net">news:i057hf$244l$1@adeni=
ne.netfront.net</A>...<BR>&gt;&gt;=20
As windows 7 has no email client, what are people using as an =
<BR>&gt;&gt;=20
alternative,<BR>&gt;&gt; and is it backwards compatible with messages =
saved from=20
OE?<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; =
Ron<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;=20
--- <A =
href=3D"news://freenews.netfront.net/">news://freenews.netfront.net/</A> =
-=20
complaints: <A href=3D"mailto:news@netfront.net">news@netfront.net</A> =
---=20
<BR></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0117_01CB17A6.BBD5C4B0--

"des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
news:%230lib55FLHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[...]

 > All those others are web based email programs that cannot do zip.

No, they are not all web based. 

des wrote:

<Overly long lines due to HTML formatting wrapped at 72 chars per line>
> The only real alternative to Outlook Express which will give you all
> the facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view stationery, is
> Dream Mail.  All those others are web based email programs that
> cannot do zip. If all you want is text emails then anything will do. 

Note: Do *not* post using HTML in the text-only newsgroups.  Configure
your OE's "News Sending Format" to plain text (MIME, encoding = None).  

How are local e-mail clients, like Thunderbird, Eudora, Pegasus, or PIMs
that incorporate e-mail functionality, like Outlook or EssentialPIM,
considered "web based"?  They have never been referred to as web-based
clients until I read your post.  They do NOT use a web browser.  They
may render HTML-formatted e-mails but that does not make them a
web-based client.  You make a [deliberate] false claim which makes your
post appear as someone (possibly the author) hawking their product.

I use Outlook.  Definitely not some "web based" e-mail client.  You can
use the free BxAutoZip add-on if you want attachments to get
automatically collecting and compressed into a .zip attachment; however,
too often it got in the way and zipped files that I didn't want
compressed so I got rid of it and instead just do any compression as a
separate operation on the few occasions where I need it.  With all the
extensions available for Thunderbird (some of which require you edit the
..xpi file to let them install under later versions of Tbird), I wouldn't
be surprised there is one to do automatic zipping of attachments.

E-mail was NOT designed to be a file transfer scheme and shouldn't be
used for such, especially when there are far more effective and polite
means of transferring large files to the recipients of your e-mails.

> Dreammail can be got free from here.
> http:// www. softpedia. com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/DreamMail.shtml

Note that if you go to the "developer's site" listed by Softpedia (and
also at other download sites), you are taken to:

http://www.dreammail-europe.org/

That is NOT the developer's site.  That is a squatter sitting on that
domain (waiting and hoping someone buys it from them) and using
advertising to support their squatting on that domain.  NEVER follow
links from a squatter's domain.  One, their behavior is suspect which
also makes suspect anything they offer or point at.  Two, you are
helping to fund their squatting by retrieving any software from there or
using their click-throughs to other sites.

http://www.dreammail.org/

This is a Chinese language site with German and Polish versions but no
English version (I didn't see a link to an English version).  Guess
where the German site is located?  Yep, another squatter site.  The
Polish version finally goes to the developer's site.  

Look at the user reviews.  Then use a packet sniffer, 3rd party
firewall, your router's logs, or another networking tool that logs to
where applications will connect.  There are reports of this e-mail
client phones home to Chinese hosts.  So why would an e-mail client need
to connect anywhere other than to the e-mail servers you defined?  

Unlike OE, Tbird, Outlook, or other local e-mail clients (and not the
web-base clients that you claim), and according to some reviews,
DreamMail does not support IMAP.  While it might support SSL, it doesn't
appear to support TLS.  Language support (international) is poor.  It's
spam filter is ineffective.  I saw mention of "scoring" which probably
means they just use a Bayesian filter which is a guessing scheme based
on a weighted history of words (some Bayes filters will also record
phrases).  In anti-spam programs, it is the last or catchall mechanism
that should be used to detect spam.  If it is the only spam filter
option in an e-mail client, it won't well unless you get huge volumes of
e-mails which means it will take time to learn ham versus spam and has
to keep relearning.  I saw mention that while a spam filter was
available, it was only in the Chinese version (but that review was dated
back in Nov 2007).  
  
It is unclear if the "webmail" access available in DreamMail is a
screen/URL scraper to let them navigate and capture content from Hotmail
and Yahoo's webmail client.  There is no mention of HTTP/Deltasync
support in DreamMail for direct access to your Hotmail account.  Yahoo
doesn't have an HTTP interface other than through a web browser, so only
screen/URL scraping can be used (as with other similar POP-to-HTTP
screen scrapers, like YahooPOPs).  Tbird has its Webmail extension to so
the same thing.  However, the moment those webmail providers change
their web pages or the URLs to navigate between the pages for their
webmail client than these screen/URL scrapers will fail.  Then you have
to wait until the software developer happens to get around to repairing
their code so their scraping gets updated for the changes on the webmail
pages.  You could be without e-mail for weeks unless you decide to use
the site's own webmail client.

Yes, DreamMail is a choice but I wasn't impressed and it had just too
many red flags.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:18:37 +0100, des wrote:

> The only real alternative to Outlook Express which will give you all the
> facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view stationery, is Dream Mail.

"The only" is hardly ever true. The list of alternatives which can do much
of what MSOE can do is fairy long.

> All those others are web based email programs that cannot do zip.

All those other what? Can you enumerate what you they are?

> If all you want is text emails then anything will do

Indeed. And most people who think they can design a proper HTML can't. And
many readers, by design of their users, limit what you can do as a way of
mitigating the potential harm you can do with HTML mail

-- 
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

:
: Note: Do *not* post using HTML in the text-only newsgroups.  Configure
: your OE's "News Sending Format" to plain text (MIME, encoding = None).

Who put you in charge, Net Nanny HoopleHead? 

Sirs,
My apologies to those that I inadvertently offended by responding in HTML 
but as my posts are usually to newsgroups that are concerned with 
stationery, obviously they have to be in HTML.
Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook Express was 
Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because of 
their history and partly because their use for real stationery is very 
limited. I should be very anxious to learn of the other alternatives to 
Outlook Express that can be used for stationery as would many of the other 
users and creators of stationery.  My knowledge is obviously sadly deficient 
because I know of only one other and the use of that program is banned from 
many groups because of the large sizes of postings created with that 
program.
In response to VanguardLH who obviously does not understand the meaning of 
"stationery" and seems to be confused with some form of file transfer 
program and who goes into great length to expound on many subjects totally 
irrelevant to the discussion, I would add that Dreammail is completely free 
as was Outlook Express and performs most of the things that Outlook Express 
can do.  As such, until the respondents can provide a list of all these 
wonderful programs that have so far eluded us, I remain unconvinced.



"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message 
news:tp0kz6c96655.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:18:37 +0100, des wrote:
>
>> The only real alternative to Outlook Express which will give you all the
>> facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view stationery, is Dream 
>> Mail.
>
> "The only" is hardly ever true. The list of alternatives which can do much
> of what MSOE can do is fairy long.
>
>> All those others are web based email programs that cannot do zip.
>
> All those other what? Can you enumerate what you they are?
>
>> If all you want is text emails then anything will do
>
> Indeed. And most people who think they can design a proper HTML can't. And
> many readers, by design of their users, limit what you can do as a way of
> mitigating the potential harm you can do with HTML mail
>
> -- 
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum 

Ignore VanguardLH. He's nothing but a pretentious, condescending HoopleHead.
"des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
news:OtiimfFGLHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
: Sirs,
: My apologies to those that I inadvertently offended by responding in HTML
: but as my posts are usually to newsgroups that are concerned with
: stationery, obviously they have to be in HTML.
: Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook Express 
was
: Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because of
: their history and partly because their use for real stationery is very
: limited. I should be very anxious to learn of the other alternatives to
: Outlook Express that can be used for stationery as would many of the other
: users and creators of stationery.  My knowledge is obviously sadly 
deficient
: because I know of only one other and the use of that program is banned 
from
: many groups because of the large sizes of postings created with that
: program.
: In response to VanguardLH who obviously does not understand the meaning of
: "stationery" and seems to be confused with some form of file transfer
: program and who goes into great length to expound on many subjects totally
: irrelevant to the discussion, I would add that Dreammail is completely 
free
: as was Outlook Express and performs most of the things that Outlook 
Express
: can do.  As such, until the respondents can provide a list of all these
: wonderful programs that have so far eluded us, I remain unconvinced.
:
:
:
: "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
: news:tp0kz6c96655.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:18:37 +0100, des wrote:
: >
: >> The only real alternative to Outlook Express which will give you all 
the
: >> facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view stationery, is Dream
: >> Mail.
: >
: > "The only" is hardly ever true. The list of alternatives which can do 
much
: > of what MSOE can do is fairy long.
: >
: >> All those others are web based email programs that cannot do zip.
: >
: > All those other what? Can you enumerate what you they are?
: >
: >> If all you want is text emails then anything will do
: >
: > Indeed. And most people who think they can design a proper HTML can't. 
And
: > many readers, by design of their users, limit what you can do as a way 
of
: > mitigating the potential harm you can do with HTML mail
: >
: > -- 
: > Norman
: > ~Oh Lord, why have you come
: > ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
:
: 

Actually I though Vanguard did list a bunch of e-mail apps, also pointing 
out they are not web-based, something others said as well.  Whether or not 
you liked his style of writing is one thing, but it seems to me he presented 
facts.

If I am not mistaken, zipping up files is used mainly to wrap .exe files, 
which are often rejected by ISPs or e-mail apps, and to compress larger 
files for transmission my e-mail.  The point that was perhaps not perfectly 
elegantly made was that there are other ways of transferring larger files 
that do not require zipping of files etc etc.  At least that's the way I 
read it and that does not seem unreasonable.

In fact, I have this issue at the moment, wishing to show someone files of 8 
to 25 MB.  I posted them on a website and e-mailed links.  FWIW files up to 
15 MB I can post to a special site of my own which I set up for this purpose 
(the limit of the free version), and anything larger has to go to a 
third-party site.  The drawback there is that the files are deleted from 
that website within a week.

By emphasizing, or even just mentioning a zip facility one can infer from 
your post that you may wish to attach larger files on a regular basis.

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
news:OtiimfFGLHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Sirs,
> My apologies to those that I inadvertently offended by responding in HTML 
> but as my posts are usually to newsgroups that are concerned with 
> stationery, obviously they have to be in HTML.
> Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook Express 
> was Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because 
> of their history and partly because their use for real stationery is very 
> limited. I should be very anxious to learn of the other alternatives to 
> Outlook Express that can be used for stationery as would many of the other 
> users and creators of stationery.  My knowledge is obviously sadly 
> deficient because I know of only one other and the use of that program is 
> banned from many groups because of the large sizes of postings created 
> with that program.
> In response to VanguardLH who obviously does not understand the meaning of 
> "stationery" and seems to be confused with some form of file transfer 
> program and who goes into great length to expound on many subjects totally 
> irrelevant to the discussion, I would add that Dreammail is completely 
> free as was Outlook Express and performs most of the things that Outlook 
> Express can do.  As such, until the respondents can provide a list of all 
> these wonderful programs that have so far eluded us, I remain unconvinced.
>
>
>
> "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message 
> news:tp0kz6c96655.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:18:37 +0100, des wrote:
>>
>>> The only real alternative to Outlook Express which will give you all the
>>> facilities of OE, ie ability to compose and view stationery, is Dream 
>>> Mail.
>>
>> "The only" is hardly ever true. The list of alternatives which can do 
>> much
>> of what MSOE can do is fairy long.
>>
>>> All those others are web based email programs that cannot do zip.
>>
>> All those other what? Can you enumerate what you they are?
>>
>>> If all you want is text emails then anything will do
>>
>> Indeed. And most people who think they can design a proper HTML can't. 
>> And
>> many readers, by design of their users, limit what you can do as a way of
>> mitigating the potential harm you can do with HTML mail
>>
>> -- 
>> Norman
>> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
>> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
>
> 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CB184D.D2A4DF80
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_006D_01CB184D.D2A4DF80"


------=_NextPart_001_006D_01CB184D.D2A4DF80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What's wrong with HTML?

Hoyst Owen Petard wrote:
>> Note: Do *not* post using HTML in the text-only newsgroups.  =
Configure
>> your OE's "News Sending Format" to plain text (MIME, encoding =3D =
None).
>=20
> Who put you in charge, Net Nanny HoopleHead?
------=_NextPart_001_006D_01CB184D.D2A4DF80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><LINK href=3D"C:\Program Files\OE-QuoteFix\styles.css" =
rel=3Dstylesheet>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3Dcid:BB4E149509134D2CBC6727CFDBBDBFD2@600m><SPAN =
class=3Dq0><FONT=20
face=3D"Goudy Stout" color=3D#ff0000 size=3D7><STRONG>What's wrong with=20
HTML?</STRONG></FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=3DCalibri color=3D#000080>Hoyst =
Owen Petard=20
wrote:<BR></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3Dq2><FONT face=3DCalibri =
color=3D#000080>&gt;&gt;=20
Note: Do *not* post using HTML in the text-only newsgroups.&nbsp;=20
Configure<BR>&gt;&gt; your OE's "News Sending Format" to plain text =
(MIME,=20
encoding =3D None).<BR></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3Dq1><FONT =
face=3DCalibri=20
color=3D#000080>&gt; <BR>&gt; Who put you in charge, Net Nanny=20
HoopleHead?</FONT></SPAN></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_001_006D_01CB184D.D2A4DF80--

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CB184D.D2A4DF80
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="tech.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <BB4E149509134D2CBC6727CFDBBDBFD2@600m>
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------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CB184D.D2A4DF80--

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:26:46 +0100, des wrote:

> Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook Express was 
> Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because of 
> their history and partly because their use for real stationery is very 
> limited. I should be very anxious to learn of the other alternatives to 
> Outlook Express that can be used for stationery as would many of the other 
> users and creators of stationery.

When I said "much of what MSOE can do", I wasn't thinking of stationary.
Sadly, your stationary probably wouldn't survive many recipients' clients
treatment of email. The use of stationary in email is not as important as
you think. For most of us. Quick and simple. As I said, too many people who
dabble in HTML don't do it well.

-- 
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Hoyst Owen Petard wrote:

>:
>: Note: Do *not* post using HTML in the text-only newsgroups.  Configure
>: your OE's "News Sending Format" to plain text (MIME, encoding = None).
> 
> Who put you in charge, Net Nanny HoopleHead?

De facto Usenet standards.  You haven't been around long enough to know
the netiquette.

And it (stationery) may fetch up as an attachment at the receiving end, no?

A lot of people do not realise that the recipient may not see what the 
sender sends.

I have an example myself.  If I view my mail via my ISPs web portal much of 
it appears as plain courier text, unless the sent message contains a lot of 
graphics (as sent by a lot of businesses), when only some of them may show 
up.

When downloading into OE I usually see (I think) what people send.

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message 
news:i42187yhsv2v$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
[...]
>
> When I said "much of what MSOE can do", I wasn't thinking of stationary.
> Sadly, your stationary probably wouldn't survive many recipients' clients
> treatment of email. The use of stationary in email is not as important as
> you think. For most of us. Quick and simple. As I said, too many people 
> who
> dabble in HTML don't do it well.
>
> -- 
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum 

stationery, not stationary, please.

After all these years too. <G>

steve

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message =
news:i42187yhsv2v$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:26:46 +0100, des wrote:
>=20
>> Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook =
Express was=20
>> Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because =
of=20
>> their history and partly because their use for real stationery is =
very=20
>> limited. I should be very anxious to learn of the other alternatives =
to=20
>> Outlook Express that can be used for stationery as would many of the =
other=20
>> users and creators of stationery.
>=20
> When I said "much of what MSOE can do", I wasn't thinking of =
stationary.
> Sadly, your stationary probably wouldn't survive many recipients' =
clients
> treatment of email. The use of stationary in email is not as important =
as
> you think. For most of us. Quick and simple. As I said, too many =
people who
> dabble in HTML don't do it well.
>=20
> --=20
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Sir,
You fail to understand that many people really enjoy all the possibilities 
that the use of stationery allows.
I feel I am wasting my time here, because trying to explain what stationery 
is to somebody that cannot receive it is like trying to explain colours to a 
blind person or certain types of music to a deaf person.
As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the requirements to 
transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth he sees 
as the connection with stationery.
As it seems so important to him to transmit large files might I recommend he 
creates his own web site and uploads his files there.  Then all he has to do 
is to provide his correspondents with a link to the file on the web site. 
If he used stationery he would know that this is what we have to do to 
stream music or video sequences in our Outlook Express emails.
I am still waiting for the list of all the other email programs that provide 
the ability to use stationery.


"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message 
news:i42187yhsv2v$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:26:46 +0100, des wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook Express 
>> was
>> Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because of
>> their history and partly because their use for real stationery is very
>> limited. I should be very anxious to learn of the other alternatives to
>> Outlook Express that can be used for stationery as would many of the 
>> other
>> users and creators of stationery.
>
> When I said "much of what MSOE can do", I wasn't thinking of stationary.
> Sadly, your stationary probably wouldn't survive many recipients' clients
> treatment of email. The use of stationary in email is not as important as
> you think. For most of us. Quick and simple. As I said, too many people 
> who
> dabble in HTML don't do it well.
>
> -- 
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum 

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:00:43 +0100, des wrote:

> Sir,
> You fail to understand that many people really enjoy all the possibilities 
> that the use of stationery allows.

Some, not many.

> I feel I am wasting my time here, because trying to explain what stationery 
> is to somebody that cannot receive it is like trying to explain colours to a 
> blind person or certain types of music to a deaf person.

Your stationery wastes space, and download time for many.

> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the requirements to 
> transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth he sees 
> as the connection with stationery.

An email with stationery may be twice the size, or more, of plain text.

> I am still waiting for the list of all the other email programs that provide 
> the ability to use stationery.

If stationery was that important in the scheme of the Internet, there would
undoubtedly be more such applications than there are. So perhaps the lack of
applications with the ability is more telling than anything I could say.
There appears to be no demand for it.

-- 
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

And people addressed des's points the way they understood them (not being 
located inside his brain), one of which was the claim about so many mail 
clients being web-based.

Whilst I understand des's need for stationery (it's not for me to question 
the motives or background, though issues with it can certainly be pointed 
out), it seems to me he does not understand some of the replies, perhaps 
being so focused on the one need, plus the insistence to have some sort of 
auto zipping facility.

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message 
news:kxybpwvsvjzn.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:00:43 +0100, des wrote:
>
>> Sir,
>> You fail to understand that many people really enjoy all the 
>> possibilities
>> that the use of stationery allows.
>
> Some, not many.
>
>> I feel I am wasting my time here, because trying to explain what 
>> stationery
>> is to somebody that cannot receive it is like trying to explain colours 
>> to a
>> blind person or certain types of music to a deaf person.
>
> Your stationery wastes space, and download time for many.
>
>> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the requirements to
>> transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth he 
>> sees
>> as the connection with stationery.
>
> An email with stationery may be twice the size, or more, of plain text.
>
>> I am still waiting for the list of all the other email programs that 
>> provide
>> the ability to use stationery.
>
> If stationery was that important in the scheme of the Internet, there 
> would
> undoubtedly be more such applications than there are. So perhaps the lack 
> of
> applications with the ability is more telling than anything I could say.
> There appears to be no demand for it.
>
> -- 
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum 

"des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
news:ODkXTaTGLHA.5700@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the requirements 
> to transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth 
> he sees as the connection with stationery.

I think he's off on a slight tangent due to your mentioning of 'zip' as 
one of your needed features.

An e-mail send should not be so large as to require compression etc... 

Microsoft creates many problems just by their choice of naming 
applications. I too thought that "Live" in a name meant is was part of 
the web-application suite and therefore Windows Live Mail was web-based. 
Now, if I understand it correctly Windows Live Mail is the desktop 
application and the web-based e-mail application is Windows Live 
Hotmail.

Anyway, saying *all* others are web-based is/was incorrect.

....and "zip" has a special meaning, des probably meant that they don't 
do squat.

Now don't tell me "squat" has some special meaning too :oD

"DAS" <nobody@spam.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:M7GdnYsanPH8X7HRnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> And people addressed des's points the way they understood them (not 
> being located inside his brain), one of which was the claim about so 
> many mail clients being web-based.
>
> Whilst I understand des's need for stationery (it's not for me to 
> question the motives or background, though issues with it can 
> certainly be pointed out), it seems to me he does not understand some 
> of the replies, perhaps being so focused on the one need, plus the 
> insistence to have some sort of auto zipping facility.
>
> DAS
>
> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
> --
> "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message 
> news:kxybpwvsvjzn.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:00:43 +0100, des wrote:
>>
>>> Sir,
>>> You fail to understand that many people really enjoy all the 
>>> possibilities
>>> that the use of stationery allows.
>>
>> Some, not many.
>>
>>> I feel I am wasting my time here, because trying to explain what 
>>> stationery
>>> is to somebody that cannot receive it is like trying to explain 
>>> colours to a
>>> blind person or certain types of music to a deaf person.
>>
>> Your stationery wastes space, and download time for many.
>>
>>> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the 
>>> requirements to
>>> transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth 
>>> he sees
>>> as the connection with stationery.
>>
>> An email with stationery may be twice the size, or more, of plain 
>> text.
>>
>>> I am still waiting for the list of all the other email programs that 
>>> provide
>>> the ability to use stationery.
>>
>> If stationery was that important in the scheme of the Internet, there 
>> would
>> undoubtedly be more such applications than there are. So perhaps the 
>> lack of
>> applications with the ability is more telling than anything I could 
>> say.
>> There appears to be no demand for it.
>>
>> -- 
>> Norman
>> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
>> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
>
> 

There is no "demand" for a number of religions or religious practices.  =
That doesn't mean they don't have their own value.

In the day that "stationery" HTML messaging thrived, it was rich in =
creativity and artistry practiced by many very intelligent people.  Just =
because you don't fathom that level of pursuit, it doesn't give you the =
authority to condemn it.

steve

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message =
news:kxybpwvsvjzn.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:00:43 +0100, des wrote:
>=20
>> Sir,
>> You fail to understand that many people really enjoy all the =
possibilities=20
>> that the use of stationery allows.
>=20
> Some, not many.
>=20
>> I feel I am wasting my time here, because trying to explain what =
stationery=20
>> is to somebody that cannot receive it is like trying to explain =
colours to a=20
>> blind person or certain types of music to a deaf person.
>=20
> Your stationery wastes space, and download time for many.
>=20
>> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the =
requirements to=20
>> transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth =
he sees=20
>> as the connection with stationery.
>=20
> An email with stationery may be twice the size, or more, of plain =
text.
>=20
>> I am still waiting for the list of all the other email programs that =
provide=20
>> the ability to use stationery.
>=20
> If stationery was that important in the scheme of the Internet, there =
would
> undoubtedly be more such applications than there are. So perhaps the =
lack of
> applications with the ability is more telling than anything I could =
say.
> There appears to be no demand for it.
>=20
> --=20
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

I thank you for the explanation as to why the person associated "zipped" 
files with my word which indeed meant "diddly squat" to use a similar 
expression, although not one in common use in my vocabulary.
Sadly the English language has "developed" by its use in so many countries 
throughout the world that it is to be expected that certain words might have 
different meanings in those countries.  Certainly we all remember the 
comments by George Bernard Shaw regarding the English language and its 
spelling when he showed that the word fish should properly be spelt ghoti on 
the basis that the 'f' sound should be as the 'gh' as in cough, the 'i' 
should be as the 'o' in women, the 'sh' should be spelled as in 'nation'.  I 
accept that the first requirement of language is that it should be a means 
of communication and as such as long as the meaning is understood, then the 
actual spelling does not matter.  However, as we have seen when somebody 
spells stationary when they mean stationery it means a totally different 
thing.  In this particular context, the meaning was clear as it was 
obviously just a typographical error.  This might not have been the case in 
a different situation thus showing the importance of spelling at certain 
times.  I am guilty of using the word zip which was obviously misconstrued 
when I should have a word like nothing or zero which as far as I know has no 
double meaning.
Regarding the comment that stationery would create a larger file than a pure 
text message, that is quite correct.  However, among the estimated hundreds 
of thousands of people that use stationery, this is of no consequence.  For 
the few people who live in areas devoid of broadband, then of course file 
size is an important fact.  However, the majority of stationery scripters 
are conscious of file sizes and in fact a few stationery newsgroups have a 
declared maximum size for posts.  Were program writers for many large 
organisations that will immediately come to mind be under the same 
constraints, there would be far less bloat than there is today.

"FromTheRafters" <erratic @nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message 
news:%23pXxo5XGLHA.5448@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
> news:ODkXTaTGLHA.5700@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the requirements to 
>> transmit large files with email, I fail to understand what on earth he 
>> sees as the connection with stationery.
>
> I think he's off on a slight tangent due to your mentioning of 'zip' as 
> one of your needed features.
>
> An e-mail send should not be so large as to require compression etc...
> 

"des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
news:u5qn76cGLHA.5448@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I thank you for the explanation as to why the person associated 
>"zipped" files with my word which indeed meant "diddly squat" to use a 
>similar expression, although not one in common use in my vocabulary.

Microsoft's server(s) won't let you say that other e-mail clients don't 
do sh*t. They care more about foul language than they do about security.

> Sadly the English language has "developed" by its use in so many 
> countries throughout the world that it is to be expected that certain 
> words might have different meanings in those countries.  Certainly we 
> all remember the comments by George Bernard Shaw regarding the English 
> language and its spelling when he showed that the word fish should 
> properly be spelt ghoti on the basis that the 'f' sound should be as 
> the 'gh' as in cough, the 'i' should be as the 'o' in women, the 'sh' 
> should be spelled as in 'nation'.  I accept that the first requirement 
> of language is that it should be a means of communication and as such 
> as long as the meaning is understood, then the actual spelling does 
> not matter.

Right. communication's only requirement is that ideas can be transferred 
between individuals. Semantics causes a problem when things get lost in 
the translation.

> However, as we have seen when somebody spells stationary when they 
> mean stationery it means a totally different thing.  In this 
> particular context, the meaning was clear as it was obviously just a 
> typographical error.

Yes, I knew what was meant, so I didn't bother to bother anyone with a 
correction. :o)

That is a very common error.

> This might not have been the case in a different situation thus 
> showing the importance of spelling at certain times.  I am guilty of 
> using the word zip which was obviously misconstrued when I should have 
> a word like nothing or zero which as far as I know has no double 
> meaning.

It is hard to know what others may misinterpret.

> Regarding the comment that stationery would create a larger file than 
> a pure text message, that is quite correct.  However, among the 
> estimated hundreds of thousands of people that use stationery, this is 
> of no consequence.  For the few people who live in areas devoid of 
> broadband, then of course file size is an important fact.

Some people don't even think HTML has any business being in e-mail. It 
was just fine as a textual communication medium.

> However, the majority of stationery scripters are conscious of file 
> sizes and in fact a few stationery newsgroups have a declared maximum 
> size for posts.  Were program writers for many large organisations 
> that will immediately come to mind be under the same constraints, 
> there would be far less bloat than there is today.

Indeed! Code optimization seems to be a thing of the past.

> "FromTheRafters" <erratic @nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message 
> news:%23pXxo5XGLHA.5448@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "des" <delinwales@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
>> news:ODkXTaTGLHA.5700@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> As to what on earth the person who keeps on repeating the 
>>> requirements to transmit large files with email, I fail to 
>>> understand what on earth he sees as the connection with stationery.
>>
>> I think he's off on a slight tangent due to your mentioning of 'zip' 
>> as one of your needed features.
>>
>> An e-mail send should not be so large as to require compression 
>> etc...
>>
>
> 

des wrote:

> Perhaps I was wrong when I said the only alternative to Outlook Express was 
> Dreammail but I had discounted Incredimail, partly I suppose because of 
> their history and partly because their use for real stationery is very 
> limited. 
> In response to VanguardLH who obviously does not understand the meaning of 
> "stationery" and seems to be confused with some form of file transfer 
> program and who goes into great length to expound on many subjects totally 
> irrelevant to the discussion, I would add that Dreammail is completely free 
> as was Outlook Express and performs most of the things that Outlook Express 
> can do.  

YOU brought stationery into the subthread but only as an "i.e." example
of one of the features available in OE.  The OP never mentioned the need
for stationery support.  Also "stationery" merely represents a template
reused for future e-mails or perhaps a background image and lots of
e-mail clients support that.  YOU focused on stationery but that was to
become the entire focus of your reply nor was it a requirement by the
OP.

YOU were the one claiming all e-mail clients other than OE and your
choice of DreamMail were web-based clients.  Hardly.  It is *that* issue
that I firstly addressed (while also mentioning some red flags found
while investigating DreamMail).  

I also addressed the issue of zipping up attachments when using other
e-mail clients as YOU claimed that only DreamMail could do that.
However, since you mentioned zipping up attachments, that indicates that
you are attaching large files onto your e-mails and there are better
mechanisms available for transferring large files and which are also
more polite to the recipient.  Again, YOU brought up the zip feature
which isn't needed unless large files are involved.

As for Incredimal (deliberately mispelled), that is an extremely poor
choice for an e-mail client.  Following is my canned rant against anyone
choosing to use Incredimail.


<rant>

Incredimail - The choice of immature, irresponsible, and ignorant e-mail
users

Incredimail is the choice of immature e-mail users, those that need to
hide the fact that they have little substance in the content of their
message and need to fluff it up with extraneous style and extra garbage.
Or maybe you are a marketer or spammer and that's why you need to bloat
your messages: little to say so use something to enlarge it.  Sure,
yeah, your recipients want e-mails that are ten times larger than
necessary and bloated with fluff backgrounds, music, gifs, and other
non-essential crap.  A simple 2KB message will bloat up to 55KB, or
worse.  Are you trying to irritate your recipients that still use
dial-up by making them wait longer to receive your bloated mails?
You'll find anything you have in Incredimail, like contacts, will be
hard or impossible to get out once you decide to leave it.

Use a good e-mail program.  Incredimail isn't one of them.  If you
decide to continue using it, expect some of your recipients to block
that crap-ridden mail or even have it tagged as spam if you send many
mails to the same domain, especially for short messages since the fluff
crap will constitute most of the message and be seen as the major
content of all those repetitive e-mails.  Also, you may find your
recipients don't appreciate getting childish content.  The HTML coding
it employs is awful, and it is highly likely that most if not all of
your e-mails don't even require being sent as HTML messages (which, at a
minimum, doubles the size of your mails to provide an HTML copy and a
plain-text copy assuming that Incredimail follows the RFC standards
which wouldn't be a surprise if they don't).

Be a responsible and considerate email sender.  Don't use Incredimail
which emphasizes style over content; i.e., you waste the recipient's
time, bandwidth, and disk space with fluff.  Once you decide it is crap,
you'll be back asking how to uninstall it.  ISPs or e-mail providers
will support only one or few e-mail clients (to minimize the training or
expertise required by their techs since the operation of the e-mail
client is not their concern but only in the settings needed for it to
use their e-mail service).  Don't expect any to help you with
Incredimail.  From what I read, don't even expect Incredimail to help
you with Incredimail.  Did you even see a FAQ or help page at their web
site?  Well, there is a very, VERY minimal help page but no link to it
from their main page (go hunting on their other web pages and look at
the bottom for a list of links).

When I send e-mail, I expect only my mail server to get it and deliver
it to the recipient.  However, with Incredimail, it also connects to
them to send information about your use of Incredimail.  Read
http://email.about.com/cs/incredimailtips/qt/et063003.htm.  Doesn't
anyone bother to read their, um, "policies"
(http://www.incredimail.com/english/privacy.asp)?  They announce that
they will collect info regarding your e-mails.  Oh no, they're not
spyware but they DO collect info on your e-mails.  Sure, they don't spy,
uh huh - but they DO spy.  An e-mail client should only be connecting to
the user's mail server, not to Incredimail's server, too.  They would
like to redefine the term "spyware" to not include themself.  People got
enraged with Gmail doing that to provide targeted marketing.  No email
program should track your email (date & time, how many times you use
their program, which pictures you used) and store this marketing data on
a server located in a foreign country - but Incredimail does.  They
admit that they collect info about your sent e-mails which means a data
collection and transmission mechanism is already incorporated into their
e-mail client. With that link between your computer and their server,
they can collect any information you enter into their email program,
including the contents of your mails, mail servers, and even passwords.
They *promise* not to interrogate the contents of your e-mails but the
mechanism is already there to send them whatever they want, and they
already openly admit to spying on you.  The data is stored on their
servers in Israel.  Do you know the privacy laws there?  Have you ever
dealt with Israeli companies?

From their site, "IncrediMail relies on two platforms to make an income;
1) the sale of its software products and 2) advertisement via the Status
Window in the application and on the Web site."  So either you buy it
from them or you choose to use their adware (ads in their Status
window).  Not only do they spew ads in your face but they also append
their "promotional" spam signature at the end of every one of your
outbound e-mails.  Free accounts at Yahoo and Hotmail do that, too, and
why I will receive from their service but I will NOT send through it.
Instead use your own ISP's SMTP server to send your outbound mails.
However, if you use the free Incredimail client, you spew spam in every
one of your outbound mails.  Do you think your recipients really
appreciate getting Incredimail's ugly advertisement at the end of your
mails?  You think your e-mails look professional with someone's spam
tacked onto the end of it (in addition to all the fluff they add to
bloat the size of your e-mails)?  Are you devoted to producing
amateurish e-mails?

So here is crapware that severely bloats the size of mails, used by
children and spammers to hide that there is little content in their
mails, spies on your mails, spews ads in your face (unless you buy it
although other *good* e-mail clients are free), and spamifies your
outbound e-mails.  Sometimes it is difficult to believe that so many
adults are so gullible and also such irresponsible e-mailers.

</rant>

DAS wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, zipping up files is used mainly to wrap .exe files, 
> which are often rejected by ISPs or e-mail apps, 

Easier just to rename the file before attaching it.  For example, rename
"program.exe" to "program.exx".  Then tell the recipient to rename the
".exx" extension back to ".exe".  No compression is required and
probably won't result in any compression but instead a slight
enlargement of the "compressed" file (i.e., you'll end up with a larger
..exe in the .zip file because no compression was employed but you get
the overhead of the archive structure).  

Also, all e-mail gets sent as text.  All of it.  HTML is text.  RTF is
text with an attachment.  All attachments are encoded into long text
strings inside of MIME parts within the body of the message.  Expect an
file's size to bloat by 137%, or much more, when you attach it to an
e-mail due to the text encoding.  The amount you *may* compress the
attachment often becomes insignificant for non- or little-compressible
binary files, like executables.

In my experience, when someone mentions zipping up a file to attach to
an e-mail, it is because they are sending a huge file, not because of
the filename issue (which is easily circumvented with a rename).  E-mail
was never designed for large file transfer.  There is no resume
function, there is no hash or CRC value to ensure the content was
delivered without corruption, e-mails are all sent as text which is
highly inefficient for binary content, there are quotas on max message
size for sending or received messages, like 5MB to 20MB per message,
despite having gigabytes of disk quota for total storage in a mailbox,
and plenty of other problems when using the wrong protocol to send large
files.

> The point that was perhaps not perfectly 
> elegantly made was that there are other ways of transferring larger files 
> that do not require zipping of files etc etc.  At least that's the way I 
> read it and that does not seem unreasonable.

Not every recipient has a high-speed broadband connection when getting
their e-mails.  Even if they have a high-speed connect at home, they may
be retrieving their e-mails from elsewhere, like when travelling.  Some
users still pay per minute for e-mail access or are charged a "bandwidth
cost" for their online time.  You are also generating redundant copies
of this large file in your e-mail store, on your e-mail provider's
message store, on the recipient's ESP store, and on the recipient's
host.  That's a lot of duplicated content for a large file that the
recipient might not want.

It is rude to push a huge file in your e-mail which requires the
recipient to have to download the whole damn thing before they can see
any part of your e-mail.  There are plenty of free sites, some offering
up to 50GB of online storage, where you can deposit your file.  Then you
just put a link to the file in your e-mail.  The e-mail is small, it is
fast to retrieve, and the recipient can decide if and when to get your
large file.

Yes, we get the point.  You are not keen on IncrediMail... :-)


(I had never heard of it until this thread).

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message 
news:i0l0vn$9vl$1@news.albasani.net...
[...]
>
> <rant>
>
> Incredimail - The choice of immature, irresponsible, and ignorant e-mail
> users
>
> Incredimail is the choice of immature e-mail users, those that need to
> hide the fact that they have little substance in the content of their
> message and need to fluff it up with extraneous style and extra garbage.
> Or maybe you are a marketer or spammer and that's why you need to bloat
> your messages: little to say so use something to enlarge it.  Sure,
> yeah, your recipients want e-mails that are ten times larger than
> necessary and bloated with fluff backgrounds, music, gifs, and other
> non-essential crap.  A simple 2KB message will bloat up to 55KB, or
> worse.  Are you trying to irritate your recipients that still use
> dial-up by making them wait longer to receive your bloated mails?
> You'll find anything you have in Incredimail, like contacts, will be
> hard or impossible to get out once you decide to leave it.
>
> Use a good e-mail program.  Incredimail isn't one of them.  If you
> decide to continue using it, expect some of your recipients to block
> that crap-ridden mail or even have it tagged as spam if you send many
> mails to the same domain, especially for short messages since the fluff
> crap will constitute most of the message and be seen as the major
> content of all those repetitive e-mails.  Also, you may find your
> recipients don't appreciate getting childish content.  The HTML coding
> it employs is awful, and it is highly likely that most if not all of
> your e-mails don't even require being sent as HTML messages (which, at a
> minimum, doubles the size of your mails to provide an HTML copy and a
> plain-text copy assuming that Incredimail follows the RFC standards
> which wouldn't be a surprise if they don't).
>
> Be a responsible and considerate email sender.  Don't use Incredimail
> which emphasizes style over content; i.e., you waste the recipient's
> time, bandwidth, and disk space with fluff.  Once you decide it is crap,
> you'll be back asking how to uninstall it.  ISPs or e-mail providers
> will support only one or few e-mail clients (to minimize the training or
> expertise required by their techs since the operation of the e-mail
> client is not their concern but only in the settings needed for it to
> use their e-mail service).  Don't expect any to help you with
> Incredimail.  From what I read, don't even expect Incredimail to help
> you with Incredimail.  Did you even see a FAQ or help page at their web
> site?  Well, there is a very, VERY minimal help page but no link to it
> from their main page (go hunting on their other web pages and look at
> the bottom for a list of links).
>
> When I send e-mail, I expect only my mail server to get it and deliver
> it to the recipient.  However, with Incredimail, it also connects to
> them to send information about your use of Incredimail.  Read
> http://email.about.com/cs/incredimailtips/qt/et063003.htm.  Doesn't
> anyone bother to read their, um, "policies"
> (http://www.incredimail.com/english/privacy.asp)?  They announce that
> they will collect info regarding your e-mails.  Oh no, they're not
> spyware but they DO collect info on your e-mails.  Sure, they don't spy,
> uh huh - but they DO spy.  An e-mail client should only be connecting to
> the user's mail server, not to Incredimail's server, too.  They would
> like to redefine the term "spyware" to not include themself.  People got
> enraged with Gmail doing that to provide targeted marketing.  No email
> program should track your email (date & time, how many times you use
> their program, which pictures you used) and store this marketing data on
> a server located in a foreign country - but Incredimail does.  They
> admit that they collect info about your sent e-mails which means a data
> collection and transmission mechanism is already incorporated into their
> e-mail client. With that link between your computer and their server,
> they can collect any information you enter into their email program,
> including the contents of your mails, mail servers, and even passwords.
> They *promise* not to interrogate the contents of your e-mails but the
> mechanism is already there to send them whatever they want, and they
> already openly admit to spying on you.  The data is stored on their
> servers in Israel.  Do you know the privacy laws there?  Have you ever
> dealt with Israeli companies?
>
> From their site, "IncrediMail relies on two platforms to make an income;
> 1) the sale of its software products and 2) advertisement via the Status
> Window in the application and on the Web site."  So either you buy it
> from them or you choose to use their adware (ads in their Status
> window).  Not only do they spew ads in your face but they also append
> their "promotional" spam signature at the end of every one of your
> outbound e-mails.  Free accounts at Yahoo and Hotmail do that, too, and
> why I will receive from their service but I will NOT send through it.
> Instead use your own ISP's SMTP server to send your outbound mails.
> However, if you use the free Incredimail client, you spew spam in every
> one of your outbound mails.  Do you think your recipients really
> appreciate getting Incredimail's ugly advertisement at the end of your
> mails?  You think your e-mails look professional with someone's spam
> tacked onto the end of it (in addition to all the fluff they add to
> bloat the size of your e-mails)?  Are you devoted to producing
> amateurish e-mails?
>
> So here is crapware that severely bloats the size of mails, used by
> children and spammers to hide that there is little content in their
> mails, spies on your mails, spews ads in your face (unless you buy it
> although other *good* e-mail clients are free), and spamifies your
> outbound e-mails.  Sometimes it is difficult to believe that so many
> adults are so gullible and also such irresponsible e-mailers.
>
> </rant>