email clients

[Bill Cunningham[_2_]]

Does anyone know of any good email clients other than of course our
outdated OE and Thunderbird? Thunderbird looks too complicated in using
settings. I just would like to get some opinions. What everyone out there
using? OE not that secure anymore. But I get get pics in my emails anymore.
I know that's security settings. Well any opinions?

Bill

[VanguardLH[_2_]]

Bill Cunningham wrote:

> Does anyone know of any good email clients other than of course our
> outdated OE and Thunderbird? Thunderbird looks too complicated in using
> settings. I just would like to get some opinions. What everyone out there
> using? OE not that secure anymore. But I get get pics in my emails anymore.
> I know that's security settings. Well any opinions?

If you are looking for simple, why not use the e-mail provider's webmail
client? OE and Thunderbird are too complicated, you say. OE is only as
complicated as you use more of its features and only outdated if you
need support of e-mail protocols that it doesn't support. OE supports
POP, IMAP, and SMTP which are all the standard e-mail protocols and
which have not changed for a long time. If you need support for
non-standard e-mail protocols, like Microsoft's proprietary protocols,
then you're usually stuck using Microsoft's e-mail clients, like
Outlook.

There's em Client but it, like other e-mail clients, has lots of
features which would make it "complicated" assuming you use all of its
features. The free version is limited to just 2 e-mail account. You
have to pay ($50) to support more accounts. You didn't mention how many
you have. It still supports XP. It supports all the standard e-mail
protocols along with EAS (Exchanges ActiveSync) used by Microsoft.

Another choice is Essential PIM. It has many of the features of Outlook
but much cheaper. Alas, its free version is crippled, too: just 2
e-mail accounts. After that you have to pay: $40 for one major version
license (all updates for it), $80 for lifetime license (all future
versions, all updates for each version). See their comparison at:

http://www.essentialpim.com/pc-version/pro-vs-free

It has e-mail, calendaring, contacts, etc. However, it only supports
standard e-mail protocols: POP, IMAP, SMTP. No Microsoft proprietary
protocols. That means your contacts and calendars are local-only. No
sync to online contacts and calendars at Microsoft or Google. No
installing add-ons, either, to add that support. I tried it for an
extremely short time. When I found then spamified my outbound e-mails
with their fake spam signature (they would append their sig onto your
outbound e-mails), I dumped it. They probably don't do that anymore due
to all the complaints from their freeloading users. They use their free
version as a lure to get users to become paying customers, and spamming
turned off many candidate users who might've become paying customers.
Be sure to ask them before wasting time with their free version. They
also have versions of EPIM for Android and iOS smartphones. They also
have portable versions so you can try without installing it.

[Paul[_32_]]

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Does anyone know of any good email clients other than of course our
> outdated OE and Thunderbird? Thunderbird looks too complicated in using
> settings. I just would like to get some opinions. What everyone out there
> using? OE not that secure anymore. But I get get pics in my emails anymore.
> I know that's security settings. Well any opinions?
>
> Bill

You could look through the selection here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_email_clients

You need to decide what protocol your provider is using,
to make a choice.

If I want the mails stored in folders on my computer,
that's probably POP3.

Some other protocols, allow sitting at multiple computers
and viewing mail, because all the mail stays on the server end.
But by doing that, if you change providers, it's pretty hard
to come up with a plan for archiving the boxes on the server.

Thunderbird has an icon editor, where you can
drag the icon you want ("Reply" "Reply All" "Followup")
from a palette into the bar above the three-pane view.
So if the set of icons look strange to you, there
are some others you can put there.

Paul

[Bill Cunningham[_2_]]

"VanguardLH" > wrote in message
...

> If you are looking for simple, why not use the e-mail provider's webmail
> client? OE and Thunderbird are too complicated, you say.

OE is complicated. Thunderbird looks like it might be a lot to learn.
I've sued it several times and it kind of turns me off. I love firefox
though. I'm not buying anything. Certainly nothing MS. OE came with XP Pro
x64 I have and that or something like Thunderbird I will use if I must.

[...]

[VanguardLH[_2_]]

Bill Cunningham wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote ...
>
>> If you are looking for simple, why not use the e-mail provider's
>> webmail client? OE and Thunderbird are too complicated, you say.
>
> OE is complicated. Thunderbird looks like it might be a lot to learn.
> I've *per*sued it several times and it kind of turns me off. I love
> firefox though. I'm not buying anything. Certainly nothing MS.

That was not a specified criteria in your first post. Ask about
freeware over in the freeware newsgroup, which is at:

alt.comp.freeware

If OE is too complicated, so will be any other local e-mail client.
That's why I suggest that perhaps you should use their webmail client.

> OE came with XP Pro x64

Outlook Express was bundled with Internet Explorer version 3 to 6. The
installer for IE included OE. OE did not come with Windows XP per se.
Which version of OE you have depends on which version of IE you install.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook_Express
"email and news client included with Internet Explorer versions 3.0
through 6.0"

So do you have Windows XP 32-bit or 64-bit? The 64-bit version of XP is
not Windows XP 32-bit that graduated to a 64-bit platform. It is
actually Windows 2003 Server 64-bit stripped down with the XP GUI
slapped on it. That is why some programs won't run on WinXP x64: they
won't run on server editions of Windows. There is also the IA-64
version of WinXP x64 (is actually WinXP codebase) but that required you
have the Itanium process (rare few users had that and only a few
companies bothered with it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#64-bit_editions

> I have and that or something like Thunderbird I will use if I must.

Already gave a couple other local e-mail client suggestions. However,
they have features and robustness that may make it too complicated for
you - but then you don't need to use everything they have. Most users
of Word, LibreOffice, or other word processors often never get beyond
50% of its features. Having a feature doesn't mean having to use it.

Hard to know just when an e-mail client becomes "too complicated".
That's a personal thing. Try the suggested e-mail clients including the
webmail choice. If you don't like one, try another.

[Bill Cunningham[_2_]]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> Does anyone know of any good email clients other than of course our
>> outdated OE and Thunderbird? Thunderbird looks too complicated in using
>> settings. I just would like to get some opinions. What everyone out there
>> using? OE not that secure anymore. But I get get pics in my emails
>> anymore. I know that's security settings. Well any opinions?
>>
>> Bill
>
> You could look through the selection here.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_email_clients
>
> You need to decide what protocol your provider is using,
> to make a choice.
>
> If I want the mails stored in folders on my computer,
> that's probably POP3.
>
> Some other protocols, allow sitting at multiple computers
> and viewing mail, because all the mail stays on the server end.
> But by doing that, if you change providers, it's pretty hard
> to come up with a plan for archiving the boxes on the server.
>
> Thunderbird has an icon editor, where you can
> drag the icon you want ("Reply" "Reply All" "Followup")
> from a palette into the bar above the three-pane view.
> So if the set of icons look strange to you, there
> are some others you can put there.
>
> Paul

My ISP uses pop3 and smtp. So it's pretty simple there :)

Bill

[Bill Cunningham[_2_]]

"VanguardLH" > wrote in message
...

[...]

> So do you have Windows XP 32-bit or 64-bit? The 64-bit version of XP is
> not Windows XP 32-bit that graduated to a 64-bit platform. It is
> actually Windows 2003 Server 64-bit stripped down with the XP GUI
> slapped on it.

Yeah. I guess they was going for the "fad" quickly. Mine is XP Prof x64
and I have installed SP2. Which is the latest SP for it. The 32 bit version
I understand has SP3.

That is why some programs won't run on WinXP x64: they
> won't run on server editions of Windows.

Interesting. I didn't know that. I wondered why some updates from MS
especially weren't working. I was using x64 versions too. Some 32 bit run on
the OS.

There is also the IA-64
> version of WinXP x64 (is actually WinXP codebase) but that required you
> have the Itanium process (rare few users had that and only a few
> companies bothered with it).

I have an AMD Athelon 3500+. My setup is about 14 yo. AFAIK the machine
is fine. The HD might be getting wore. But otherwise it seems to be fine.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#64-bit_editions
>
>> I have and that or something like Thunderbird I will use if I must.
>
> Already gave a couple other local e-mail client suggestions. However,
> they have features and robustness that may make it too complicated for
> you - but then you don't need to use everything they have. Most users
> of Word, LibreOffice, or other word processors often never get beyond
> 50% of its features. Having a feature doesn't mean having to use it.
>
> Hard to know just when an e-mail client becomes "too complicated".
> That's a personal thing. Try the suggested e-mail clients including the
> webmail choice. If you don't like one, try another.

Thx for all opinions.

Bill

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Bill Cunningham
> writes:
[]
> My ISP uses pop3 and smtp. So it's pretty simple there :)
>
>Bill
>
>
Then all the old email clients should work - OE, Pegasus, Eudora,
Thunderbird. They are all about equally difficult/easy to set up and
use; if you don't want any complicated settings, don't use them. I'd say
Thunderbird is the one you're likely to get most help with at the
moment.

What exactly is the problem that's making you think about switching? You
say "OE not that secure anymore. But I get get pics in my emails
anymore." That sounds like two problems/concerns:

1. Security. Tell us your concerns.

2. "get get pictures" - I'm guessing you mean "don't get pictures".
Unless it's something to do with encryption of attachments, there are
two ways of "getting" pictures "in" emails: either they're embedded in
the email (actually for the last many years, they're at the end of the
email, with a pointer to the end in the text), or they're actually
online somewhere, and the email just has a pointer to the URL. This has
become much more common these days, with always-on connections. Since it
can also be used for data gathering (the server where the images are
stored logs who's fetching them - often uniquely, as the email may
contain a URL that's unique to the recipient), a lot of email clients
have the option to block them - they only show images that are actually
contained within the email, not ones that are fetched when you read it.
I _think_ OE has the option to block such images; if so, you've probably
turned it on, possibly unintentionally. Yes, in my copy of OE6, it's
Tools, Options, Security, Download Images, Block images and other
external content in HTML e-mail. If you untick that, you might get your
pictures back. If that works, you might not have to change cliemt.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The motto of the Royal Society is: 'Take nobody's word for it'. Scepticism has
value. - Brian Cox, RT 2015/3/14-20

[Paul[_32_]]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> or they're actually online somewhere, and
> the email just has a pointer to the URL.

And we know why this particular formulation will
foul up, right ? The embedded links to the image
in the email body, will be https:// links and
the server will be using TLS 1.2 or something.

In other words, the server providing the images,
is using security features the copy of Internet
Explorer hosting Outlook Express, just doesn't have.

Outlook Express would need to be running on top
of Internet Explorer 11, to keep these clever
clever web site operators happy...

I think I was running IE9 on some copy of WinXP,
and it *still* wasn't good enough for modern
https: security features. So you really can't
patch the Microsoft part of WinXP up well enough,
to work with the "modern web". You need a third
party browser, and none of those is going to
operate as Outlook Express "whipping boy". OE
is tied intimately to IE. And I don't know if
there is any way to get another browser to do that.
Since Microsoft stuff is normally non-standard,
I would not expect it to work, even if someone
could figure out a recipe.

Since Thunderbird is based on Firefox engine, and
the engine components are at least ESR versions,
you would expect some sorta https: support on
Thunderbird. Ninety percent of the source code
in the Thunderbird source tarball, is just a
copy of the Firefox source. And what they've switched
to now, is ESR versions of Firefox, because a lot
of their developer time is wasted fitting newer
versions of Firefox, underneath Thunderbird as
the engine. They have to update Firefox engine
regularly on Thunderbird, for security reasons.

When you build Thunderbird from source, there
is even a sort of debugging option in the build
file, to "build browser". So you can actually
build the engine part without the Thunderbird
part, and be looking at the ESR version of Firefox,
check the version number and so on. But that's
too much work for casual fun. It takes around
two days to build Thunderbird from source, including
download time for all the build tools. Even if
building the 32-bit version of Thunderbird,
you need a 64 bit machine and at least 4GB
of RAM. The last time I tried it, the Performance
Monitor showed the build using as much as 3.1GB
to build XUL.dll (a 30MB DLL for Thunderbird).
XUL.dll is the Firefox engine that provides the
three-pane "display" for Thunderbird.

Did I mention what a horrid idea this is ? :-)
Carting a copy of Firefox source around, must
just about kill those Thunderbird developers.
So much tweaking to do...

Paul

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Does anyone know of any good email clients other than of course our
> outdated OE and Thunderbird? Thunderbird looks too complicated in
> using settings. I just would like to get some opinions. What everyone
> out there using? OE not that secure anymore. But I get get pics in my
> emails anymore. I know that's security settings. Well any opinions?
>
> Bill

You could take a look at this:
http://www.claws-mail.org/win32/

It looks very simple to use.
Thing is that I could not get it to work.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Paul >
writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> or they're actually online somewhere, and the email just has a
>>pointer to the URL.
>
>And we know why this particular formulation will
>foul up, right ? The embedded links to the image
>in the email body, will be https:// links and
>the server will be using TLS 1.2 or something.
>
>In other words, the server providing the images,
>is using security features the copy of Internet
>Explorer hosting Outlook Express, just doesn't have.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that.
[]
>Since Thunderbird is based on Firefox engine, and
>the engine components are at least ESR versions,
>you would expect some sorta https: support on
>Thunderbird. Ninety percent of the source code
[]
Sounds like a good reason for trying Thunderbird.

Though I think it's still worth the OP checking that he hasn't just
somehow turned on the "block downloaded images" function of OE!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank
you.

[Bill Cunningham[_2_]]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in message
...

> Though I think it's still worth the OP checking that he hasn't just
> somehow turned on the "block downloaded images" function of OE!

I uncheck that and the checkbox above it and the push button "apply".
There's still some pic I don't get. I don't get them with thunderbird either
but I can by making a small selection. My ISP accepts pop3 over ssl too. I
don't don't think my OE accepts it.

Bill