Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Next Generation Mail Clients Reviewed

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the kmail-rules dept.

Software 743

kreide writes "E-mail is the 'killer app' of the Internet; an enormous number of messages are exchanged every day, and while web-based mail has become very popular in recent years, many people still prefer the added speed and flexibility of a mail client application. In this review I compare the next generation of the most popular e-mail clients, including Evolution, KMail, Opera and Mozilla, and their usability in dealing with large number of messages."

cancel ×

743 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I just might be (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463878)

I just might be the master of the F1rSt p05t.

Or not.

I might just fail it, to some other first post overlord.

hmmm (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463883)

isn't this kind of like reviewing the state of pop music without touching on britney spears, justin timberlake, beyonce, and michelle branch?

Re:hmmm (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463910)

I'm touching on Britney, Beyonce and Michelle right now!

Oh, wait... That's me.

read the article's disclaimer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464083)

The disclaimer states "In no event will RMS be held liable for omitting obscure and hardly used email clients like the evil Microsoft Outlook client"

Re:hmmm (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464152)

nope. the keyword "music" would automatically deter britney, JT, beyonce, michelle and christina from review.

But they all suffer from the same problem (-1, Offtopic)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463888)

the e.mail protocol is broken, allowing massive amounts of spam.

So regardless of which program you use, you will have to contend with spam in one form or another.

How can we fix the problem (0, Redundant)

dingo (91227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463954)

So the obvious question is how are we going to fix it?
I mean both a technical solution and a way of implementing a new standard world wide. Any ideas? Would it be possible to have some sort of backwards compatibility to ease in a transfer?

blah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463891)

blah blah blah

Next killer app? (5, Interesting)

teklob (650327) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463898)

I hardly think email is the next 'killer app.' I get about 100 spams a day, and about 1 legitimate message every few weeks. Nowadays, virtually all of my communication is done over IM.

Re:Next killer app? (2)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464037)

Good for you, but most people can't rely on IM for virtually all of their communications.

IM generally requires the party on the other end to be logged in and sitting at their PC. E-Mail does not.

Re:Next killer app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464130)

IM generally requires the party on the other end to be logged in and sitting at their PC.

That's only msn. ICQ, jabber, and possibly others allow you to send messages when the other user is offline.

Re:Next killer app? (3, Informative)

afd8856 (700296) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464168)

No it doesn't. You do check your emails everyday by opening your email client, right? So why wouldn't you open your IM client, to receive all those incoming messages, that are stored on the server until you log in... (Jabber, Yahoo, MSN, all have this feature).

Re:Next killer app? (5, Funny)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464046)

Some folks might think that receiving 100 spams a day is the "killer" part of the app.

Re:Next killer app? (0)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464064)

Or web-based forums. Usenet is still quite useful if you're looking to discuss a very specific topic as well. My email only gets used anymore for helping lusers that forgot their password. :'P

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that email is "dying", but it's significance is definetly diminishing.

Re:Next killer app? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464160)

I suggest you look at Outlook 2003 - it integrates with MSN quite nicely. Sure, no use to you if you run Linux/other IM client, but it's at least a stick to wave at the other email clients to get them to.. err... 'innovate' in this direction.

Full Featured? (-1)

SirChris (676927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463901)

It still seems no matter what mail client I'm using there is some feature missing that another client has. What will it take to get someone to review all mail clients and combine the best of all worlds. Now I realize you can't please everyone but the features I'm referring to seem to be pretty useful. So far Thunderbird comes the closest, still room for improvement, but its still sub 1.0 so there is time. Anyone know any other mail program that really doesn't get the credit it deserves?

outlook 2k3 (2, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463902)

it is pretty nice, why did it not get reviewed? Is this site biased or something?

Re:outlook 2k3 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463999)

Welcome to Slashdot! Let me show you around...

Re:outlook 2k3 (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464027)

Agreed! Outlook 2003 is the best Outlook version by far and when put against Evolution and and other mail clients I've tried, I've found that Outlook 2003 does the best job of doing what I want and need in an e-mail client.

Re:outlook 2k3 (0, Flamebait)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464123)

The best description I read for evolution is "is just like Outlook, but without virus/worms". I suppose that the thing that puts ahead Outlook is just that, Evolution still don't have support for executing virus/worms and this newer Outlook version does it, and maybe even better now :)

Re:outlook 2k3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464063)

Is this site biased or something?

BWHAHAHahaah aha hahahahaha ahaaa!!!

Re:outlook 2k3 (1, Troll)

krammit (540755) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464072)

Is this site biased or something?
Yes. Yes it is. :-)

Re:outlook 2k3 (5, Interesting)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464095)

No, you're right about that. Outlook 2003 is a very nice, well organized, fast e-mail client. Great features and less cluttered then previous versions.

I hope that the other mail clients can achieve a similar level of functionality and interface attributes.

Gone are the days where a simple pop client will get the job done for me. I need a more robust package. Outlook certainly fills this position, but it's not cheap and it only runs on Windows.

I'd buy Outlook 2003 if it was available for Linux.

Re:outlook 2k3 (5, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464108)

it is pretty nice, why did it not get reviewed? Is this site biased or something?

You must be new around here... ;-)

Re:outlook 2k3 (5, Informative)

Zayin (91850) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464140)

From the FAQ in the article:

Q: Why didn't you use the newest version of Microsoft Outlook? This doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

A: The only reason Outlook was even included was to serve as a reference with what is commonly available for the majority of users (which still run Windows unfortunately) today.

Using the latest Office 2003 would not have done most of them any good, as upgrading can cost hundreds of dollars (or more!), and might not be an option for some time. After reading the review they can, however, immediately decide it is time to try out one of the alternatives, several of which are multi platform.

Also, I only had Office XP at hand when writing the review, which only helps to better illustrates my point I think.

And what's wrong with Outlook? (1, Interesting)

gazbo (517111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463913)

Outlook has probably more features and at least as good a UI as any of the competition. With MS's recent drive for security, it's probably significantly more secure and robust too.

This just smacks of zealotry.

Re:And what's wrong with Outlook? (4, Informative)

Coderstop (701079) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463946)

RTFA! They review Outlook.

Re:And what's wrong with Outlook? (5, Insightful)

Anonymouse Cownerd (754174) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463989)

The problem with Outlook is that it is not an email client, but rather an Exhange client. For example, there are plenty of simple IMAP functions Outlook does not support (at least in Office XP version that I mucked around with) such as saving sent mail to an IMAP folder instead of an Exchange folder (This can be hacked to work using a rule, but Outlook in itself cannot do this out of the box).

RE: RTFA time. (3, Informative)

Wingchild (212447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464094)

FYI, Outlook is reviewed in the article, you just have to read the article to find this out. Stop going for front page first post karma whoring, start reading the articles, and perhaps you can contribute something of value.

For example:

As part of the stat breakdown in the boxed chart in the review (did you read the article? Please read the article..), Outlook is flagged as not having full index searching.

To wit, `full index searching` has a superscript and is described thusly:

2. Full index search refers to all messages, including body text, being indexed and searchable without reading everything from storage.


This is true but only half accurate -- in an Exchange environment it is completely possible to enable full text indexing of everything on the Exchange server. It just isn't usable on your home system as a standalone internet email client.

Even if you could use full text indexing at home, in a POP3/IMAP environment ... why would you? The idea of having such an index is to reduce the burden of searches by having an index where you can get faster results -- keep the servers from dying if 3,000 people all opt to search for "Re:" throughout the whole server. At home, what's the benefit? To create a full text index you're going to create a second searchable database on your PC. Your email storage files (psts or whatnot) are *already* a database that exists for this purpose. You'd have to trade storage space to shave an extra 0.3ms off your search times. It doesn't make good sense.

Assuming you do IMAP and keep most of your data on the server the argument becomes, `I don't want to have to read/download everything to find a single message`. The counter argument is simply, `Where do you think you're gonna keep your full text index? On your ISP's system?`

Anyway, full text index searching isn't something I see as viable for a home platform -- and if you're talking about in a business or enterprise setting, Outlook does support it - through Exchange Server.

Re:And what's wrong with Outlook? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464139)

With MS's recent drive for security, it's probably significantly more secure and robust too.

At least try to disguise your blatant trolls. (But of course, if you were subtle, you wouldn't be on two [slashdot.org] different [slashdot.org] troll blacklists, would you?)

Outlook (1, Redundant)

ifreakshow (613584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463914)

I'm not a microsoft support but I think it is a little remiss not to include the next generation of Outlook in your review. It seems to be the "most popular" client everywhere I've ever worked.

Re:Outlook (1)

ifreakshow (613584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463944)

Sorry for the previous post I have since RTFA and noticed that an Outlook review is included. My apologies.

Re:Outlook (1)

FoolishBose (697302) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464001)

Actually if you read the reviews on the linked site, there IS actually a review for Outlook. The parent just forgot to include it in the summary.

Re:Outlook (1)

donnyspi (701349) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464158)

They didn't forget. This is /. and outlook is of the MS persuasion.

Re:Outlook (1)

perly-king-69 (580000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464155)

Most used, maybe. Definately not 'most popular'!

No outlook express? (0, Redundant)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463923)

I would think that including outlook express (even instead of teh full outlook) would've been good. Also, a quick comparison to one of the free webmail systems like the hotmail web interface would've been nice.

okay (0, Redundant)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463929)

So apparently Outlook Express isn't popular at all. Funny... I guess it's just convinient then...

I hate these biased reviews. Popular would be based on usage wouldn't it???

Re:okay (2, Informative)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463997)

If this is for "Next Generation", there's no reason to include Outlook Express since Microsoft is stopping development on it [slashdot.org] .

Re:okay (2, Informative)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464061)

Microsoft has already stated that they've stopped updating their Outlook Express software. It wouldn't make sense to classify it as "next-generation" when it's not going to have one.

subject (1)

mr_tommy (619972) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463931)

Exactly. Sad as i am to believe it, a big company (read microsoft) needs to instigate something that is going to change it. Some kind of unique id / trusted system is the answer. And i fear it is going to lead to the commericalisation of email.

Outlook XP/2002? Where's Outlook 2003? (5, Insightful)

DangerTenor (104151) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463932)

This is not a "next-generation" email client review if it does not include Microsoft Outlook 2003. Outlook 2003 boasts a great number of features and usability enhancements over Outlook 2002/XP. By including an older version of Outlook the author is skewing the comparison significantly!

Feel free to mod me down as a troll, but the author isn't being honest with the community. Open-source folks will be better off knowing what's in the current version of commercial products, not the older versions.

Re:Outlook XP/2002? Where's Outlook 2003? (2, Informative)

gingerTabs (532664) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463980)

The author gives his justification for not including Outlook 2003 in the FAQ at the end of the aarticle.

The main justification being that:

Outlook 2002 is fully featured enough to compete, and
Most users with windows will be using outlook 2002 so it is a useful reference.

Get down of that high horse buddy and relax a little

Re:Outlook XP/2002? Where's Outlook 2003? (5, Insightful)

orangenormal (728999) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464111)

Poppycock. The only reason the author didn't include Outlook 2003 was because he didn't have access to it. While this is perfectly acceptable, the little blurb in the FAQ (before the author admits not having access) is pure BS. When writing an article about the "next generation of email clients" there is no justification for comparing the latest version of everything to an old version of Microsoft's product. This is, indeed, unfair and misleading.

Mod parent down as troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464023)

> Feel free to mod me down as a troll, but the author isn't being honest with the
> community.

Why not read the whole article? He's written a little FAQ just for you.

Re:Outlook XP/2002? Where's Outlook 2003? (1)

DougMackensie (79440) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464144)

don't know if you saw this, but the author addresses this issue:

Q: Why didn't you use the newest version of Microsoft Outlook? This doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

A:
The only reason Outlook was even included was to serve as a reference with what is commonly available for the majority of users (which still run Windows unfortunately) today.

Using the latest Office 2003 would not have done most of them any good, as upgrading can cost hundreds of dollars (or more!), and might not be an option for some time. After reading the review they can, however, immediately decide it is time to try out one of the alternatives, several of which are multi platform.

Also, I only had Office XP at hand when writing the review, which only helps to better illustrates my point I think.

Where is Outlook 2003? (-1)

Can it run Linux (664464) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463935)

Outlook 2003 is the supieror mail client for Microsoft's Windows operating system. Why wasn't it included in this review?

The Newman mail client (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463940)

"Hello, Newman...."

I want the Newman mail client; if you get half your e-mail that's way too much.

No Outlook 2003? (1, Redundant)

orangenormal (728999) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463942)

At the risk of being unpopular (gulps), I have to put in my say for the new Outlook. I'm surprised Outlook 2003 wasn't included in the review, since it offers significant enhancements over the version in the article. The concept of "search folders" and being able to flag messages for follow-up in many colours is, simply put, invaluable. Mozilla mail doesn't even come close--although it should.

Next generation mail client (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463943)

Is called mutt...

Re:Next generation mail client (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464075)

Funny? Not really.
-*-Mutt: ~/Maildir [Msgs:80479 New:35 Old:69397 Flag:2 Post:3 555M] (date-received/date) (end)
Guess I should clean out my Maildir, but mutt doesn't seem to even notice how big it is.

Re:Next generation mail client (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464107)

Damn right. Try opening that much in Mozilla Thundershit. GUI email clients are for newbies.

No Pegasus? (0)

samcentral2000 (753077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463950)

I'm offended :( He left out Pegasus mail.

Evolution mail import? (3, Interesting)

tka (548076) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463952)

What? According to the overview evolution 1.5.2 doesn't support mail importing. That's a bit odd since my 1.4.5 does support it.

Where's Mail.app (5, Interesting)

CmdrChillupa (166635) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463958)

Panther's Mail.app is by far the most usable, configurable mail application I've ever used. It's got all the usability and more of Outlook 2k3 without the high probability of having your computer trashed by virii.

bah (1)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463962)


"Next Generation" means GUI based, I assume? Thanks, but I don't see anything that compels me to abandon Mutt [mutt.org] anytime soon. Newer != Better, that's the BloatMoat(tm) people tend to fall in.

Pine fresh (0)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464021)

thanks for the flashback of pine (I almost forgot about my "first")

And if the Server is Exchange... (0, Flamebait)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463963)


And not running OWA then you are pretty much buggered.

You'd almost think that was a case of Microsoft using a monopoly position to exclude competition.

Re:And if the Server is Exchange... (1)

revscat (35618) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464014)

Not sure, but I believe OS X's Mail.app can work with Exchange.

Re:And if the Server is Exchange... (2, Informative)

MSFanBoi (695480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464096)

Are you daft? Exchange 5.5, 2000 and 2003 support IMAP and POP3. Funny how my linux box running KMail connects just fine to my Exchange 2003 server at the office... I must be doing something strange!

Why do we need local clients (4, Informative)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463965)

I just ditched my email client, I'm 100% on openwebmail [openwebmail.org] now.

I'm a roaming contractor, so the alternative was trying to manage email clients at several locations, and constantly finding that something (address books, mail archives, etc..) was out of sync.

Re:Why do we need local clients (4, Insightful)

Zerbey (15536) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464091)

I'm a roaming contractor, so the alternative was trying to manage email clients at several locations, and constantly finding that something (address books, mail archives, etc..) was out of sync.

That's what IMAP is for.

Re:Why do we need local clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464161)

$ ssh server@home mutt

Incomplete review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463966)

Where's mutt?

Thunderbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463967)

Did you notice that the `new mail` icon doesn't always go away when you've read the mail? I'd submit this as a bug except apparantly first I have to trawl through the mozilla bug database (slow), then look through the Thunderbird bug list elsewhere (slow), then post it to some sort of forum. So I can't be arsed. I wonder how many other bugs lie unreported because of this overhead?

I read through the reviews... (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463971)

I didn't find anything spectacular about any of them that would make them something I could call "next-generation". Perhaps "up-in-coming versions" or something...

E-mail is NOT the killer app of the Internet. I have used plenty of different email clients and they all work the same. It is just as important as any other Internet communication device (IM, IRC, whatever).

In order to get a feel for how each mail client handles daily tasks, I conducted my review by performing a number of tasks:

Download a reasonably large amount of messages, about 2100 in total


This is funny to me. I consider myself a "regular" computer/Internet user. I don't see the need to download 2100 messages as part of my "daily tasks".

Why is new mail notification (on 3 of the 5) "Audio Only"? I much prefer not having sound and just having a popup notification (or a small blurb come up):

[10:08] > From: Kitch@removed.org
[10:08] To: Bill
[10:08] Subject: Re: ok.

I guess I am old fashioned...

I also find it strange that only a single one (KMail) supports Maildir. The rest are mbox. I thought Maildir was the future?

Just my worthless review of a worthless review,

Re:I read through the reviews... (1)

Simulant (528590) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464148)

----------- Why is new mail notification (on 3 of the 5) "Audio Only"? I much prefer not having sound and just having a popup notification (or a small blurb come up): ----------- Thunderbird (win32 anyway) has a little system tray notifier that pops up when new mail is detectd. It's not configurable via the options tab and it seems to be a little slow at notifying you... However it DOES work while playing a full-screen quake engine game with out screwing anything up or interupting play which is a first as far as I've seen.

disappointed to not see Mail.app (1)

Raleel (30913) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463972)

The guy may not have had the hardware, but I don't see it.

what about pine? (-1, Offtopic)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463974)

What about pine [washington.edu] ? Though it doesn't a impressive GUI like evolution, but it is the fastest mail reader in terms of usability. It is very easy to use, can be controlled using a keyboard (no mouse required). It support content filtering, LDAP lookups, and is extremely customizable.

Re:what about pine? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464030)

what about it? I use Pine myself. I also know that it is outdated, slow, and lacking easy-to-use key features (like modern filtering).

What about Mail.app? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8463977)

What about Apple's Mail.app?

Next gen? (0)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463985)

Outlook 2002? Outlook 2003 has greatly improved usability over 2002. I still like where Thunderbird and Evolution are going, but OL2003 is my main mail client (and mostly because the company uses exchange server and wants to use all the Exchange 2003 bells and whistles), but I may still get my chance for Thunderbird usage.

Evolution is not evolving (2)

jmerelo (216716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463988)

Evolution is kind of quiet lately; I haven't seen new versions for some time. Besides, so far, it does not include some of the nifty features, like bayesian spam filtering, other email clients do.
There does not seem to be a roadmap for it, either. Maybe Thunderbird [mozilla.org] is in the future for me.

E-mail apps interesting change (1)

Biotech9 (704202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463994)

Up until now the viruses and worms have gone for the plebs, people with a Dell they use to surf and mail. 'Knowledgeable' Users could just install a filter, patch thier PC and keep an anti virus and firewall running.

But these methods are now hitting the masses, and virus authors and spammers are going to have to start getting around these standards.

I have never had more than maybe 20 spam mails in my life, with 6 accounts (1 of which is even a yahoo account). This is due to my e-mail being a picture on my website, it never being used for crap, and my machine always being virus free (My PC box, my OSX powerbooks i don't have to worry about)

But this is probably going to change in the next few years, either the spammers get smarter, or perhaps Bill gates will carry out his promise to end spam by next year.

Killer app ... yeah (2, Insightful)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8463995)

Yeah, all this spam is killing me, that's for sure.

But having said that, I think email (non-spam, even) probably has been using more bandwidth (speaking globally and through the years) than any other form of internet usage, at least until p2p came along, so I think email has earned its "killer" title.

And now, I'll go read the article! :-D

No import? (4, Insightful)

Enrico Pulatzo (536675) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464012)

Why doesn't Evolution support importing mailboxes? That seems really weird, not to mention the first feature that will leave an impression on the end-user. If I'm using an email client, and it does a sloppy/nonexistent job of importing my old mail, I'll just stick to whatever I'm using, amazing features or not.

Incomplete review (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464025)

There is no review of Pegasus or Eudora

From Wired magazine: (4, Interesting)

andy666 (666062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464028)

"For every email sent, 2 pornographic images are viewed/downloaded"

next generation?!?!?! (0, Troll)

nazsco (695026) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464031)

why do you call it next generation if all those still breaks text at 76 columns by default?

They may be next generation "email reader and filter" program, but the mail protocol by itself should be cold dead by now! It simply suck!

And don't came here modding me troll or saying "but it's the most widely used way to exchange messages" because then i will think you consider microsoft windows the best OS in the whole world... and i don't think you mean that :)

So, stop thinking email is usefull! You're just cheating yourself. Email is a mean necessity in those days of comodism. And those so called "next generation email programs" are just "next generation crapy email protocol workarounds"

Wha? (1)

Mr. Troll (202208) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464034)

The article criticizes outlook for having too many features that people will never use, yet it also considers a lack of support for server side IMAP searches a "con".

Am I crazy, or is it safe to say that most folks have no idea what a server side IMAP search is. I'll bet next to no one will even miss it....

Overall though, not a horrible review. I mean, I was expecting some horribly off kilter "MS suxor" message or something...

Microsoft Office XP correction (5, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464041)

Virtual folders: Microsoft Outlook does not support this feature.

Well, yes, it doesn't support virtual folders in the way that others implement it.

However there is an option called "Current View" (in "View") which allows you to see your inbox in a number of different ways. For example: by sender, by followup flag, by conversation, past seven days.

In addition, you can create and define your own custom views. So if I want to see all messages with the word "fish" in them, with one or more attachements, where I've been cc'ed and posted in the last week, then I can do so.

Which sounds very similar to virtual folders to me.

What about... (1)

Hagakure (203111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464048)

PINE, you insensitive clod!

Re:What about... (0)

unics (741003) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464114)

Thank you. Much agreed. After all, that point and click interfaces are for the 'weak'. ;-)

Gnus/Emacs (5, Interesting)

yoghurt (2090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464054)

Gnus in emacs is perhaps the most configurable email client ever. For dealing with massive amounts of email it is especially suitable. It treats email like it was news. It basically arranges your email into newsgroups and does things like sorting messages based on headers/content into the right buckets and expire old mails. I do not know how I could receive, e.g., the linux-kernel mailing list without gnus.

Re:Gnus/Emacs (3, Informative)

FePe (720693) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464150)

For dealing with massive amounts of email it is especially suitable.

And that's about the only reason to use Gnus for mail, other than the fact that you don't have to leave Emacs. Try to browse through the Gnus Manual [gnus.org] and see how many different configuration choices you have. I prefer Netscape Messenger for reading mail and news, but that's just because I only need the basic features.

Killer app? (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464056)

E-mail is the 'killer app' of the Internet

Actually, the internet has had several killer apps that kept the boom going:

a) Communication: This includes IM's and email. In the early days it was mostly email.

b) PR0N: Actually, it's been around since the early days of the internet. Heck, I remember it was a big part of BBS's before I got on the 'net

c) Games: This really hit when TCP/IP games became popular over the internet. Less need to lug your PC over to a friends' for a LAN party, and you mom can play solitaire with your aunt in another country

d) Music: I know a lot of people that subscribed to high speed just to get supposed "free" music.

Email is perhaps, however, one of the "killer apps" that has suffered the most during its time online. Games have their botters/hackers, pr0n has its misleading popups, and music has its Britneys, but by far SPAM has become one of the larger unfixed problems so far (patched, perhaps, but not fixed)

Um... Outlook XP? (5, Informative)

MSFanBoi (695480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464057)

As someone else mentioned, Microsoft's current mail client is not Outlook XP, it's currently Outlook 2003.

There are also several innaccuracies in his review of the product.

1.) Outlook does indeed support emoticons. Use Word as your default text editor in Outlook.

2.)You CAN forward attachments, both in line and otherwise...

3.) Outlook can do key binding... it's under Options, Customize.

4.) I've been creating and managing mail lists in Outlook since Outlook 98...

The biggest missing feauture is... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464065)

The ability to filter incoming mail based on the existence (or lack of) of the sender's e-mail address in my Contact database. This applies to both Outlook and Evo.

All belly aching aside, I'm planning on employing a white list of valid e-mailers some time this year. For me at least, the promise of 'anybody' communicating via e-mail is dead.

killer app ? wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464071)


email used to be the killer app, now because of spam,viruses,worms etc everyone is moving to instant messaging and SMS

perhaps one day email might be the "killer app" again, but as long as people continue to get 200+ exponential v14grA emails a day, business will depend on it less and less, we advise clients to phone us rather than email

mail.app (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464076)

i find the exclusion of mail.app preplexing. It is a free unix mail program that is extremely popular and has a very unique and intuitive interface.

Thunderbird & weather? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464078)

From the article:
"A big part of Thunderbird is the support for themes and extensions." ...
"Weather can show local weather conditions. "

Excellent! That is EXACTLY why I use a certain email client...so I can find out the weather.
I also use my toaster to heat my house, my TV to light up my living room, my toilet to wash my dishes, and my fridge to air-condition my house.
C'mon people...can't we get a good SIMPLE client instead of one with everything and the kitchen sink.

TDz.

External Editor Support! (2)

squashed (664265) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464082)

The review does not discuss external editor support. In fact, most of the clients supported don't have it.

Sylpheed, judged "not next generation enough" by the reviewer, enables me to compose in a custom konsole/xterm/rxvt in Vim, or Gvim -- a capability that makes it the only usuable GUI client IMHO.

Mobile phone email... (1)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464090)


Personally I'm a big fan of the email client on the P800. It works, is very simple and has no bells and whistles.

But them I'm a luddite who still uses emacs to read on Usenet because its scoring system is the best thing in the universe.... an email client with that in would be superb.

Mail.app rules (1)

Cecil (37810) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464098)

I can understand not including it, as it is closed source (although technically it is available on one UNIX platform... ;), but it is by far the best mail client I've ever used.

opera (1)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464101)

i use opera every day for my web browsing.

that said i will they would get off their arses and make a 7.23 client for OSX. the only version for MAC is like 2 years old.

as much as i love and use opera i will not pay for it until the MAC client is on par with the Windows Client

They have some facts wrong about Opera. (5, Informative)

Organized Konfusion (700770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464112)

The Opera M2 client is what I use every day for newsgroups, mailing lists, pop3 mail, imap mail.

I know it inside out... the review makes two mistakes in the matrix of features.

Firstly Opera does have both audio and visual mail notification.

Secondly Opera Mail does have the ability to assign keyboard shortcuts of your choice.

Thirdly it does support emoicons.

If the reviewer gets so much wrong about Opera then there is no telling how many other mistakes he has made.

Western calendar 2101: Fight started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464119)

Captain: Just that how it did, word you bore!
Engineer: No person it seems that it could set up the explosive according to.
Communication operator: Captain! Communication entered!
Captain: What?
Communication operator: Vision comes to the main screen.
Captain: It's you !!
CATS: Don't you think? So busily they are, the ladies and gentlemen.
CATS: With the cooperation of the Federal Government troop, everything CATS received your base.
CATS: Also your warship, gradually probably is end.
Captain: Impossible!!
CATS: You appreciate in your cooperation.
CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
CATS: Ha ha ha ha...
Communication operator: Captain !!
Captain: In ZIG all machine takeoff order !!
Captain: Already, only you entrust to them.
Captain: Our future desires...
Captain: Godspeed, ZIG!!

whata joke (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8464121)

another bullshit review brought to you by just another bullshit website....

I guess IMAP and non-GUI are not "next generation" (3, Informative)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464147)

Mozilla's support for IMAP is OK, but to not see Mulberry on this list is a big shame! It is the best GUI IMAP client currently available. Outlook's IMAP is HORRIBLE & the Kmail & Opera aren't quite there yet either.

For what it is worth, I actually use PINE (which is an even better IMAP client than mulberry). It is a shame not to see some very good text-based clients such as pine and mutt in this comparison as well.

I still prefer text-based. (4, Insightful)

autechre (121980) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464157)

If you edit a lot of files, it's worth it to learn how to use vi or emacs. Likewise, if you get a lot of email, it's worth it to learn how to use a powerful and effective email client. There's no reason a program should be viewed as limited just because it doesn't require a mouse.

Text-based MUAs such as Mutt are still (IMO) more effective at dealing with large numbers of messages. They do have a learning curve, but you can cut through the masses much more efficiently. External programs are called for HTML, images, encryption, etc. in the Unix tradition (and even Microsoft uses an external HTML viewer). For those of you who edit a lot of text too, Mutt even calls an external editor for composing messages.

No, they're not for everyone, or perhaps even most people. However, my father is an auto mechanic working as a shop supervisor for UMBC. He doesn't like PCs very much, but he asked me to "set up PINE" (meaning an SSH client) on a new machine that the campus IT staff had set up for him with Netscape 7's email client. He's on some high-volume lists, and it's just too slow to use a GUI client.

For the record, I do prefer Mozilla to w3m, because I find it to be faster for most tasks (even for freshmeat work, where I have to edit a lot of text in Mozilla's editor versus the ability to use Vim in w3m). I also use GAIM, and used Pan back when I downloaded large quantities of fansubs. But email is basically dealing with a lot of text which sometimes has other stuff, and for that, I find text-based to be the way to go.

Inclusion Criteria (3, Interesting)

richg74 (650636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8464159)

Note that Outlook has been included for completeness, both because of its popularity and for use as a reference. I did not include Eudora, even though the latest version does include unique features ... as it is both closed source and not available for any UNIX platforms.

And Outlook is open source and available for UNIX platforms? Yes, I know that Outlook / OE are popular, but it is kind of a shame that Eudora was omitted, given that the review was to cover the Windows environment. Unlike Outlook, it is possible to configure Eudora to avoid some of the security mis-features of Windows. (For example, you can disable Microsoft's HTML rendering engine.) The reviewer missed an opportunity to provide a little education. (BTW, I am sure that there are other good mail clients; I mention Eudora because I'm familiar with it.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?