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!

Thunderbird 1.0 RC1 Released

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the mail-call dept.

Mozilla 460

KingDaveRa writes " has quietly released Thunderbird 1.0 RC1. 1.0 RC1 includes lots of bug fixes and improvements for features like saved search folders, the RSS reader, mail migration, and message grouping. The default themes have both been updated with new and improved artwork as well."

cancel ×


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

Popularity (5, Interesting)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982374)

Is Thunderbird as "spread-like-wild-fire" as Firefox? I just don't hear people talking about TB as much as FF.

Even in newsgroups where you need a news reader to do anything, people still talk about FF. I'm using TB but I don't have the same enthusiasm to discuss it.

Is this due to lack of usage, or lack of competition, or something else? Or just me?

Re:Popularity (1)

pcmanjon (735165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982431)

I don't know.. EMAIL clients just aren't 'the thing'

I use GMAIL, and haven't really tried TB out at all really. Once my ISP fucked me by accidently deleting my account (and then, worse, somehow the account name becoming 'reserved' making the whois contact in my domains wrong... so I can't claim ownership (forgot the pass, but always figured if i needed in the config I could have a recovery email sent)) is when I went to gmail -- hopefully I won't get fucked there

Re:Popularity (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982442)

Any serious usenet junkie will tell you TB won't cut it-- same with OE, though. I like pan [] . ;)

Re:Popularity (2, Interesting)

secolactico (519805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982538)

I like pan. ;)

I like pan, too, tho I'm partial to xnews. Too bad it (xnews) looks like crap under wine.

Re:Popularity (2, Insightful)

FlipmodePlaya (719010) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982449)

I'm thinking lack of usage. Especially during the aKadamy, KMail seems to have sapped up all the available attention. KDE's whole PIM suite is evolving so rapidly, it's obviously being doted upon by the geek community.

Outside of that afformentioned community, it seems Outlook/Express is absolutely dominant. Personally, I like Opera's M2.

Re:Popularity (2, Funny)

Flower (31351) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982666)

Huh, news to me. Didn't even know it existed.

Re:Popularity (5, Insightful)

skids (119237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982450)

The geek fanbase for thunderbird is smaller, so it gets less free publicity.

You can't really live without a graphical web browser (well, at least without impairing access to a lot of stuff), but the same isn't true of email. There are a number af very good text-mode mail readers, and most people I know prefer something like PINE, and really dread the day when you can't live without a graphical email reader.

So far we've done a fair job of beating back the perpetually looming encroachment of non-plain-text email. (There's even an ASCII ribbon campaign :-)

Re:Popularity (4, Funny)

pcmanjon (735165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982472)

"and most people I know prefer something like PINE"

Wow, and I'm still using the GNU ``mail`` command. I didn't know they had an ncurses based mail client yet.

Re:Popularity (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982452)

I've noticed this same thing. Perhaps it's similar to the "In Korea, old people us e email" situation, where email usage has declined in relation to IM usage. People still use browsers as much as they used to, if not more.

Re:Popularity (2, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982460)

Well it defnintely has competition form Outlook, and of course many other free third party clients. The difference is that, unlike FIrefox, Thunderbird does not incoperate many more features than outlook. Also it has few extensions and themes, which could make up for its lack of brilliance. I can give people planty of reason for people to switch from ie to Firefox, but from outlook to Thunderbird I can only pester people about security. And I have no way at all of "converting" users of other mail programs, like Eudora.

Re:Popularity (3, Insightful)

TheBurningDog (747915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982466)

I suggest thunderbird to my friends because of the ease that PGP integrates into it with the enigmail [] plugin.

Not many webmail sites offer good PGP support.

Re:Popularity (2, Insightful)

ral315 (741081) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982473)

The difference is, while there are numerous e-mail programs out there that threaten Outlook's market share, Firefox is the only browser that is a true threat to IE.

Re:Popularity (3, Interesting)

oneeyedelf1 (793839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982495)

Outlook has so many more features then thunderbird. Since I dont use outlook I will give my mom's answer when she looked at thunderbird for her office. Can I use it to schedule the presentation rooms? Can I use it to sync? With email filters pretty much grabbing all the outlook viruses anyways, most buisness shouldnt be too concerned running outlook. Firefox was different it has MORE features and protects in ways that just arent too realistic on win2k in an office enviroment. When employees go home, generally they like to keep the same stuff. Besides most users stupid enough to get a virus with outlook will get a virus with thunderbird, so there's no real reason to get people to switch.

Re:Popularity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982551)

Can I use it to schedule the presentation rooms?
It's a fucking mail client! If your server will accept an email and automatically schedule said rooms, sure. Else, why the fuck should it? *sigh* This is why I hate Outlook at work: I have to open a calendar, scheduler, and general PIM in order to fucking read my email. (and sorry, but based on the current poll, I had to split an infinitive)

Re:Popularity (4, Insightful)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982642)

Outlook has so many more features then thunderbird. Since I dont use outlook I will give my mom's answer when she looked at thunderbird for her office. Can I use it to schedule the presentation rooms?
Why would you compare MS Outlook, a groupware application, to an email application? A better comparison would be MS Outlook Express to Thunderbird. MS Outlook Express cannot schedule the presentation rooms either. Thunderbird is far better then OE and has far better default security.

For office type groupware, MS Outlook is currently the best product out there. But for a typical _home_ user email program, Thunderbird is very good and much better then MS Outlook Express IMO.

Re:Popularity - locked in to Outlook (1)

sien (35268) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982559)

One factor that slows Thunderbirds success is that so many people are locked in to Outlook as there isn't cross platform alternative.

Thunderbird also doesn't yet have the calendering and shared contacts lists and all the other stuff that Outlook has.

This is coming in related projects, but right now would it be wise to tell Joe the sales rep that he should dump Outlook and lose his shared calendar and contacts for Thunderbird whereas getting him to use a better, faster, safer browser in Firefox is a no brainer.

Re:Popularity (2, Informative)

nukem996 (624036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982687)

I think thunderbird is an amazing mail client. But as said above many people dont use mail client any more. Most people use webmail, even when a mail client is avalible. When people do use a mail client most of the time its Outlook. We need a spread thunderbird campain, it probably would help with the spam/worm problem.

i read my mail (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982376)

using my OS, emacs

Re:i read my mail (1)

pmazer (813537) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982623)

But how do you send mail, without a good text editor?

Massacre: The Convoy of Death -- God bless America (-1, Offtopic)

asciiwhite (679872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982378)

b> Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death [] July 30, 2004 by Christopher Deliso In November 2001, near the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, a major battle was raging between the Northern Alliance forces of Rashid Dostum and the suddenly vulnerable Taliban. Following the battle, thousands of the latter surrendered, "under assurances that they would not be harmed." However, due to a complex series of events, this was not to be. Now, up to 3,000 murdered Taliban prisoners lie in an unmarked mass grave in a lonely stretch of Afghan desert, according to Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death, a compelling new documentary from veteran BBC journalist and filmmaker Jamie Doran. [] An Investigation with Ominous Implications The convergence of two events - the Pentagon's announcement of in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased U.S. pressure on [] Serbia over fugitives suspected of war crimes [] in Srebrenica and elsewhere - make for a neatly ironic introduction to Convoy of Death, a movie which unfortunately more than lives up to its name. The documentary accuses the Pentagon of a high-level cover-up of American complicity in the prisoner deaths. The film's painstaking (and very brave) researchers make a very plausible case for a mass slaughter of prisoners, one that was personally overseen by American troops. However, Pentagon representatives denied that any such a massacre ever took place and refused to be interviewed for the film. At least in the beginning, they seem to have banked on the likelihood that the tale would never be told; after all, this is faraway and forbidding Afghanistan we're talking about. As one unnamed insider told the filmmakers, "you have to understand, there are folk in here who would rather that the whole story go away." But thanks to some activist work (European Union bigwigs were treated to a special pre-showing that resulted in diplomatic pressure on Kabul) and an exhaustive series of interviews with Afghans present at the time (soldiers, truck drivers, prisoners and more) and Northern Alliance commanders (including Dostum himself), as well as live footage from the relevant battles, prisons, and mass graves, we are left with a case that if not entirely unassailable comes pretty damn close. A Focus on Justice The film's major point is that, if war crimes did indeed take place in Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the American military, then an international investigation and tribunal should be undertaken to bring the perpetrators to justice. This thesis seems to presuppose that the audience will necessarily agree with such a prescription, though the idea of international tribunals - in both theory and practice - is by no means a universally accepted one. Nowhere, however, is the full weightiness of this subject broached; the major premise is accepted as a given and mere technicalities (a warlord culture, the difficulties of witness protection, etc.) are all that's left up for discussion. And so the film suffers a bit from a lingering attitude of pious parochialism. But not too much: whatever one's views on international justice may be, most people's sense of personal morality will be affronted by Convoy of Death. And that is exactly how the filmmakers planned it, what with the eerie Afghan music, slow-motion cameras locked on to the searching, vacant eyes of the prisoners, trails of blood and finally the piles of bleached bones in the swirling desert sands. Running Commentary In addition to the anonymous Afghan masses interviewed, the producers get some color commentary from various informed individuals who weigh in from time to time during the narrative. A pivotal figure, human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee, comes across as a man determined to see justice done and the case reopened on an international level. Robert Fox of the International Institute for Strategic Studies offers some searing criticisms of not only Dostum but of the American failure of leadership. As for Dostum, at times it's hard to tell the Afghan godfather from Marlon Brando, the way he threatens in such a polite way to rape and pillage and burn whole villages down. But for readers, the favorite special guest of all is sure to be none other than Richard N. Perle. [] Perle: A Missed Opportunity Several times during the film we are reminded that the Pentagon would not grant interviews or reply to any of the producers' questions. Considering that Perle is introduced merely as a "former Assistant Secretary of Defense," should we conclude that the filmmakers considered him to be an adequate substitute - and nothing more? Considering that no other aspect of his storied career is mentioned, it unfortunately seems that this is the case. Yet since this leading hawk has been a lightning rod for criticism [] in so many different endeavors [] , it seems that the film erred in not exploiting this angle as much as it could have. This is one of the few problematic aspects of Convoy of Death. After all, here you have one of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for war in the whole neocon camp, a man who is overwhelmingly sure that the American way does not involve mass executions and torture - and that fighting wars is in fact the best way to make sure this pacific disposition spreads the world over. And, to top it all off, Perle is someone who has been involved in a hornet's nest of controversy over the past couple of years, due first of all to a Seymour Hersh exposé [] that cost him his leadership of the Defense Policy Board. We might assume that Perle was interviewed before the scandals broke, but even in this case, it would be nice to have that information laid out in the film. Of course, considering the producers' need to stay tightly focused on their topic, it would have been impossible to delve deeply into the neocon mind, Perle's proclivities, or the recent history of the war party. However, how a documentary can be about the Pentagon's cover-up of prisoner atrocities and at the same time quote Richard Perle, without at least mentioning his formidable role in the war effort, is puzzling. Yet since there is no mention of the neocons, or indeed any biographical info on Perle at all, one has to wonder why he was chosen to appear in the film. Was it merely, as seems plausible, because the Pentagon wouldn't talk and he was seen as the next best thing, "former Pentagon?" Or, was he selected because, mistakenly or not, the producers felt he was a "respected" figure whose words carry great weight? If so, then it would seem a bit of a slight to the audience, if in fact the film was intended for a more informed audience than, say, Michael Moore's. Other Problems: Temporal Identifications There are other small problems too. Several dates that might assume significance retrospectively, and therefore increase the film's historic value, are not given. For example, we don't know when Perle and most of the others were interviewed, or if he was interviewed more than once. A lot of external events, from wars right through to scandals, have had a considerable effect, not only on the moods of the protagonists involved, but on the very stakes for which they are playing. If this film intends (as seems quite clear) to be trying to raise the stakes yet further, it owes its viewers a more detailed timeline of external events as well as vital dates for interviews conducted for the film. Similarly, we are also told that several witnesses were beaten, killed or disappeared just before the film came out, though they don't say when that is precisely. At one point Doran also mentions the Pentagon speaking of an internal inquiry "in June," but does not state the year. All in all, the film would benefit from more specific and frequently stated datelines, as the narrative it recounts is somewhat complex. Besides, its value as a historical source is of course dependent on dates of not only events but of interviews, edits, and external events as well. However, these minor flaws should not deter anyone from watching what is truly a horrifically fascinating - and important - film. Some Incredible Footage The film's live footage of events in the Mazar-i-Sharif area of Northern Afghanistan in November 2001 is one of its major selling points. The Afghan fighters look sporting in their drab, thick winter jackets and Muslim prayer hats, an adventurous combo which could, one presumes, become all the rage on American college campuses this fall if the film gets a wide enough showing. All kidding aside, the documentary's footage is deadly serious. Scores of bloodied bodies heaped in the craters of demolished buildings show war in all of its unglamorous misery. Taliban prisoners, just young men who wound up on the wrong side of a brawl between warlords, are shown with their hands bound behind their backs, marched off into an open enclosure together with none other than John Walker Lindh [] - the famous "American Taliban." The film shows real footage of CIA agents talking to Lindh, who is shown kneeling on a blanket, head down, in what could be either a pre- or post-crucifixion pose. (Their extraordinary utterances were partially transcribed [] by Newsweek long ago.) Only an hour after that video was shot, the producers inform us, CIA agent Mike Spann was dead in a prison uprising. Northern Alliance soldiers interviewed tell of how it was started by Taliban prisoners grabbing guns and grenades and basically trying to cause as much mayhem as possible. Exciting and chaotic battle footage follows, courtesy of the excessively courageous reporter Najibullah Quraishi, who was almost one of 17 people killed by a Taliban mortar launched while filming. At one point during the footage, with explosions and gun shots all around, an American voice is heard saying, "the chopper that's coming in wants to land south." Up to that point, the film reminds us, coalition partners Great Britain had been denying that their Special Forces soldiers were in Afghanistan. But SAS officers are clearly visible. The Events The film's narrative is complex. Briefly we can say the following: in November 2001, with the Northern Alliance rolling down the country towards Kabul, a meeting was arranged between Dostum, the regional Taliban commander, and the American-British Special Forces present in order to expedite the surrender of over 7,000 Taliban troops. According to the agreement, the local Afghan Taliban members would be allowed to go home, whereas the foreign fighters would be turned over to the UN (Dostum is shown on tape actually announcing this to the captives). However, before the agreement had been signed, a column of 470 Taliban broke off from the main group in Kunduz and arrived at Mazar-i-Sharif. Although they claimed to be giving themselves up, the Northern Alliance soldiers had their suspicions. They were told to take them to Dostum's nearby fortress at a place called Kalai Janghi. There these suspicions were confirmed when a prisoner revolt left (according to Dostum) 45 Northern Alliance soldiers dead and 205 wounded. But no one knew, the film continues, that 86 of these Taliban (including John Walker Lindh) had survived the battle in underground tunnels. Why Dostum? Why did the Americans rely on a man like Rashid Dostum as their prime ally? According to Fox, the Americans believed "he was the only one who could deliver ? there simply was not an option." The analyst goes on to call him "an extremely violent man with an extremely violent record, and with a very personal approach to the meting out of justice and the extracting of evidence under torture." When the filmmakers put the question to Perle, the weaseling would-be pragmatist replies: "[I]n a situation like that, you have to balance out competing interests. Obviously we would much rather be aligned with Mother Teresa. That wasn't possible in those circumstances. It does lead to a responsibility on our part for trying to help reshape Afghanistan along more humane and democratic lines, and I think that's exactly what we should be doing." How the second part of that peroration logically follows from the first, I will leave up to more subtle intellects to discern; suffice it to say that the film does a good job, without needing to make the point verbally, of showing another side of what are for Perle (happily ensconced by a crackling fire in Washington) mere "competing interests": decaying bodies, shattered homes and bleached piles of bones. The End of the Story - Or Just the Beginning? After the prison battle, the film continues, most of the foreign press left because the "big story" had been Lindh. Few stayed on the story. Yet only 3,015 prisoners survived, and many of them weren't even people who had been involved originally - rather, witnesses charge, they were merely local farmers picked up for the crime of speaking Pashtun. According to Doran, there is a clear contradiction between Dostum's claim that only 3,000 to 4,000 Taliban had been taken prisoner in the first place, and the testimony of his field commander at Kalai Zeini, Gen. Abdul Ramatullah, who confirms a more realistic figure of 7,000 prisoners taken. What happened to the rest of the prisoners? Some hundreds were sold to the secret services of their respective countries, for example the Chechens to the KGB and the Uzbek militants to Tashkent's SMB. The first few thousand sent to the prison at Sheberghan were "the lucky ones," the film states; they merely had to endure an overcrowded jail. But the last prisoners were being shipped out as news of the prison revolt reached the Northern Alliance captors, and revenge was in the air. The Convoy of Death How were the prisoners moved out? Gen. Abdul Ramatullah, the man who confirmed a figure of 7,000 prisoners, visibly blanches when the subject of the "containers" is mentioned: "oh no, it's very bad" to mention them, he tells cameraman Quraishi. Dostum's forces commandeered flatbed trucks from all of the surrounding villages, along with their drivers, and stuffed hundreds of prisoners in each of them. (Unfortunately, because of a turn of events we will discuss later, the filmmakers had to label "reconstruction" over the flatbed truck sequence). After 20 minutes on the road, the film states, the prisoners "started crying for air." Most of them suffocated to death. Others tried to survive by drinking each others' sweat, or even blood, on a four-day drive permeated with the stench of vomit and rotting flesh that one witness described as "a smell to make you forget all other smells you ever experienced in your life." At one point, Northern Alliance soldiers on the outside were told to make "ventilation" by shooting holes in the trucks. But whereas they could have done this in a safe way by shooting towards the top of the containers, they just shot at random, with the macabre but not unexpected result that they killed prisoners inside. Tales of Torture, Well Before Abu Ghraib Another aspect of Convoy of Death that will resonate with audiences today is its testimony to a policy of torture carried out by the presiding American troops. In interviews with former prisoners who managed to survive Sheberghan, we learn that American commandos beat prisoners not only to scare them into talking, but sometimes just to be "cruel." The frenzy for actionable intelligence is somewhat understandable, given the emergency footing the U.S. was on in the wake of 9/11. However, the evidence presented in the film (of humiliating haircuts, beatings for "pleasure," and arbitrary neck-breakings) seems to have little to do with the race to find bin Laden. Often, one Afghan officer recounts, random prisoners were taken outside, beaten and brought back. Sometimes, however, "they were never returned and they disappeared." While Pentagon officials denied any knowledge of any such events, survivors tell a different story. The issue becomes most weighty and complex when we move along to the convoy's final destination, the desert of Dasht Leile, where the anonymous bodies of prison and battle dead were dumped. Along with the rotting, bloody corpses packed into the truck containers were many who were not dead, but injured or unconscious. Those who did not die on the journey were summarily executed in the desert by Northern Alliance soldiers. The Afghan witnesses are quite clear that this all took place under the watchful eyes of American soldiers, who wanted the bodies to be disposed of "before satellite pictures could be taken." An American Responsibility? "If American soldiers were involved in covering up their role at Sheberghan Prison," says Robert Fox, "it would border on war crimes. But if they stood by as the summary execution of prisoners took place, when they could have intervened, this would be positively criminal." And, continues Fox, since Americans would never take orders from Afghans, "it is ultimately an American responsibility for whatever went on under the eyes of those American soldiers." At this point is juxtaposed the reaction of the sanctimonious Richard Perle, who is forced to concede that if such things had really taken place, a Pentagon investigation would indeed be in order. Yet, for the reasons mentioned above, the full power of the juxtaposition is diminished; it is not clear whether the producers are trying to embarrass Perle, in light of his earnest and oft-stated belief in America's moral supremacy, or whether they are simply taking "straight" testimony from the only representative of the defense establishment who would appear on camera. More humorously, Rashid Dostum appears, claiming to welcome an official investigation - though he also can't guarantee the safety of anyone involved. Also interviewed is one Manuel Gigante, a UN official in Kabul, who reiterates just how difficult it is to provide witness protection in Afghanistan. This response is elicited by the producers' somewhat astonishing disclosure that their (surviving) witnesses have all agreed to testify at any future tribunal. An official in the Karzai administration, Taj Mohammad Wardak, finally goes on the record as saying Kabul is prepared to sue Dostum in court. But in light of the foregoing this possibility is portrayed as laughable. The Fascinating Conclusion Using Convoy of Death as a vehicle for testing the will of international justice makes for a compelling experiment; nevertheless, it is not the film's most interesting aspect. In the final moments, we learn of head researcher Najibullah Quraishi's second near-fatal misadventure. Apparently there exists a one-and-a-half hour long videotape which shows Dostum's troops, guided by American soldiers, moving the Taliban prisoners from location to location, firing randomly into container trucks filled with prisoners, and finally, shooting the last survivors in the desert. This, the "smoking gun" piece of evidence, would have made Convoy of Death incontestable. But it was not meant to be. After Quraishi received the tape he was to copy from his contact, the door burst open. Apparently, he was not meant to have seen the tape at all and was severely beaten by the three Afghans who entered, surviving only because of the later intercession of a third party who won his release. Could this tape be, as Doran suggests, Rashid Dostum's "insurance policy" with the Americans? Doran believes that Dostum is holding on to the full proof out of a desire to "take the Americans down with him" if any war crimes trial ever materializes. The idea that Dostum is holding a self-incriminating video, and perhaps even had it shot for this reason, shows that to be a successful warlord in the era of spin one need be concerned with more than troops and weaponry. If the wily Dostum really is holding this video as his trump card, it would show that he understands intimately the operative constraints at work in American propagandizing - and, despite all the holier-than-thou bloviations of the Richard Perles of this world, the gaping chasm between America's deeds and its words: a gulf of hypocrisy that continues to blackmail the nation's dealings with dubious "partners" the world over.

Handling in Linux? (3, Interesting)

thephotoman (791574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982380)

How does it do with mailto: links from Firefox in Linux? That's the one question burning on my mind.

Re:Handling in Linux? (5, Informative)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982423)

Under Gnome, clicking a mailto: link in firefox launches the default mail program you select under Preferred Applications in gnome-control-center. If Thunderbird is your default mail client, it will launch that.

1st post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982385)

yay 1st post

jubby (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982388)


Im surprised (2, Interesting)

OAB_X (818333) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982390)

Im surprised that it took so long after firefox to be released in 1.0 that thunderbird went preview. Though i can understand why they did, I always thought that they would go 1.0 together.

I use thunderbird for all my mail, and it is much better then Outlook on windows. Good job Mozilla.

Re:Im surprised (2, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982439)

It's only great if you deal with English-only mail. Just about any other language introduces some pretty serious problems that prevent the widespread adoption of this outside of the US and Canada.

The biggest issues is the inability of the mail reader to adequately auto-detect foreign character sets, so you end up with a huge jumble of garbage instead of the expected text.

Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982393)

So, I took a huge dump this morning. When I flushed, it actually plugged up the toilet. I went to get the plunger, but by the time I got back, the toilet had already choked it down. I wish I had pictures.

Re:Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982451)

Please refrain from doing trolls in the vein of The Turd Report. You are not interesting or funny and your troll was completely lacking in interest.

Re:Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982605)

I took a huge dump in the parent poster's mouth this morning. He "flushed" eagerly. Posted pics on and got solid 10 scores.

Re:Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982730)

In Korea, only old people can flush toilets.

Multiple identities/accounts (2, Insightful)

Nadsat (652200) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982395)

Problem with Thunderbird is that I never liked the way it handled multiple-acounts. And could not import multiple identities from Outlook very well. Hopefully this is resolved. Looking forward to Thunderbird dropping presents all over the place from the sky.

Re:Multiple identities/accounts (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982487)

Thunderbird's identity management is much improved even in 0.9. You can now set up multiple outgoing e-mail addresses, all using the same smtp server and all linked to a single incoming account. Very handy for me as I run my own mail server which pulls e-mail from a couple of different ISP and webmail accounts.

Previously you needed to manually edit a config file to do this but now there is a dialog box for it.


Re:Multiple identities/accounts (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982579)

That, and 0.9 refused to import mail from Netscape 7.1 (and by refused I mean didn't give the option)
Very strange if you ask me, since I did it manually by just copying the damn profile folder over, but whatever.

Re:Multiple identities/accounts (5, Informative)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982652)

Problem with Thunderbird is that I never liked the way it handled multiple-acounts.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but I have a feeling you didn't like the way the mail was split up, with one "Inbox" per account? A lot of people didn't like that.

Well, the good news is that you now have a choice. For each email account, you can choose whether the mail goes into an account-specific Inbox OR a "global Inbox". So you can have all your mail in one big Inbox, if that's what you like.

Personally, I like having separate Inboxes for each mail account, because I have many mail accounts and each one has a pretty specific purpose. One for spam, one for friends, several for business/website-related purposes, etc. But apparently the majority of users want a global Inbox, and the developers listened. Pretty cool if you ask me. :)

Re:Multiple identities/accounts (1)

100_Monkeys_Typing (662396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982753)

The problems i have with multiple accounts is that TB will check my main account on start up, but it wont check the rest of them until i physically click "Get Mail."

Thunderbird is missing something (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982402)

I'm a Thunderbird user and have been for a long time, about as long as it has existed. It's a fine email client, a good one, in fact. However, it's missing something. Missing what? I don't know. But it's missing something that would make people want to switch from the client they're already using. If it's your first client, or you're not happy with the one you're using, it's a good choice. But if you are happy, I'm not sure how to convince you to change to it.

Spam filters? Available in other clients, either natively or through add-ons. RSS reader? I think most people that read RSS already have a reader they like. It's not the fanciest looking client, and it still has some bugs. So, how would you convince someone to use it?

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

jsteinfo (23186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982454)

I need Sunbird to get further along. I use Outlook at work but, would like to have a well integrated Calendar and Email client at home.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

OctaneZ (73357) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982519)

if you are running unix certainly check out evolution [] .
Originally on of Ximians flag ship products, now part of Novell's linux group.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (0)

pcmanjon (735165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982456)

"Spam filters? Available in other clients, either natively or through add-ons. RSS reader? I think most people that read RSS already have a reader they like. It's not the fanciest looking client, and it still has some bugs. So, how would you convince someone to use it?"

Well, the way microsoft got 99% marketshare in Outlook express is
1) Making it so all you have to do is click on a subject without reading email to be infected or execute a program
2) Using IE for HTML meaning a crafted script could execute code
3) Being slow and crashes a lot
4) With 'outlook professional' having an ugly menu interface that is suppose to be 'hip and cool'

Perhaps TB developers could take a hint and add those features to their client? ;-)

(It's funny, laugh :)

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

MP3Chuck (652277) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982482)

"So, how would you convince someone to use it?"

Well, security is as much a selling point for TB as it is for FF. Outlook/OE vulnerabilities are a big reason I still get virus attachments in my inbox every now and then.

But I think a big reason a lot of people won't find the enthusiasm that FF has behind it is that a lot of people are content to use whatever web interface they've got. Most of the world uses aol/hotmal/yahoo/gmail as far as I can tell. Not only can you not [easily] use these accounts via POP3, but if you've only got one email address there's no reason to not use the web interface.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

thephotoman (791574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982553)

Well, there is one reason to use a POP3 account (managable easily through Gmail without paying extra): spell checking.

I know I'm not the only one that can't remember how to spell.

Unfortunately, AOL, Hotmail, and Yahoo don't do POP3 for free. Yahoo does do it, but it costs $20/year (but with that, you get 2 GB and 20 MB in attachment space for each message). Hotmail stopped the service, and I have no clue about AOL.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (2, Informative)

Doomie (696580) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982678)

Well, there is one reason to use a POP3 account (managable easily through Gmail without paying extra): spell checking.

Gmail has a spell-checker and it's quite fast/reliable!

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (3, Informative)

oddman (204968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982484)

You know one big advantage it has over it's competition (at least the MS flavor of competition?)

I know exactly where my e-mail is stored on my computer. If T-bird ever crashes or if I need to copy the entire in-box I can do it easilly.

In Outlook Express, the location of the mail is hidden. With absolutely no information on how to find it in the help-files or MS website. Further you can't export your mail to any easilly accesible format. I can't count how many messages I've lost simply because I was updating to a new HD and there was absolutely no easy way to migrate with OE.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (2, Informative)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982535)

There's a setting buried in OE for youre "Store folder"... it points to where your mail is stored.

But it's still fairly well buried in about 50 nested subdirectories in a non-obvious place. Bastards.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982497)

it's a poor news reader

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (5, Informative)

gavinjolly (584983) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982524)

I have recently moved a client Off thunderbird due to issues. Refer here 10 [] for my post to the Tunderbird forums. Here is the summary of the issues from my message for those too lazy to click on the link

  • No spell check suggester
  • Limited signatures - Only one per account and no way to insert during editing a message. A pain for us who use signatures as an Autotext/proforma facility.
  • Searching for emails - In OE and other mail clients when the list is sorted by Sender clicking M will take you to the first M entry.
  • Formatting HTML emails - You cannot select HTML text and then set to the same text size from the formatting toolbar, you must go through the menu (Format > Size > Medium)

I still use it myself as a preference.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

dracvl (541254) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982558)


It's missing instant full-text indexing like the Opera M2 mailer has. The power you have with 4 years worth of mail instantly searchable/accessible in under a second is life-changing.

Getting rid of folders sounds scary in the beginning, but you have stopped categorizing links after Google arrived too, haven't you? ;)

Opera even had this feature long before GMail, but GMail got all the buzz.

Have a look at the Opera M2 Tutorial [] if you want to know why this is one of the few non-free products I use.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982626)

Actually no, I didn't stop categorizing after google.
I still keep all my bookmarks in folders because google isn't perfect and I can organize my favorite pages better myself than they can. It's this reason that I still filter my mail into folders. When I remember some email I need (usually has a link or picture I want), but I don't remember exactly who sent it or the wording, I can still scroll through and find it in a reasonable amount of time.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982672)

Can you use Opera mail without the browser? It looks like something I'd give to my parents but I'd choose Firefox for them.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982573)

It's missing so much, especially calendar features. I know there is a calendar the mozilla team are developing but it's no good.

Instead I've been converting people to Bloomba and they love it more than Outlook. It's just too bad Yahoo bought it out and it's not offered. Only if Thunderbird can be somewhat like it.

I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982586)

This is the most redundant comment I've ever read, how did this get +4 Interesting?

If you like outlook, keep using it. Thunderbird is a great mail app. Try it out, if you like it... fine. If not, then fine too. Thunderbird gives functionality that a good mail client should.

Asking for some amorpheous feature that you don't even know is ridiculous. If it gives you everything you need, why are you complaining?

Re:I'm sorry (1)

ArmorFiend (151674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982721)

I'll play the fool and assume you're not trolling.

Mozilla & Firefox, as browsers, clearly raise the bar and make IE look really silly, with all their new features: typeahead find, tabs, and perhaps the dnd configurable toolbar.

TB doesn't have any revolutionary features. That's what grandpa's kvetching about.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982618)

Of course it is missing something. It's missing the features that allow a virus or bot to infect your machine simply by mousing-over a link, scrolling down or simply previewing the email.

Re:Thunderbird is missing something (3, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982742)

What T-bird is missing vs Firefox is a monopolized market. There are a lot more email clients out there than web browsers, and I doubt that Outhouse Excess's marketshare is quite as high as IE's.

New Theme? Nice. (1)

WeAzElMaN (667859) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982424)

I love the features of TB, but I was really turned off by the theme they were using for it. If it has new and improved graphics and design, the experience will be complete.

Going to download my copy now.


Re:New Theme? Nice. (1)

OctaneZ (73357) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982570)

I would call it an updated theme, I wouldn't really call it new. Certainly a bit more polish to it though. If you were really put off by the "old" theme you will likely not like this one either.

Re:New Theme: Nice? (1)

oneeyedelf1 (793839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982588)

I liked the old theme more, the new icons are just too big, and roundish styled.

Re:New Theme? Nice. (1, Offtopic)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982631)

That's why theme support was created.

Gmail (1)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982429)

I think part of the problem with TB popularity is the current fad of using Gmail... Even though I assume the two are compatible. My biggest problem with the FF/TB setup is that FF can't tell me if I have new messages unless TB is an open window... Either way, iirc, TB already announces itself anyways.

Re:Gmail (4, Informative)

cetan (61150) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982462)

with gmail providing pop3 access, you /could/ integrate the two :)

But really, I use both. gmail has taken over "web" duty from my old yahoo account and thunderbird controls mail from my domains.

Re:Gmail (1)

OAB_X (818333) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982498)

They might be eventually compatible if a program like hotmail popper or yahoopops is invented for it. Im sure it wont take that long as there are tons of gmail hacks already (firefox extention, virtual drives, etc.)

Re:Gmail (0, Offtopic)

thephotoman (791574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982572) don't have to pay for POP access with Gmail. You just activate it in your settings. No hacks needed.

Re:Gmail (1)

fred ugly (125371) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982680)

There is. FreePOPs [] supports tons of different webmail providers (hotmail, yahoo, gmail, etc...)

But I just finished compiling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982443)

Ah, whatever...

Desired Features (5, Interesting)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982455)

What I really wish Thunderbird would do is sync with my PocketPC. At the very least I wish it was easier to sync my address book. I also hope they have better support for vCard exporting. On a side note, does anyone know the timetable for the next major mozilla.orf milestone, Mozilla Suite 2.0, to be released?

Wow! I like! (0, Offtopic)

Refrozen (833543) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982470)

I like it! I am going to start using a client to recieve all my @refrozen emails instead of forwarding 'em to gmail now!

A couple of things: (4, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982474)

1. The importing process seems to only have a wizard to import from other email programs. I would like to have the option to point to a directory or file of email to be imported.

2. It would be really cool to have automatic virtual directories. I have my email sorted into subfolder by email address. I have rules set up to put emails into folders. Why not have this be automatic? Sort by email address, sort by folders. I wonder why no popular email client has this.

Re:A couple of things: (4, Informative)

jeffehobbs (419930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982679)

It would be really cool to have automatic virtual directories. I have my email sorted into subfolder by email address. I have rules set up to put emails into folders. Why not have this be automatic?

Saved Search Folders [] is exactly, precisely what you want, and it's in Thunderbird right now. It's an insanely great feature.


Re:A couple of things: (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982696)

OK I RTFA... Do I have to create the search criteria first? Do I have to do this for each and every email address? If so, it is not exactly, precisely what I want. Don't wait for me to say it, just go ahead and make search folders for my entire address book.

Re:A couple of things: (1)

cmeans (81143) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982748)

Sounds like a great Extension.

  1. Observe the Address book
  2. When a new entry is made, one is deleted, or changed, add, remove or modify a search folder.

Writing an extension isn't that hard, and it's "probably" a lot easier that writing a plug in for Outlook.

promoting Thunderbird is a timing thing (4, Funny)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982477)

1. Someone complains about Outlook Express on USENET or in a forum.
2. ???
3. Profit!---er... Download!

Why I still use Outlook Express (1)

greenreaper (205818) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982542)

Basically, Thunderbird took too much in the way of resources for too little in the way of features. No Hotmail was a big no (yes, I considered writing it myself, but I was put off by the number of people who had started and failed before :-). I just had to look at task manager, though. Why would I want to switch to an app that used 35k when I had one that worked in 20? Just not sensible. So I stay with OE.

Re:Why I still use Outlook Express (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982612)

Man, I've seen minimalism before, but 15k makes a difference? How much RAM is on that machine? Surely there's a better reason that.

Re:Why I still use Outlook Express (1)

greenreaper (205818) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982645)

That's 15 *thousand* kilobytes. Sorry, not used to working in numbers below that nowadays. Note that I said OE used 20 and TB 35 . . . if either of them actually used 35 kilobytes I'd be laughing. :-)

Pegasus Mail (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982479)

Pegasus Mail is a decent mail client that handles multiple accounts better than Thunderbird. Also it's particularly robust and free for personal use.
Pegasus Mail []
I think the only reason why someone wouldn't use it is because there may not be a lunix client.

Sure wish it.... (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982489)

....allowed you to sort by "who" (i.e., the other party, not just sender or recipient), and allowed you to filter outgoing messages and put them in the appropriate folder based on the recipient.


Does anything do that? (1)

BugBlatterBeast (801489) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982604)

Or should I say, does anything do that well? My only experience with filing sent mail was Lotus Notes & that was a bit scabby.

It would be a great feature.

Re:Sure wish it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982608)

Make your filters and include a match for sender = you@domain.tld, then just run the filters on your Sent Mail folder.

how does this compare to firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982492)

i know that firefox just released 1.0 also, can anyone tell me what the pros and cons of each are? i am using internet explorer right now and wondering if it is worth the trouble of trying either

Re:how does this compare to firefox? (1)

ral315 (741081) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982529)

Firefox contains many features that are not contained in IE:

Tabbed Browsing (instead of multiple windows, you can use just one)

Customizable (extensions allow you to add virtually any feature)

Fewer serious bugs
Thunderbird, while it may not be the best e-mail program out there, is better than Outlook Express (assuming you use that now)

Re:how does this compare to firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982585)

firefox is a browser, thunderbird is email. Firefox is a superior browser to internet explorer, more secure, has tabs, rss, blocks popups, etc.

What's keeping me from switching from Outlook - TB (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982508)

Is the Spambayes plugin for Outlook. I've used this for a while now and I simply love it. I never end up with spam in any of my inboxes, *BUT* here's the catch. I do have to check my "Possible Spam" folder every few days and see what's in there. Every so often a legitimate e-mail will end up in that folder. I can quickly & easily recover any messages I want, and then delete the rest as actual spam (which improves the training).

Why doesn't TB offer something like SpamBayes: Good Mail, Maybe Spam, Spam. I tried TB a few months ago and don't like the idea of having to check dozens of spam messages to make sure a good e-mail didn't end up in there. I've been using FF for a while now and love it, and I would love nothing more than to ditch Outlook, but so far my love of Spambayes is greater than my hate for Outlook.

same here (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982693)

SpamBayes seemed much more on the ball at filtering spam. Maybe I haven't trained Thunderbird enough, but it lets an awful lot through.

Why Mail and News? (2, Interesting)

fred911 (83970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982530)

I don't understand why people want a browser that has a POP and NEWS client built in? If I want to use
POP I use my POP client (not outhouse). If I want to use NNTP I use a NEWS client.

Why expose yourself to such a mess?

Re:Why Mail and News? (2, Informative)

ral315 (741081) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982562)

First off, it's not a browser.

Secondly, TB offers NNTP an option. Personally, I use TB as a POP client, and use another client as a NNTP client.

Re:Why Mail and News? (1)

fred911 (83970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982600)

"First off, it's not a browser"

As I take my foot out of my mouth... ...nevermind:>

Re:Why Mail and News? (5, Insightful)

znark (77857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982661)

I don't understand why people want a browser that has a POP and NEWS client built in? If I want to use POP I use my POP client (not outhouse). If I want to use NNTP I use a NEWS client.

E-mail and news (and offline dial-up BBS messaging of the old days) are all sides of the same coin, communication-wise:

  • You have paragraphs of text.
  • You have quoting.
  • You have signatures.
  • You need to have a message editor.
  • You usually have a need to archive important messages into folders of your own choosing.
  • Most often you would like to keep a record of what you have yourself written.
  • You need some search facilities.
  • There must be a way to see a list of new messages, and an option to thread them into coherent discussions.

A well-written news message is the same as a well-written e-mail message. The line between the two further blurs when you subscribe to mailing lists. Why use (and learn) two different interfaces and programs for handling what is essentially the same form of communication?

-- znark

how does it stack up... to evolution ? (1)

kiljoy001 (809756) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982547)

That's my burning question, I rather uses evolution than thunderbird. On my winbox, however it IS my client of choice. I think the fact that evo comes with a calander function (like the up coming sunbird), is what grabs me. However I am a bit dissapointed that they did away with the summary page with all the rss feeds ;)

KMail (5, Interesting)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982563)

I used Thunderbird back in the Windows days (say, 9 months ago or so). Since I switched to Linus (Suse w/ KDE) I've been using K-Mail. It works great, integrates well, and does everything I need. Quite frankly see no reason for Thunderbird at this point. I do have a copy installed so I can walk my Grandparents through when they have problems, but thats it. If I still had Windows I would probably use it still.

Re:KMail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982706)

Linux, not Linus.

Re:KMail (2, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982717)

Does Linus read you your email? Is he friendly in person? What do you have to feed him?

DANG that's a big pipe! (0, Offtopic)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982638)

415 KB/sec...after 35 comments on Slashdot!

No easy way to use it at work (Exchange 2003) (2, Informative)

mikeputnam (464600) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982660)

Despite our "corporate software standards" I run Firefox as my default browser. However, I have not found that I can replace Outlook 2003 with TB in an Exchange 2003 environment. I'm sure that Microsoft puts less effort into IMAP workings than they do integrating their client.

Misread (-1, Redundant)

Hobadee (787558) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982674)

Misread the title as Firefox not Thunderbird and was wondering how I missed seeing the wormhole which sent me back in time.

85th post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982686)

yo momma sucks my ass

Here's a Thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10982688)

Perhaps TB doesn't have the same popularity as FF as there is no site to whip the hardcore followers into evangelical frenzies. It also does not help that what appears to be the focus of Mozilla's calendar project, currently called Sunbird, is designed as a standalone product instead of something intergrated into program proper like Outlook has. It just seems like TB has an identity crisis: is it going to be just an e-mail client/RSS reader? Because if so, there are plenty of other programs already out there. Or, is it going to be an Outlook replacement product as some people tout it? Because if so, it is a long way from being at the same level for features.

Editors on crack? (0, Offtopic)

Mitchell Mebane (594797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982692)

I submitted this yesterday with a much nicer writeup.

maildir (1)

datadriven (699893) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982725)

Does it support the maildir format yet or just mbox? This was a stumbling block for me when I tried a previous version and tried to share a mailbox with kmail rather than export & import all my mail.

Helpful OS X feature (2, Informative)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10982740)

Tbird is one of the few mail readers that support 'Secure Password Authentication' for people that want to read email off of a Windows 2003 POP server without Entourage on the Mac.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>