 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, so this is it: After so many years of working with Outlook, now
that I have this brand new computer, I ultimately decided to bid
farewell to that mail client, and give Thunderbird a try - actually
mainly because that stupid Outlook doesn't have a built-in newsreader,
and I'm getting kind of annoyed with that news.povray.org web interface.
Turned out that migrating my old e-mails archive and address book wasn't
as straightforward as I had hoped (how stupid is this: You can't import
from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed); fortunately, my
old computer's still alive and kicking, so I just installed TB there as
well to import, and followed the instructions I found somewhere on how
to "transplant" a TB profile. Seems to have worked pretty well at first
glance - I hope the second glance will confirm this.
So here we go - first newsgroup posting test with T'bird...
(Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> (how stupid is this: You can't import
> from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed)
Makes perfect sense when you realize Outlook is supplying the libraries to
read and write its data structures. It's like complaining the database is
stupid because you need the database manager to read the tables. :-) That's
how Windows is designed - that's what "component" software is all about.
> So here we go - first newsgroup posting test with T'bird...
Worked!
> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
That works too, perhaps even easier.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> (how stupid is this: You can't import from Outlook .pst files unless
>> Outlook is installed)
>
> Makes perfect sense when you realize Outlook is supplying the
> libraries to read and write its data structures. It's like complaining
> the database is stupid because you need the database manager to read
> the tables. :-) That's how Windows is designed - that's what
> "component" software is all about.
While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
from the usability point of view, as probably everyone who re-installed
Windows (carefully backing up the whole hard disk first), and then
decided to switch over from Outlook to TB in the process, will happily
confirm for sure.
Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
would *that* be? :-P
>> So here we go - first newsgroup posting test with T'bird...
>
> Worked!
Great!
Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
_underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.
(Speaking of which, I'm already pleased with how well-behaved the TB
mail editor seems to be regarding quoted lines in HTML-format replies.
Outlook really sucked at that.)
>> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
>
> That works too, perhaps even easier.
Sure - there's not much to migrate there, and the favorites are
essentially links living in a special directory, so no proprietary
format involved.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
clipka schrieb:
<blockquote cite="mid:4a77c31e@news.povray.org" type="cite">Now I
wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use of
some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
_underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web
interface.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Didn't dare to, and instead had TB convert it to ASCII - but <b>this
time</b> I <i>definitely will</i> try a <u>HTML-format posting</u>.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka schrieb:
> clipka schrieb:
>> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full
>> use of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
>> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web
>> interface.
>
> Didn't dare to, and instead had TB convert it to ASCII - but *this
> time* I /definitely will/ try a _HTML-format posting_.
>
Ah well, that doesn't look too nice in the web interface, so I guess
it's ill-advised...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
> from the usability point of view,
Perhaps not too stupid from the thunderbird developer's perspective. Why
would you want them to go thru the process of reverse-engineering
potentially many internal formats that you can only generate if you already
own Outlook, when instead they can just invoke Outlook?
It's a cost/benefit thing.
> Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
> read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
> would *that* be? :-P
Except that people don't mail around .pst files or outlook address books.
Plus, the people who wrote Thunderbird weren't competing with Outlook. The
people who OOo were competing with Office. Again, another cost/benefit decision.
> Outlook really sucked at that.)
Still does. ;-)
> essentially links living in a special directory, so no proprietary
> format involved.
Well, one easy proprietary format. :-) Plus, that one's build into the OS
rather than a third-party program.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 00:18, clipka wrote:
> clipka schrieb:
>> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
>> of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
>> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.
>
> Didn't dare to, and instead had TB convert it to ASCII - but *this time*
> I /definitely will/ try a _HTML-format posting_.
UGH!
So, I had customized my TB to use certain fonts, and render them in
certain colors. Your HTML post didn't "respect" that. I'll dig around in
TB to see if I can fix this.
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/09 23:24, clipka wrote:
> Turned out that migrating my old e-mails archive and address book wasn't
> as straightforward as I had hoped (how stupid is this: You can't import
> from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed); fortunately, my
The last time I used Outlook (Express) was way too long ago. Reading
your post, I can tell they didn't really improve it much. Perhaps they
even made it worse, as in those days you could read newsgroups with it
(or so I recall).
As for your complaint, sorry: No sympathies. Of all the mail readers
I've used, Outlook was the *only* one that did not use a standard format
for storing emails. There's simply no excuse for it, and over the years
I've had to "help" many people who wanted to switch to another client
and wanted to transfer their emails.
Not all clients support import from Outlook (and why should they?
Almost all mail readers store email using open formats). The simplest
solution if they had IMAP and not too much email was to put all the
email on the server, and redownload it using the new client.
The "other" solution was to install TB, have it import it, and then
just take the files from TB, which, like almost all mail readers, stores
stuff in a sane format.
> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
(Vomits).
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 00:11, clipka wrote:
> While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
> from the usability point of view, as probably everyone who re-installed
> Windows (carefully backing up the whole hard disk first), and then
> decided to switch over from Outlook to TB in the process, will happily
> confirm for sure.
Such people are few and far between. It's quite unlikely that a Windows
user will switch to TB right after reinstalling Windows.
> Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
> read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
> would *that* be? :-P
Because Microsoft Word was being used heavily by the majority.
Outlook's market capture is not even close. It's a small price to pay to
ignore Outlook.
> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
> of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.
*Don't!*
There are still plenty of folks whose clients don't have HTML support,
or stubborn oldtimers like me who disable HTML in their newsreaders.
I don't know about the web interface, but if someone does *bold*,
/italics/ or _underline_, my news reader will render it appropriately
(albeit without removing the delimeters). Just write it this way and let
the people set their newsreader behavior the way they want it.
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> UGH!
>
> So, I had customized my TB to use certain fonts, and render them
> in certain colors. Your HTML post didn't "respect" that. I'll dig
> around in TB to see if I can fix this.
>
My HTML post didn't respect *anything* ;-)
No need to find a fix - I promise I'll not do it again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> On 08/03/09 23:24, clipka wrote:
>> Turned out that migrating my old e-mails archive and address book wasn't
>> as straightforward as I had hoped (how stupid is this: You can't import
>> from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed); fortunately, my
>
> The last time I used Outlook (Express) was way too long ago.
> Reading your post, I can tell they didn't really improve it much.
> Perhaps they even made it worse, as in those days you could read
> newsgroups with it (or so I recall).
>
Outlook and Outlook Express are whole different beasts. The only thing
they have in common is that "Outlook" in the name.
> Not all clients support import from Outlook (and why should they?
> Almost all mail readers store email using open formats).
Well, I always suspected they might, perhaps, want me to use their
product. That, however, includes me leaving my old e-mail app behind;
if there's a clean path to make sure I don't have to leave all the
e-mails behind as well, that makes it a lot easier.
(Then again, maybe my initial axiom is a misconception already, and they
just write those programs for the fun of it; in that case, sure - why
should an e-mail client - even a "big player" - be able to import from
competitors' products. To the contrary: After all, isn't it the Outlook
users' fault that they're not using something better anyway? So let them
stay in suffering. Yeah, they don't deserve otherwise... that'll teach
them a lesson... :-( / ;-) / :-P)
> The simplest solution if they had IMAP and not too much email was to
> put all the email on the server, and redownload it using the new client.
Does this preserve information such as message timestamps?
>> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
>
> (Vomits).
>
Why? Firefox no good either??? Or did you just have something bad for lunch?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As for your complaint, sorry: No sympathies. Of all the mail readers
> I've used, Outlook was the *only* one that did not use a standard format
> for storing emails.
Possibly true for you. Certainly not for others of us.
Solaris mail. GMail. Lotus Notes. Lots of examples.
> There's simply no excuse for it,
Sure there is. They store more than email in the email.
> The "other" solution was to install TB, have it import it, and then
> just take the files from TB, which, like almost all mail readers, stores
> stuff in a sane format.
Not that I'm arguing those other formats are *better*. But there are reasons
for them to be non-standard.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 15:36, clipka wrote:
>> The simplest solution if they had IMAP and not too much email was to
>> put all the email on the server, and redownload it using the new client.
> Does this preserve information such as message timestamps?
I believe it should.
>>> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
>>
>> (Vomits).
>>
> Why? Firefox no good either??? Or did you just have something bad for
> lunch?
Nah. IE sucks. Or it did the last time I used it (version 6).
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 16:53, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> As for your complaint, sorry: No sympathies. Of all the mail readers
>> I've used, Outlook was the *only* one that did not use a standard
>> format for storing emails.
>
> Possibly true for you. Certainly not for others of us.
>
> Solaris mail. GMail. Lotus Notes. Lots of examples.
No idea about Solaris Mail.
As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it doesn't
matter too much what format online mail services use if they don't give
you access to the actual files.
Never used Lotus Notes. You're saying its format is nonstandard (and/or
nonopen) even now?
I've used some software on VAX. It was a simple text file - probably
mbox format.
I hacked the BBS QWK format to use email. And I think some services
used it as well. It's an open format, I believe. Ever since then,
everything was mbox - except Outlook Express. I'm thinking of switching
to gnus and using some of their weird backends (which I'm sure are
nonstandard, but at least they're open).
>> There's simply no excuse for it,
>
> Sure there is. They store more than email in the email.
Well, if they really need a feature that an open/standard format can't
handle, I can see the point. However, what's the excuse for not
providing a straightforward way to export to an open/standard format?
(Perhaps they do so now - not when I used it, though).
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it
> doesn't matter too much what format online mail services use if they
> don't give you access to the actual files.
And outlook is primarily an online mail service.
> Never used Lotus Notes. You're saying its format is nonstandard
> (and/or nonopen) even now?
It was last I looked, and for much the same reason that Outlook's is.
> I've used some software on VAX. It was a simple text file - probably
> mbox format.
There are three standard formats. One message per file, or a file with
^A^A^A^A\n before and after each message, or with "From " at the start of
the line marking a new message.
> Well, if they really need a feature that an open/standard format
> can't handle, I can see the point. However, what's the excuse for not
> providing a straightforward way to export to an open/standard format?
They did. It comes with Outlook. That's why you have to have outlook
installed to use it. Microsoft is going to have a hard time providing you
with a way to export proprietary formats to something more generic if you
don't install the software they give you to do it.
It's the same way you programatically export excel spreadsheets, word
documents, and email messages. It's called COM.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 17:44, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it doesn't
>> matter too much what format online mail services use if they don't
>> give you access to the actual files.
>
> And outlook is primarily an online mail service.
s/outlook/outlook express/
He was talking about Outlook, which I'll admit to not using. My
experience is with Express.
> They did. It comes with Outlook. That's why you have to have outlook
That's fine, then. The last Outlook Express I used didn't provide any
way to do so.
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> He was talking about Outlook, which I'll admit to not using. My
> experience is with Express.
I believe they share a file format, but I am not sure.
>> They did. It comes with Outlook. That's why you have to have outlook
>
> That's fine, then.
But that's what he's complaining about. He installed Windows, didn't install
the software that converts formats, and TB couldn't do the conversion.
> The last Outlook Express I used didn't provide
> any way to do so.
I went to MSDN and typed in "outlook express api" and got bunches of
documentation, including stuff like "get first message", "get next message",
and so on. Sometimes it's rough to find documentation on older products
online, and you have to pay money for it, but it's there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 18:27, Darren New wrote:
>> The last Outlook Express I used didn't provide any way to do so.
>
> I went to MSDN and typed in "outlook express api" and got bunches of
> documentation, including stuff like "get first message", "get next
> message", and so on. Sometimes it's rough to find documentation on older
> products online, and you have to pay money for it, but it's there.
There's a difference between a software feature and an API... Ordinary
users would like a File --> Export option.
At the time I left OE (2002), there were third party apps that
exported/converted them (perhaps some for free). Although I do recall I
used the IMAP route, despite the existence of said software. Perhaps
they weren't free, or I simply didn't trust free Windows software from
random folks on the 'net in those days...?
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> There's a difference between a software feature and an API...
> Ordinary users would like a File --> Export option.
It depends what you want to convert them into, but sure, many people might.
Then whoever is on the other end has to import them, and I imagine MS
doesn't want to provide the customer support lines for that.
Then the problem is, someone exports a bunch of messages, then re-imports
them. What's the right semantics? Copies of everything? What happens if you
import them into a machine with a different timezone? Should it adjust your
calendar entries? Or into a machine without the same address book? Should it
add the people in the messages into your address book? If you just provide
the standard MAPI hooks, then the importing application can do what it wants.
Granted, it's a little hard to defend not providing this, given there *are*
standard formats available. (At least, now there are. Given that MIME came
around several years after Outlook did, it's hard to say what the whole
format could be standardized.) But even now, if you want to export calendar
events, you're not going to be able to copy them between (say) Windows and
the Mac and GMail.
And, of course, it's a little easier for TB to support exporting messages
than Microsoft, given that TB isn't trying to make money. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I used to use Outlook with XP and IE7.
Then Outlook automatically "upgraded"
itself to OE, disabling several funcions that
I didn't use, so I never bothered trying to
re-install.
Not long after that IE7 started closing
without warning on some pages, so
I switched to Firefox (version 2 maybe?).
After that I noticed that the computer
wouldn't boot into safe mode, but booted
into normal mode fine...
so I backed everthing up more often, and
then the computer stopped running.
$
So now I have Vista and it came with
Windows Mail, which as far as I can tell
is very similar to OE, but the name change
makes me think that they've abandoned
some of the buggy code (maybe).
Newsgroups look fine in WM, and I'm using
Firefox 3.52 and everything looks to
be working smooth.
The management of Email contacts
changed, and WM imported my list of
blocked senders into the same directory
as family Email contacts, what a pain!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood schrieb:
> Then Outlook automatically "upgraded"
> itself to OE, disabling several funcions that
> I didn't use, so I never bothered trying to
> re-install.
>
> Not long after that IE7 started closing
> without warning on some pages, so
> I switched to Firefox (version 2 maybe?).
>
> After that I noticed that the computer
> wouldn't boot into safe mode, but booted
> into normal mode fine...
> so I backed everthing up more often, and
> then the computer stopped running.
All of that does *not* sound like the natural way of these programs
acting (not even when presuming a good deal of the usual "Windows rot"),
so I'm inclined to presume some malware to have been at work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There are still plenty of folks whose clients don't have HTML support, or
> stubborn oldtimers like me who disable HTML in their newsreaders.
>
> I don't know about the web interface, but if someone does *bold*,
> /italics/ or _underline_, my news reader will render it appropriately
> (albeit without removing the delimeters). Just write it this way and let
> the people set their newsreader behavior the way they want it.
Couldn't your newsreader also be set up to render <b>bold</b> appropriately?
Oh, wait, hang on...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I used to use Outlook with XP and IE7.
>
> Then Outlook automatically "upgraded"
> itself to OE, disabling several funcions that
> I didn't use, so I never bothered trying to
> re-install.
Huh? I've never heard of that before, millions of people worldwide rely on
Outlook on their work machines to do far more than email on a day-to-day
basis. There's no way that MS is going to do anything like an automatic
"upgrade" to OE unless they wanted to piss off a huge number of corporate
customers who give them serious amounts of money.
Anyway, now OE has been renamed to Windows Live Mail (or maybe something
else recently), so there should be less confusion between the free mail/news
reader and Outlook.
Also, why would anyone use Outlook for simply reading email? That seems a
bit of an overkill.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Huh? I've never heard of that before, millions of people worldwide rely on
> Outlook on their work machines to do far more than email on a day-to-day
> basis. There's no way that MS is going to do anything like an automatic
> "upgrade" to OE unless they wanted to piss off a huge number of corporate
> customers who give them serious amounts of money.
It happened because of MS Works, the full version of Office
was $400 so I got the lesser $99 "home" package which came
with Word, Outlook, and Works. When Works updated beyond
minor versions it reinstalled over the old components, and
messed with the Outlook registry without notice. Essentially MS
thinks that anyone lacking the full Office license shouldn't have
Outlook, even if they purchased it separately.
I could have reinstalled to fix it, it just didn't matter much to me.
I did see a forum full of people upset about it, that's just the
way MS treats home customers sometimes.
> Anyway, now OE has been renamed to Windows Live Mail (or maybe something
> else recently), so there should be less confusion between the free
> mail/news reader and Outlook.
I haven't used Windows Live Mail, according to Wikipedia it has a number
of differences from Windows Mail. Such as support for web based email
Windows Live Hotmail, (just to keep everyone confused about the names).
And they made sure to remove local help files for poor guys
trying to get back online.
> Also, why would anyone use Outlook for simply reading email? That seems a
> bit of an overkill.
Mostly I wanted Word because there's a fair number of Word documents
here that came from elsewhere, but needed to be accessed/edited.
Outlook was just part of the package sale as MS marketed it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I haven't used Windows Live Mail, according to Wikipedia it has a number
> of differences from Windows Mail. Such as support for web based email
> Windows Live Hotmail, (just to keep everyone confused about the names).
As far as I can tell, Windows Live Mail is exactly the same as Outlook
Express, all the menus and dialog boxes are identical, it just has a
different name in the title bar and a few extra buttons.
>> Also, why would anyone use Outlook for simply reading email? That seems
>> a bit of an overkill.
>
> Mostly I wanted Word because there's a fair number of Word documents
> here that came from elsewhere, but needed to be accessed/edited.
> Outlook was just part of the package sale as MS marketed it.
Why does installing Word mean you have to install Outlook? I have installed
MS Office loads of times and never once installed Outlook. I don't
understand why a home user would want to use it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott schrieb:
> Also, why would anyone use Outlook for simply reading email? That
> seems a bit of an overkill.
The added value of being able to sync the address book with my PDA was
the main reason for me, plus it came free with that PDA.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why does installing Word mean you have to install Outlook? I have
> installed MS Office loads of times and never once installed Outlook. I
> don't understand why a home user would want to use it.
Well, I guess I didn't need to, but the checkbox in the installer
looked tempting, so I clicked it. It's sort of like eating a
Twinky, there's no nutritional value, but you eat it anyways.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> It's sort of like eating a
> Twinky, there's no nutritional value, but you eat it anyways.
BLASPHEMER! How DARE you suggest a Twinkie has no nutritional value!
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it doesn't
> matter too much what format online mail services use if they don't give
> you access to the actual files.
It's a web-based mail client.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it doesn't
>> matter too much what format online mail services use if they don't give
>> you access to the actual files.
>
> It's a web-based mail client.
>
Yeah. THe point is that GMail doesn't store the mail in a standard format,
either on their disks or on yours. They (now) give you standard ways of
getting at it, tho, just like Outlook and OE do.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
