Who's using Mozilla?

[time]

I can't get Thunderbird 0.8 to open an EML file through file association, i.e. "Open with". Absolutely nothing happens - Thunderbird doesn't even load. There's no such problem with Mozilla.

Can anyone else duplicate this behaviour?

There's also a glitch using the "Open saved message" menu option when a mailbox hasn't been selected - it opens a blank form instead of displaying the email.

 

[time]

We're now up to 1.0 release candidate 1, and it still has the same problem, i.e. you cannot pass an email to Thunderbird as a command line argument (and therefore cannot create any kind of association!), even though this has worked for ages with Mozilla and just about every other email client. Looking up the bug status, it's more than three months old with no action.

Based on the plethora of other problems afflicting Thunderbird, what kind of jokers at Mozilla.org think that it has progressed to 1.0? I've seen it take 10 seconds to load for God's sake - slower even than Outbreak. People might swallow it being called version 0.85, but 1.0 is fanciful.

Having said all that, I'm committed to it for myself and am courageously recommending it to clients, simply because after years of looking, I haven't found anything better. It has a reasonable interface and an effective spam filter, and that's what most people want.

Now, does anyone know how to relocate the address book? I doubt that it's shareable, but I'd like the chance to find out. :-?

 

[mubs]

It looks like the latest version of T-bird isn't all that different from the earlier releases. I'm still using !@$#$^ Netscape 4.78 for email. :evil: :frowner: :arge: :cursin: :crap: :rambo: wneddnce: :eek4: :boom:

 

[Tannin]

For all its many faults, Mubs, Netscape 4.x had an excellent little email app. We were installing it as the default email client on customer machines right up until Thunderbird 1.0 came out, because there really wasn't anything else much about that was as good. So don't stress out about it: it's old, but its a perfectly sensible choice.

 

[mubs]

Grrrr. That's why I'm still using it, Tony (clenches teeth). Why oh why can't somebody build a decent modern email client??? I've tried several for-pay proggies and never liked any one of them, returning to Netscrape time and time again. Grrrrrrr.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

...I'm still using !@$#$^ Netscape 4.78

I used Netscrape w-a-y back in the beginning -- talkin' version 1.x and 2.x (what else was there worth using back then?) -- but no more, since about version 3.0.1 or 3.0.2. Netscrape has been a fat squealing pig to use for more than half a decade.

I like Netscrape's bastard child, Mozilla 1.7.x, quite a bit nowadays. Of course, earlier Mozilla versions were a study in how to write a program that could suddenly crash.

 

[Mercutio]

If you want to go way, way back, NCSA Mosaic was probably a better browser than pre-1.0 or 1.0 versions of Netscape. Thing was, it was slower, since it only made one HTTP request at a time. But in terms of stability I distinctly recall it being the better browser.

And don't go hatin' on lynx, either.

 

[mubs]

CGB:

I use Netscrape for mail only. Putting up with its bloat solely for the mail program. For browsing, been using Firefox since about ver. 0.4.

 

[Gilbo]

I've been using Evolution, which is quite nice. My biggest nitpick is that e-mail rule filtering is shockingly slow, and won't work with Contact List groups (does anyone know of an e-mail client that has filtering like that?). The lethargy of the filtering is very irritating. And this on a 1.7Ghz Pentium M.

I think I might try Thunderbird again however, since I don't need a lot of Evolution's functionality and could get by with something lighter and simpler. Does anyone else have any recommendations for Linux e-mail clients that I should try? I've pretty much stuck with Evolution the whole time.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

If you want to go way, way back, NCSA Mosaic was probably a better browser than pre-1.0 or 1.0 versions of Netscape...

I used all those early versions of Mosaic before Netscape hit.

Yes, UIUC Mosaic was stable enough (as I recall), but it was in no way as user-friendly and "pretty" as Netscape 1.x was. Installing Mosaic was done manually from a list of files and which directories to copy the files into. The Mosaic project went dormant a few months after Netscape hit. A year-and-a-half later, Microsoft finally shows up (late) with - correct me if I'm wrong -- IE 2.0, followed quickly by IE 2.1. That first version of IE was a crasher. IE 3.0 was significantly better.

Another fond memory of Netscape was going though CompUSA and Computer City retail stores and seeing Netscape 2.0 (and later 3.0) retail packages selling for US$49.99. :lol:

IE was free then as it is now.

 

[sechs]

IE is (ultimately) based on Mosaic (still). I have to give credit to the Netscape folks for at least thinking that they need to create a new engine from scratch.

 

[Mercutio]

I think I might try Thunderbird again however, since I don't need a lot of Evolution's functionality and could get by with something lighter and simpler. Does anyone else have any recommendations for Linux e-mail clients that I should try? I've pretty much stuck with Evolution the whole time.

On linux systems I just check my mail directly on my mail server with elm.
I have no idea what your definition of a lightweight mail client is, but it does everything I want - it can send and receive e-mail, has a worthwhile and useful editor (vi) and can search messages VERY quickly. It takes just about the same amount of time to open elm + my 400MB mail spool as it does for an IMAP client to parse my 400MB mail spool.
It doens't have an address book. I don't need one and don't use them (I am a mutant who remembers email addresses without them).
It doesn't have calendaring. I don't need that, either.

I'm not really big on graphical email clients. I do use Thunderbird, because it meets my very simple e-mail needs, but better than half the time I'm still running my 80x24 console mail client.

 

[tazwegion]

Mozilla is great... but personally I use it over FireFox due to it's integrated IRC client ChatZilla, I don't bother with the mail client using instead a heavily imaged 'Incredimail' program :mrgrn:

 

[Tannin]

According to Time, Incridimail contains spyware

 

[Buck]

According to Time, Incridimail contains spyware

Not directly, but it attracts the little weasels like a red light district at a port of call. Insidious program - incruddiemail should be banned from this planet. You think Kazaa is bad? Hah! Kazaa is like the kings prized daughter with a chastity belt living behind lock and key compared to incruddiemail.

 

[tazwegion]

LMAO spyware or attractant? you try and tell my wife that! :lol:

Incredimail is only installed on the primary ICS host system accounts, along with Spybot S&D, Lavasoft's Adaware & of course MS's Beta1 spyware... however I never bother to add it to any of the other PC's about the house

I'm afraid the topic is mute... you learn to adapt & compensate eh?

 

[Tannin]

OK, I'll buy the assertion that Incredimail doesn't itself contain spyware. (I've never seen it listed as a black hat.) But I would be very reluctant indeed to ignore te accumuated wisdom of two such experienced old campaigners as Time and Buck.

So where is the problem? If it attracts bugz, how?

 

[time]

According to Time, Incridimail contains spyware

:scratch: Did I say that? Well, it's certainly an obnoxious application, and the number of reports on the web suggest it may have at one stage anyway. It used to be a not uncommon delivery system, being sponsored to bundle 'helper' applications with your own. Or perhaps Incredimail used to phone home? The ads may not be targeted now, but probably were once.

I'd agree with Buck, anyway, just anecdotally. And Tannin, if you installed it (and then tried to uninstall it), I'm confident you would mistrust it too.

 

[Buck]

So where is the problem? If it attracts bugz, how?

I have no idea how it works Tannin. But I've resolved customer's spyware issues by simply removing it from their system. Gladly, they saw the immediate benefit and began living happily ever after without the software. With that sort of experience, I naturally learned to mistrust the beast. Granted, they may have changed, but I'm a bit too gun shy to try it. If my customers want to use the software, I'll warn them, and then they are on their own. If they require service because of Incruddiemail, they will have learned a valuable lesson without me pointing a finger, giving an arrogant look, and saying "I told you so."

 

[e_dawg]

Why oh why can't somebody build a decent modern email client???

They have. It's called gmail

Seriously, it's been refreshingly competent compared to my other webmail based e-mail services (hotmail, Horde IMP, mail2web). My favourite features are its automatic address completion feature (you start typing a person's e-mail addresses and it presents a list of choices for you to choose from with the best choice pre-selected... all you have to do is hit tab) and its threaded conversation view that makes e-mail messaging like conversations on a discussion board.

I also like that spam has been refreshingly rare.

I don't like not being able to e-mail executables at all -- not even when zipped.

 

[e_dawg]

Forgot to add that I like gmail enough to have switched from POP based e-mail and POP mail clients like my favourite Outlook 2000 (Outlook XP OTOH is brain dead in that it refuses to recognize that mail left on the server has already been downloaded before and persists in downloading all 50 MB of messages every time the application starts).

I only wish that gmail could add an online calendar/scheduling module and the ability to sync with PDAs, which would result in the perfect replacement for Outlook as my e-mail / contact management / scheduling app. I know Microsoft offers such a thing with its msn Outlook Live web service, but I think there is a subscription fee associated with it amongst other drawbacks.

 

[e_dawg]

I used to find Firefox useful at work, but they have since given me an official warning of "illegal software detected (Firefox) -- please remove immediately". I think this goes somewhere on my employee record too. Quite silly seeing as whenever I use IE, I get popups that try to install all kinds of spyware and other crap that has got to be more dangerous than the presence of Firefox on one's computer.

 

[Fushigi]

I agree that GMail is rather nice, but has some limitations. If your PDA has internet connectivity, you can use the POP interface to d/l email to it. I've done this on my Treo. Calendaring would be a great add-on; I'm sure it'll happen some day.

We technically don't allow FF at work either, but we don't run a locked desktop. Our industry has too many proprietary apps so we rely on policy and education. Not 100% effective, of course, but actually not too bad. Two further points:
1. I'm the security officer.
2. Our legal & HR departments have no problem getting involved when necessary.

 

[Santilli]

I use both. Some of my favorite sites don't work with Firefox 106, but, I only use IE with those, and do the rest of my browsing with Firefox, per Furballs instructions... :mrgrn: :wink:

GS

 

[iGary]

I *was* using Firefox, but a little while back, I began using Mozilla (beginning with V1.7.0). I run Moz with the stripped-down Mac-like "modern" interface enabled. I don't use Moz's E-mail or IM capabilities.



By the way, ladies and gentlemen, there was a recent Mozilla update :cyclopsani: (now all the way up to V1.7.11):


http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/

 

[iGary]

• Firefox 1.5 beta due next week
  
  The first beta test version of the next major upgrade to the popular Firefox open-source browser will be available to the public next week, the Mozilla Foundation announced. Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 will be available next Thursday, according to a posting in the section of the Mozilla Foundation's Web site devoted to developer news. A second beta version of Firefox 1.5 is currently slated for Oct. 5. Meanwhile, Firefox 1.5 Release Candidate 1 is scheduled for Oct. 28.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwa...10801,104325,00.html?source=NLT_PM&nid=104325