Bidi support in Outlook Express is inadequate. This makes it less than perfect for me.
Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:37 PM > To: John Cowan > Cc: Unicode List > Subject: Re: OT: which email client [was TR35] > > > From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > John Hudson scripsit: > > > Jony Rosenne wrote: > > > > > > >Mozilla's main value is for non-Windows platforms. > > > > > > And for people who are unimpressed by Outlook's security track > > > record. > > > > The main reason I spoke of the Outlook addiction > > Outlook was done for enterprise-level management of forms and > collaboration on common sets of documents. Its extension to > Internet was ill-advized, and people using it for Internet > should reconsider their choice, when Outlook Express is a > completely different product, which is just scaled to do the > right thing with little interaction with enterprise applications. > > If you're at home or working alone, there's absolutely no > need to use Outlook (not Outlook Express, whose name should > really be made more distinctive... why not simply Internet > Explorer Mail?) > > > Mozilla-based email systems use plain mbox/Eudora format, which at > > least maintains the emails in a way that's easy to understand. > > > > Me, I use mutt. GUI-based mail clients are just too slow. > > True for Mozilla Mail, true for Outlook: both are using too > much resource. But not true for Outlook Express which is > nearly perfect for what it does with simple options. > > However I am still disappointed by the way it handles the > quoting; security in Outlook Express is much stronger than in > Outlook, and with SP2, preview will be much more secure > without being required to view all mails in plain-text format > only. I am very pleased to see that Microsoft has accepted to > incldue security features in Outlook Express for managing > incoming emails, because this is the product recommanded > instead of Outlook for handling emails from the Internet. > Outlook should have its separate usage (without any > configuration of email accounts on the Internet, but possibly > on private internal servers), and its integration of internet > mail has always been poor. > > I see Outlook only as a client for Exchange Server. As > Exchange Server should not be used for unsecured Internet > mails too, Outlook is not a bad product. It is just not used > as it should be. If you don't have any Exchange Server, there > should be no usage of Outlook, and in fact Outlook should > better be removed from Office and placed within the arena of > Exchange Server. > > > >
