Yeah - we've been down this road :-)

But my point is that if we can educate people and get them to use Pine then there wouldn't be such a market for these hackers = less damage.

- wil

I really don't know what's the fuss about MS Outlook. Just disable the preview function and the address book, et voilà, no more trouble.

The only thing anybody could nag about are Outlook's default settings. Solution: see above.

Why not switch to Eudroa, though? A lot more powerful and I believe it handles mail in a more 'correct' manner than Outllook i.e. it threads messages by attaching appropriate headers wich Outlook doesnt do. Not sure if you're running in IMAP mode on Outlook, however.

- wil

>>
But my point is that if we can educate people and get them to use Pine then there wouldn't be such a market for these hackers = less damage.
<<

Yeah but you're missing the point...just shifting everyone over to another mail app would do nothing other than encourage hackers to find exploits in that software too.

Yeah, except that people don't have such a vendeta against other software manufactures.

And they are generally more secure. People are still using unsecure Microsoft products. I'm still using IE 5 at home, simply because it takes far too long to download an update (IE6) over a 56k modem! The number of people using unsecure MS products is phenonamol. While other mail clients have been more secure from the word go - what was the need to allow scripts to be executed anyway? <g>.

- wil

I've used Eudora before. Apart from constantly messing up my desktop and changing my default browser settings (such as minimizing fonts etc.) it can only handle a single user account (at least the last version I used).

Yep - Eudora can handle multiple email accounts. And it handles them properly too - all independant of each other.

I was trying to set someone up on Outlook 2000 the other day and started adding multiple accounts, and then noticed you can only have one signature! And you can't specify a signature for each seperate account! I stopped there and uninstalled before finding out other horrors.

- wil

>>
I was trying to set someone up on Outlook 2000 the other day and started adding multiple accounts, and then noticed you can only have one signature! And you can't specify a signature for each seperate account! I stopped there and uninstalled before finding out other horrors.
<<

So use Outlook Express 6 which can do that.

I tried Eudora once. I really hated it. The interface was NOT user friendly... there were icons and functions without explainations, etc. Also felt the toolbar icons were way too small. Anyway, that's what they forced us to use at school but I don't have to suffer with it anymore. I installed it on my pc once and promptly removed it.... Eudora crashed my computer whenver I had Internet Explorer running at the same time.

Erm... If you set up multiple identities, rather than accounts, you can have multiple signatures for sure... although I don't remember having any problem have multiple signatures in a single account before.

Also, not sure what you mean about Outlook not threading messages? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't seem to have any problem viewing the message lists in a threaded mode.

Wil, my question is this: If you hate MS so much and can't seem to grasp how to use any of their programs, why the hell do you continue to use them?

Quit using gheto programs like Netscape (whos programmers seem to not understand why Netscape sucks), upgrade to decent, stable versions of MS software (win2k/xp pro, outlook 6, etc), quit being dense and learn to use the software, and (most of) your problems will go away.

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator

>> So use Outlook Express 6 which can do that.

Interesting. Why can the free version do this, but not the paid one? Bizzarre!

Thanks

- wil

Philip

I use Microsoft products while I'm at my desk in work. Basically, we use the Office suite as standard, although the only program I really use out of it is Word.

At home, I have my own setup sans Microsoft.

Although, saying that; I have to admit that I've ordered myself one of those new Sony Vaio laptops that come pre-installed with XP. I want to try it out just to see if it might be worth it. Although, I think my business decision in terms of upgrading in work would be to wait for the next release of Windows, codenamed Longhorn.

Cheers

- wil

uh... Outlook 2000 is not exactly up to date. The feature probably didn't exist at all in that version. There's also a bit of difference between Outlook 6 for XP and older versions of Windows.

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator

Hm.. anyone else see the subliminal message?

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator

?

- wil

Guess your subconsious is doing things you aren't aware of.

...desk...sans...Longhorn... = ...pc....without...Windows = Linux/Mac w/ Netscape

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator

Nope. Still don't get you

- wil

Hmm I have a longhorn login screen :)

http://www.xp-erience.org/...onghorn/longhorn.jpg

I was reading an article today in Computing today (the printed version not the web version I just linked to) that advised businessed not to splash out on XP as it's just an inbetween before the next release.

Which actually makes sense when you think about it. Microsoft's products have a life-cycle of 3 - 4 years (source: Microsoft), Windows 2000 was their latest milestone, now project longhorn will be out in 2003/04 therefore it advises businesses not to waste money upgrading on this fancy new in-between. Basically it argues it's just another marketing ploy, an extended product - kind of like those king size Mars bars they brought out a while back. ;-)

- wil

On the security issues, Microsoft doesn't help uses of older Outlook versions fix security bugs very well. When running the online office product updates, it doesn't recognize older versions (pre-2000) of the office suite - so you think all is OK with your copy after the message "no updates available" is displayed. Nope, its a case of hunting down the fixes and hoping you have right ones!

~ ERASER

---

Free JavaScripts @ Insight Eye

I know what you mean! I just visited windowsupdate.microsoft.com and found out that my version of Windows needed 13 'critical security updates' to be up to scratch. Hm, nice of them to let me know that my system was vunreble, huh?

- wil

I'm personally looking to move away from MS products for specialist areas like email and web creation due to bugs and continuous security issues. Recently tried a beta of dreamweaver 5 for web creation and was stunned by the professionalism of this program compared to Microsoft's offering. Just need a decent email prog now ;-)

~ ERASER

---

Free JavaScripts @ Insight Eye

Microsoft's job isn't to hold your hand...its up to you to make sure you are using up-to-date software.

The update button sits on your start menu...it isn't hiding anywhere.

I understand that. But I do think there should be a sense of responsibility at their part. They are basically supplying me with faulty software, I could argue.

- wil

Yeah but it isn't faulty....people purposely go looking for the hole.

Microsoft can't cover every single possible hole that 6 billion people may find whilst purposely trying to find security holes. Thats like buying a car and then getting it broken into and then complaining to Alfa Romeo that they should have used bulletproof glass in the windows.

I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this topic, Paul, so I'm going to leave it at that. :-)

- wil