Which Email client ?

I'm about to change to a new Windows 7 PC when I've put the bits together, and thought it was about time I ditched Outlook Express 6 for something a bit more up to date. I was wondering what you guys would recommend I look at first that will do the job for me as simply as possible.

I keep email running in the background checking incoming mail for a dozen accounts every five minutes.
I need to send from those twelve accounts separately, with a different sig for each one.
Some are Gmail, some are my own domains.
Mails are mainly just text, with the odd Word or Excel attachment, and the occasional picture, but I like choosing my font and text colour.

Currently I'm on Win XP home, but will be on Win 7 Pro with Firefox as main browser (probably, not checked out Internet Explorer since IE6).

I've tried Thunderbird a few years ago and didn't like it, though I can't remember why.
Also got Outlook 2007 which I don't use as it struck me as far too messy and complicated for what I want. I actually gave up trying to configure it for my email accounts and went back to OE6 as it didn't seem worth the effort.

Any advice where to start looking would be appreciated - but the simpler the better.:)

Personally, Outlook 2007. Surprised you've had issues, it's very easy to setup with Gmail. If you use IMAP, no need for constant send and receive either.

Whether 12 accounts would make it a bit bloated, I'm not sure. I use 4 routinely, and it works fine.

Thunderbird with the QuickFolders Add-on has been flawless for me.

I use it much the same way as you've described but with 'just' 6 email accounts. Each account has it's own tab/folder using the above add-on, each account has it's own sig, etc.

I use it with Gmail, Hotmail, my own domains and an old AOL <shudder> account.

I'm with snootyjim, personally I would use Outlook. I've found that it tends to be far more stable in my experience than OE and Thunderbird (i.e. no corruption) and easy to backup.

I've used Becky! Internet Mail for the past 9 years. It has 13 profiles (some are old and unused, though) and it's heavily customised to my preferences. I've never once had it crash, freeze or slow down in the 9 years I've had it.

http://www.rimarts.co.jp/becky.htm

Extremely configurable, easily backed up for HDD migrations (app+data folder+registry), very cheap, and it's regularly updated with a changelog - can you imagine Microsoft having release notes for new minor versions of Outlook? That's crazy talk. The application itself is 6.3MB for me, but that's probably more than a new install as I've been just overwriting the files whenever a new version is released.

Best of all, it isn't Outlook [/Express], which would be a pain in the fracking nuts for me to deal with at home with HDD migrations, lack of customisations and upgrade problems. Outlook cannot do custom signatures per mail account, unless I'm mistaken. 2010 also requires Word as the email editor.

Do not let the non-Vista non-Ribbon interface put you off - the program is very good. Just give it a try. You can email the developer, Carty, directly if you do somehow find a bug.


Edit: I'm still of the opinion that email should be fixed-width plain-text only, with no bold or italics etc, for the sake of compatibility with everyone elses email programs. Perhaps I'm a bit of a luddite in this respect.

Thanks for the help guys. I'll check them all out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerval

I've tried Thunderbird a few years ago and didn't like it, though I can't remember why.
Also got Outlook 2007 which I don't use as it struck me as far too messy and complicated for what I want. I actually gave up trying to configure it for my email accounts and went back to OE6 as it didn't seem worth the effort.

Any advice where to start looking would be appreciated - but the simpler the better.:)

---

Windows Live Mail 2011 (part of Live Essentials) is actually pretty decent these days - the interface is similar in layout to Outlook 2010, and the behind-the-scenes configuration will be familiar to anyone who's used to Outlook Express. And it's free of course.

Might be worth a look, particularly as it's a logical progression from your present setup. :)

thanks captain, didn't know about that one, will take a look :)

I'd agree with your comments about the earlier versions of Thunderbird (bit flaky) but the latest is much better. It uses a tabbed layout which takes a little getting used to.

It has good support for IMAP as well as POP. (It is similar in some respects to the now unsupported Mulberry, which was (IMO) a fantastic (but a little quirky!) e mail client.)

I'm in the process of changing my self. I have been mainly using Outlook 2007 on my PC, but I have used thunderbird (on another machine) in the past which was better I felt...I have just been lazy to go back to it.

And now (because my pc is packed away) I've added all my accounts to my gmail - and I think I'll just stay with this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

I'd agree with your comments about the earlier versions of Thunderbird (bit flaky) but the latest is much better. It uses a tabbed layout which takes a little getting used to.

It has good support for IMAP as well as POP. (It is similar in some respects to the now unsupported Mulberry, which was (IMO) a fantastic (but a little quirky!) e mail client.)

---

My main gripe with the current version of Thunderbird is that there's apparently no way of disabling the automatic account setup "feature". Sometimes it gets it right (Gmail/IMAP usually works fine), other times it's too smart for its own good, and it can be a royal PITA having to reconfigure it after the event.

Otherwise, yes, it's a nice client - the tabbed layout can be switched off if you don't like it, just select the option to open messages in a new window (as opposed to a tab), then in about:config set "mail.tabs.autoHide" to "true".

I do somehow get the impression that its future is uncertain though - development seems slow and uneventful these days, almost as if they're just going through the motions. I guess most non-corporate users will find Gmail/Hotmail etc good enough nowadays (the web interface, that is), to the point where a "traditional" email client is mostly irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainCrash

My main gripe with the current version of Thunderbird is that there's apparently no way of disabling the automatic account setup "feature". Sometimes it gets it right (Gmail/IMAP usually works fine), other times it's too smart for its own good, and it can be a royal PITA having to reconfigure it after the event.

Otherwise, yes, it's a nice client - the tabbed layout can be switched off if you don't like it, just select the option to open messages in a new window (as opposed to a tab), then in about:config set "mail.tabs.autoHide" to "true".

I do somehow get the impression that its future is uncertain though - development seems slow and uneventful these days, almost as if they're just going through the motions. I guess most non-corporate users will find Gmail/Hotmail etc good enough nowadays (the web interface, that is), to the point where a "traditional" email client is mostly irrelevant.

---

Thank you for the tip about the tabbed content.

I'm not sure I'd agree about the gmail/hotmail comment though. Many end/consumer users have their own domain names or use an ISP's POP account. If I see a small business with a hotmail/gmail account my first thought is "not very professional" and a hotmail/gmail address certainly triggers my spam alert! senses! :)

Doesn't necessarily mean an @gmail.com address though, Peterb.

For instance, you can use your gmail account to pick up POP3 email, and deal with it through the gmail interface.

Equally, Google Apps uses the Gmail system with your own domain names. When I left my previous employer, they were in the process of implementing it. Custom login page, custom domain, custom addresses, access via web interface, POP3 or IMAP - and all powered by the Gmail interface and systems.

^ Yep yep, all my domain names go through my Gmail in that fashion (only POP3, didn't go to the extent to change MX records) - I really just like their simple interface, and labels to sort and group email (with some filters applied also).

And my work (very large company), use Gmail for all the employees - having access to docs lets us work on specific stuff we've been sending round...all at the same time is a big plus for what we do sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snootyjim

Doesn't necessarily mean an @gmail.com address though, Peterb. snip--->.

---

Ah - see what you mean. :) True - effectively using gmail as a 'remote client' with an http interface

I can't help much. I still use Eudora, which is beginning to look at bit like a relic from the dark ages. I did try Thunderbird, but it made aright mess of importing. I downloaded the Eudora implementation of Thunderbird too (Tbird OSE) and keep meaning to try it, but haven't yet.

For me, Eudora has two main advantages :-

1) I've been using it since the year dot, so know it well.
2) Backing up, and transferring to another machine, couldn't be easier.

On that latter point, simple copy the data directory (which can be anywhere on your system). When you install Eudora on another machine, it ask for the location of data and just point at the new data directory, and it finds everything, be it mail, folders, attachments, address book,etc. There's no need to individually backup from Eudora, or to worry about registry entries, etc. I just keep Eudora data fully backed up with a sync program, and of course, periodic system backups.

What I would like, personally, is a modern client that :-

a) imports existing stuff properly from Eudora
b) is as easy to backup and/or transfer as that.

I just haven't found it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerval

I'm about to change to a new Windows 7 PC when I've put the bits together, and thought it was about time I ditched Outlook Express 6 for something a bit more up to date. I was wondering what you guys would recommend I look at first that will do the job for me as simply as possible.

I keep email running in the background checking incoming mail for a dozen accounts every five minutes.
I need to send from those twelve accounts separately, with a different sig for each one.
Some are Gmail, some are my own domains.
Mails are mainly just text, with the odd Word or Excel attachment, and the occasional picture, but I like choosing my font and text colour.

Currently I'm on Win XP home, but will be on Win 7 Pro with Firefox as main browser (probably, not checked out Internet Explorer since IE6).

I've tried Thunderbird a few years ago and didn't like it, though I can't remember why.
Also got Outlook 2007 which I don't use as it struck me as far too messy and complicated for what I want. I actually gave up trying to configure it for my email accounts and went back to OE6 as it didn't seem worth the effort.

Any advice where to start looking would be appreciated - but the simpler the better.:)

---

I just still log into www.hotmail.com lol it's simple and it works. I don't open anything that looks dodgy, and hardly ever open a FW email unless I'm certain it's safe to do so, I usually delete them.

I see the last update for Eudora (a blast from the past!) was in 2006. Seems to have gone like Mulberry. There is quite a lot of info about Eudora's file structure but I can see why importing it to an open format would be tricky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

I see the last update for Eudora (a blast from the past!) was in 2006. Seems to have gone like Mulberry. There is quite a lot of info about Eudora's file structure but I can see why importing it to an open format would be tricky.

---

Qualcomm (the developer) decided to completely cease that kind of activity, to concentrate on more core telecomms business, about then, which was a shame 'cos I'd be using Eudora absolutely ages. As I understand it, they handed the source code and marketing over to Mozilla, and the new-ish Thunderbird OSE is basically a Eudora-like front-end on what is essentially the TBird engine. I'm sure there's more to it than that, probably including import capability and the way it handles data organisation.

I don't really want to switch to a completely new client unless it does a decent job of handling imports, at least of mails and folders, though I'd manually redo the address book, filters, etc, if need-be. Importing the Eudora stuff into Thunderbird was a pretty dismal failure - some bits simply vanished, and others were incomplete. At the very least, I need to feel confident it hasn't "lost" email data, because I'd guess here close to about 15 years of archived data in there. Maybe TBird OSE would make a better job of it, and of do, that may be the answer. I'd rather go vanilla TBird than the OSE version, partly because of potential for loss of future development of the OSE version, and partly because it appears to, at best, lag behind.

But in the end, whatever works, and solves the problem, will do.

Thunderbird is still using mbox though *shudder*.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Thunderbird is still using mbox though *shudder*.

---

As do the majority of MUAs. (or some variant with an mbox like structure, such as Outlook's .pst file)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

As do the majority of MUAs. (or some variant with an mbox like structure, such as Outlook's .pst file)

---

That doesn't stop mbox being a hideous, evil mail store. Besides, there's several high quality MUAs which use maildir by default, and an IMAP intermediary can be used if you're forced to use an MUA which is designed to fail.

MUA's aren't the only application that use a files ystem type structure within a file wrapper. In terms of storage efficiency the mbox model is probably better than maildir, However maildir is probably more robust than mbox. But in principle having all mail messages in one file is no different to having lots of file in one directory. After all, a directory is in essence only a file that contains file pointers.

And there are different variants of mbox (which include additional indexing files that speed up access) so it becomes quite a sophisticated storage system.

What are your particular concerns with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

But in principle having all mail messages in one file is no different to having lots of file in one directory. After all, a directory is in essence only a file that contains file pointers.

---

It's very different, if a directory node is damaged, the emails are still recoverable, since fsck will dump dereferenced objects into lost+found, if an mbox file is lost, all your emails are toast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

And there are different variants of mbox (which include additional indexing files that speed up access) so it becomes quite a sophisticated storage system.

---

Additional and non-trivial application code, fracturing and complicating an already dreadful format, inter-application incompatibility. Sophisticated generally means liable to ruin your day, in this context it's practically guaranteed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

What are your particular concerns with it?

---

Slow, more complex to code, prone to eradicating all your emails if there's the slightest filesystem problem, doesn't scale, horribly inflexible, works poorly with existing system tools.

It is a question of compromise though, aqnd the defects you describe appear to be as much about shortcomings of a particular file system. Outlook (for example) has an inbox repair tool, so if the .pst file (which is the same concept as an mbox file) is damaged it can do a repair - similar in principle to fsck on an ext2/3/4 file system. Ext3 is a journalling file system anyway and so file damage is less likely to occur (same almost true for NTFS).

But mbox has stood the test of time, and the principle (one file acting as a container to hold a file system like structure) is used by other applications, such as winzip, word, truecrypt and others.

While there is a risk, (as with any storage system) the likelihood of that risk occurring is small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

nts - although you appear tp be talking about shortcomings of a particular file system.

---

No, I'm talking about the shortcomings of mbox itself. Explaining typical file-system behaviour merely serves to reinforce it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

Outlook (for example) has an inbox repair tool, so if the .pst file (which is the same concept as an mbox file) is damaged it can do a repair

---

Which is useless, if the file is dereferenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

Ext3 is a journalling file system anyway and so file damage is less likely to occur (same almost true for NTFS).

---

Less likely, but not unlikely either, that's why ext* has a lost+found directory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

But mbox has stood the test of time

---

No it hasn't, it still exists, but it's proven itself to be a inferior at storing email in every respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

and the principle (one file acting as a container to hold a file system like structure is used by other applications, such as winzip, word, truecrypt and others.

---

Most still follow 1 document per file concept (bar winzip, but that's an archiving format, it's meant to do that). And that trend has been increasing lately as developers realise that jamming everything into one file might not have been the brightest idea. mbox crams all your emails into a convoluted structure, somewhat like a zip, only without the compression benefits, and all of the risks involved, and no on file-system copies.

How does this impact the ordinary citizen who's just wondering which email client to try as a replacement for Outlook Express?:juggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerval

How does this impact the ordinary citizen who's just wondering which email client to try as a replacement for Outlook Express?:juggle:

---

That depends on how much they care about their emails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerval

How does this impact the ordinary citizen who's just wondering which email client to try as a replacement for Outlook Express?:juggle:

---

Good point! :) - in real life it doesn't, but while it was sort of off topic, it does emphasise that a simple e mail client is not actually that simple. And the various forms and variations of mail storage leads to the incompatibilities between clients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

I can't help much. I still use Eudora

---

get you and your cutting edge software :P


real men use PINE

I've never had any trouble or lost anything with OE 6. Does that mean I'm just lucky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerval

I've never had any trouble or lost anything with OE 6. Does that mean I'm just lucky?

---

No, it just means that, like the vast majority of e mail users find, the storage system is robust enough to be usable for daily use. (I have mbox like files that are several Gbytes in size that were originally created seven or 8 years ago - true - they are backed up, but that is part of a general backup regime, not because I am unduly concerned about the integrity of the mail file store)

I moved my Dad to windows mail live, as it was the only mail client that would import the raw files from outlook express, Thunderbird and Outlook would only import mail if it was already on the system. So you might find yourself porting to Windows mail live first as a stepping stone. However WML was good enough for my dad, to not feel the need to try any more clients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moby-Dick

get you and your cutting edge software :P


real men use PINE

---

Pfft - turnpike :)

But back to the OP - Either the windows freebie, or Thunderbird. Try them out and see which one you get on with best. Both will do what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

But back yo the OP - Either the windows freebie, or Thunderbird. Try them out and see which one you get on with best. Both will do what you want.

---

thanks Peter :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

....

No it hasn't, it still exists, but it's proven itself to be a inferior at storing email in every respect.

....

---

Not so. It's superior in one respect, which is that I can do with it what I want to - i.e. back up mails and move them to another machine simply by copying files, and pointing a new client at them, with no application-specific processes to follow. It also puts attachments into a directory where not only the same applies, but I can manually copy and, if I wish, delete files.

Does it have weaknesses? Hell, yes. But it gives me direct control in a way I don't get if it's all behind some level of abstraction from a database engine. Would I want it in a large multi-user environment? Not really. But I'm not in one.

But for me, it just .... works. And has been since before most people knew what email was, let alone had any. And in that time, it's yet to lose me any emails, not least because I take care to back up data directories. Hence why I like that structure and want to maintain it if I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moby-Dick

get you and your cutting edge software :P


real men use PINE

---

If you think I'm bad with my email client, you ought to see my contact manager. The installer for that simply refuses to run under Win7.

I'm still trying to get round that .... short of just running it on an older XP system.

My adage for software .... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

Pfft - turnpike :)

---

Normally I use mutt, however for testing you can't beat dig and telnet!

telnet gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25
Trying 209.85.229.27...
Connected to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com (209.85.229.27).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mx.google.com ESMTP x83si1502114weq.125
HELO
250 mx.google.com at your service

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oolon

Normally I use mutt, however for testing you can't beat dig and telnet!

telnet gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25
Trying 209.85.229.27...
Connected to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com (209.85.229.27).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mx.google.com ESMTP x83si1502114weq.125
HELO
250 mx.google.com at your service

---

True! although mutt is luxury compared with mail! (but shh - you'll frighten Nerval :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

If you think I'm bad with my email client, you ought to see my contact manager. The installer for that simply refuses to run under Win7.

I'm still trying to get round that .... short of just running it on an older XP system.

My adage for software .... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

---

My Last OT post - have you tried "XP Mode" ie a seemelss XP vm under Win 7 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Not so. It's superior in one respect, which is that I can do with it what I want to - i.e. back up mails and move them to another machine simply by copying files, and pointing a new client at them, with no application-specific processes to follow. It also puts attachments into a directory where not only the same applies, but I can manually copy and, if I wish, delete files.

---

I'm confused. Are you talking about mbox or maildir, because I was criticising the former, partially because it can't do *exactly* what you're talking about there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

I'm confused. Are you talking about mbox or maildir, because I was criticising the former, partially because it can't do *exactly* what you're talking about there.

---

But, as Nerval correctly pointed out, irrelevant to his original question about which e mail client to use with Win 7! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

But, as Nerval correctly pointed out, irrelevant to his original question about which e mail client to use with Win 7! :)

---

:):):)

lol, don't mean to be a killjoy - all in favour of the advancement of knowledge :clapping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

I'm confused. Are you talking about mbox or maildir, because I was criticising the former, partially because it can't do *exactly* what you're talking about there.

---

Maybe I misread or misunderstood what you said. I read it as you criticising mbox, and Eudora is an mboxo variant.

Mailbox formats aren't my thing, but Eudora is based on mboxo and does what I'm talking about wanting. Oh, but Eudora separates attachments into a dedicated directory and doesn't embed them in mbox, just references them.

Oh, and apologies to Nerval too. I seem to have caused a little diversion in his thread. This place needs decent mods to keep an eye on things. :embarrassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Maybe I misread or misunderstood what you said. I read it as you criticising mbox, and Eudora is an mboxo variant.

Mailbox formats aren't my thing, but Eudora is based on mboxo and does what I'm talking about wanting. Oh, but Eudora separates attachments into a dedicated directory and doesn't embed them in mbox, just references them.

---

Fair enough. Just wondering.

I use Thunderbird but I am close to giving up.

Has anyone tried Postbox?

never used postbox - but it's not free, and I don't think I would ever part money for a email program now. What is it about thunderbird you don't like?
I went through various mail clients back when that was the done thing, but with something like Gmail and it's offline mode, I find it makes local mail clients virtually redundant - outside of corporations, that is. Having said that - I work for a fairly large multi national and we switched from a local mailserver/clients to Google about a year ago - best thing they ever did. Mail and calendar functionality works great, the only reason currently to still use the old system is for booking meeting rooms (though if that doesn't make it into the corporate gmail system fairly soon, I'll be quite unimpressed)

In a nutshell the search. Thunderbird search produces irrelevant results or none. It presents it in a messy way.

I came from Gmail for work email to letting Thunderbird get it from pop3 thinking it would give similar or a more polished performance since it will run locally. The difference is huge. Granted search is Google's bread and butter.

I use Thunderbird and it's really good, free as well. I'd reccomend it and it's super simple to set up.

Thunderbird here too. It does everything I need it to do superbly.

Windows Live Mail is pretty good, although I've not done search on it. Outlook 2k10 is great and search works very well, but it may not be straightforward getting a free copy, and Outlook used to struggle with imap/pop3 mailboxes - I've only used it with Exchange recently so don't know if that side of it's been improved. I think MS have started feeding developments from Outlook into WLM. If oyu want I can have a mess doing searches tonight and see how it handles them...

I've always found that Thunderbird suited my needs perfectly. It's great for multiple email accounts, and pretty lightweight too.

I use Opera's built in email client at home, the search is pretty fast.

Use Outlook 2010, I find it quite useful. You could always use Thunderbird if you don't like Outlook though.