Discussion:
Windows Live Mail??
(too old to reply)
Jess Fertudei
2017-04-23 22:48:37 UTC
Permalink
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?

Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
Mike Easter
2017-04-23 22:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Someplace like filehippo or softonic.
Post by Jess Fertudei
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
There are lots of things that WLM won't do anymore, so MS dc/d it.

What are you planning on doing with it? You are posting with OE here; I
wouldn't do that with WLM.
--
Mike Easter
tesla sTinker
2017-04-23 23:36:30 UTC
Permalink
just use a client... The communist are trying to railroad
everyone into online email, and for that reason, you need to use
a client. Unless, you like what communism does to you?

Thunderbird
Many use this one,

But, they are like a dime a dozen... Just download from any
software freeware, like top4download site.. Any email client, Then
punch in email client.... The rest, you configure after its running
with whatever servers you want. |You may also want to keep an eye
on Retro Share, its a multiple server type device, so to rid the world
of communism by these FCC corporations. You will find that under the
search engine as well.... Its time to stop the clown from owning us.
Once you have a client, you can use a private IP, or even a proxy server
to check your email, instead of being slave to your ISP... Then you
become more private as in, no one can watch you.....

WE do suggest also, you change out the firewall of gates, its a railroad
you thing....
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
VanguardLH
2017-04-24 01:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
WLM went legacy many years ago. Legacy means unsupported aka
discontinued. Its installer might also check for a range of supported
Windows version and balk when you try to install on a Windows version it
doesn't support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mail

Wave 5 (version 2012) is what you need to install on Windows 7. Since
WLM is long dead, you won't find a download at Microsoft. Some download
sites still have it, like:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/E-mail/E-mail-Clients/Windows-Live-Mail.shtml

You won't be able to use the Deltasync protocol coded in WLM to connect
to your Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com. Microsoft dropped Deltasync from
their servers. So you can only use POP, IMAP, and SMTP with WLM. You
can still use those to access a Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com account but
just for e-mail (Deltasync, and its Exchange ActiveSync replacement,
also support contact and calendar sync). Unless you use MS Outlook for
EAS support, any POP/IMAP/SMTP client will work.

Windows Live Mail was NEVER bundled in any distro of Windows. So you
always had to go elsewhere to get a copy to install. Windows Mail is
not the same as Windows Live Mail.
NY
2017-04-24 10:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Windows Live Mail was NEVER bundled in any distro of Windows. So you
always had to go elsewhere to get a copy to install. Windows Mail is
not the same as Windows Live Mail.
It's a great shame that Outlook Express (XP) and Windows Mail (Vista) were
never available for separate installation on all future versions of Windows.

Is the only mail client that MS now support the hideous Mail app that is
built into Windows 10. It is dire: very cut-down in its features, naff Metro
interface, poor integration with contacts list in that you cannot import and
export contacts by VCF or CSV file.

Sadly Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.

Outlook (the component application of the Office suite, not Outlook.com) has
several disadvantages:

- you can't import/export mail account settings to an iaf file

- it stores all the messages in one humungous mess of a pst file, which
means that the whole thing has to be copied again to backup medium even
though one message has been added/changed, whereas with Windows Live Mail
it's only that eml file (plus a few control files) which need to be backed
up.


I liked the user-interface of Outlook Express and Windows Mail. It's a shame
that MS couldn't have evolved this program to include additional protocols
and security, instead of abandoning it and replacing it with an inferior
"toy" app, Mail.

On Windows 7 I use the older version of WLM - the one without the dreaded
ribbon interface and the insistence on trying to send attachments via cloud
storage, rather than attaching them properly as uuencoded or MIME
attachments - so many times I receive emails from my parents who have the
more modern WLM and need to log in (having created an account) to be able to
see the attachments.
Mike Easter
2017-04-24 20:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.
What do you mean? Select however many you want and then Write.
--
Mike Easter
NY
2017-04-26 11:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by NY
Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.
What do you mean? Select however many you want and then Write.
I'll have to install Thunderbird on one of my test PCs and see if I can
replicate the exact restriction that I found when I was installing
Thunderbird (because WLM wouldn't connect to a POP server) for a customer a
few months ago. I may have mis-remembered the exact details but I know it
was something to do with sending a message to multiple users. Maybe it was
the opposite way round: if you created a new mail, it was tedious to select
multiple recipients from the address book.

I t was one of those situations where the user was familiar with WLM and
wanted to continue with it, but a change to his mail server and/or a "fix"
from Microsoft broke the receiving of POP mail. So I had to install TB, work
out how to port his emails and addresses, and give him a crash course in
using this new email program to show him how he had to perform familiar
tasks (in WLM) using TB.

I need to try it again so I can speak a bit more authoritatively rather than
out of my backside :-)
...winston‫
2017-04-27 07:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
I t was one of those situations where the user was familiar with WLM and
wanted to continue with it, but a change to his mail server and/or a
"fix" from Microsoft broke the receiving of POP mail.
I need to try it again so I can speak a bit more authoritatively rather
than out of my backside :-)
Fyi...
No 'fix' from MSFT impacted POP3 in WLM. The only change was in the
account's web UI
- POP mail required a toggle to 'On' in the web UI settings
--
...winston
msft mvp windows experience
tesla sTinker
2017-04-28 18:33:03 UTC
Permalink
using eudora ose its better than thunderbird. It lets you do what you
want. Including manipulate the headers...
Post by ...winston‫
Post by NY
I t was one of those situations where the user was familiar with WLM and
wanted to continue with it, but a change to his mail server and/or a
"fix" from Microsoft broke the receiving of POP mail.
I need to try it again so I can speak a bit more authoritatively rather
than out of my backside :-)
Fyi...
No 'fix' from MSFT impacted POP3 in WLM. The only change was in the
account's web UI
- POP mail required a toggle to 'On' in the web UI settings
VanguardLH
2017-04-29 01:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tesla sTinker
using eudora ose its better than thunderbird. It lets you do what you
want. Including manipulate the headers...
Eudora OSE *is* Thunderbird. Eudora dumped their "classic" program and
forked from Thunderbird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_OSE

That it uses forked code does not preclude it from adding their own
features or behaviors. There are lots of forks (variants) of Firefox
and Chromium web browsers.

Eudora OSE ceased keeping update to the Thunderbird codebase. They
abandoned the product. The last update to it was back in 2010 hence the
wikipedia article above noting:

On June 28, 2013, the Mozilla website indicated that Eudora OSE is
based on an out-of-date version of Thunderbird and that, to Mozilla's
knowledge, Qualcomm has no plans to update or support it. Mozilla
recommends current users consider switching to Thunderbird.

and see:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Eudora_OSE&oldid=671454
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-04-29 10:00:54 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, VanguardLH <***@nguard.LH>
writes:
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Eudora OSE *is* Thunderbird. Eudora dumped their "classic" program and
forked from Thunderbird.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Eudora OSE ceased keeping update to the Thunderbird codebase. They
abandoned the product. The last update to it was back in 2010 hence the
On June 28, 2013, the Mozilla website indicated that Eudora OSE is
based on an out-of-date version of Thunderbird and that, to Mozilla's
knowledge, Qualcomm has no plans to update or support it. Mozilla
recommends current users consider switching to Thunderbird.
[]
Yes to all. I was pleased when I heard about EOSE, because my blind
friend, who used Eudora, finds it even more difficult to change
softwares than many of us do, so I thought it would be (a) be good
[familiar] for him, (b) wean him onto TB by the back door.

We found that it was sufficiently different to Eudora, from _his_ point
of view, that it was unusable. (For example, there was/is one part he
couldn't get out of without using the mouse [which of course he doesn't
use] - I think it was the type actual email text window.) [There might
have been a way, but neither he nor I could find it, or if I did it was
excessively complicated and possibly inconsistent.]

We eventually found that Eudora (6 or 7, I forget) - the real one, not
OSE - works fine under W7 anyway. (We'd heard it didn't, hence the foray
into EOSE.) [There might have been some minor tweak needed, I forget.]

I hadn't realised (if indeed Wikipedia is right anyway) that E-OSE was
created by Qualcomm in the first place; I'd assumed it had been done by
some third-party enthusiast. Certainly, last time I looked at it, it was
indeed based on a very old (I'd say obsolete) version of TB - old and
fraying (I forget in what respect; I'm not usually worried about such
matters [e. g. I use Firefox 26]).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, VO5 (I came, I saw, I washed my hair) - Mik from S+AS Limited
(***@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
VanguardLH
2017-04-29 19:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I was pleased when I heard about EOSE, because my blind
friend, who used Eudora, finds it even more difficult to change
softwares than many of us do, so I thought it would be (a) be good
[familiar] for him, (b) wean him onto TB by the back door.
We found that it was sufficiently different to Eudora, from _his_ point
of view, that it was unusable. (For example, there was/is one part he
couldn't get out of without using the mouse [which of course he doesn't
use] - I think it was the type actual email text window.) [There might
have been a way, but neither he nor I could find it, or if I did it was
excessively complicated and possibly inconsistent.]
We eventually found that Eudora (6 or 7, I forget) - the real one, not
OSE - works fine under W7 anyway. (We'd heard it didn't, hence the foray
into EOSE.) [There might have been some minor tweak needed, I forget.]
I hadn't realised (if indeed Wikipedia is right anyway) that E-OSE was
created by Qualcomm in the first place; I'd assumed it had been done by
some third-party enthusiast. Certainly, last time I looked at it, it was
indeed based on a very old (I'd say obsolete) version of TB - old and
fraying (I forget in what respect; I'm not usually worried about such
matters [e. g. I use Firefox 26]).
I remember reading how folks got Outlook Express transferred to later
versions of Windows. As I recall, that had to do with putzing around
with a .dll file that OE required.

There is a program that is supposed to work like and look like OE called
OE Classic (https://www.oeclassic.com/); however, I've read from user
reviews that it can be flaky (since user expertise varies a lot, such
reviews can be misleading, just like author claims about their products
can be misleading), plus it costs money ($25). They claim their UI is
"very similar" to OE. Well, to me, that means "no identical". They
have a download page so they probably offer a trialware license.
tesla sTinker
2017-04-30 23:12:43 UTC
Permalink
now we see whats wrong with you.... You listen to Wikipedia....?

ha ha ha ha ha ha.... what a joke.... no wonder....


odious idiot, and we did not ask for your comments peanut gallery.
Of course, just about all of what you have said is wrong.
As I said in my other response to your jumping in when I did not ask you,

hope no one listens to you.....
Post by VanguardLH
Post by tesla sTinker
using eudora ose its better than thunderbird. It lets you do what you
want. Including manipulate the headers...
Eudora OSE *is* Thunderbird. Eudora dumped their "classic" program and
forked from Thunderbird.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_OSE
That it uses forked code does not preclude it from adding their own
features or behaviors. There are lots of forks (variants) of Firefox
and Chromium web browsers.
Eudora OSE ceased keeping update to the Thunderbird codebase. They
abandoned the product. The last update to it was back in 2010 hence the
On June 28, 2013, the Mozilla website indicated that Eudora OSE is
based on an out-of-date version of Thunderbird and that, to Mozilla's
knowledge, Qualcomm has no plans to update or support it. Mozilla
recommends current users consider switching to Thunderbird.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Eudora_OSE&oldid=671454
VanguardLH
2017-04-24 20:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
It's a great shame that Outlook Express (XP) and Windows Mail (Vista) were
never available for separate installation on all future versions of Windows.
OE had the nasty bug that its message store(s) would go corrupt if they
exceeded 2GB in size (and many users never did a manual compact and keep
polluting their message store with messages that were garbage and
should've been deleted). OE would also get slower as its message store
files (.dbx) got larger. It was a crappy database engine.

I've read articles where users extracted the OE files from one host to
install on another. I think there was some DLL putzing involved.
Post by NY
Is the only mail client that MS now support the hideous Mail app that is
built into Windows 10.
From what I remember reading of posts from others on Windows 10, the
mail app there won't work with POP, just IMAP. Some users still want to
use POP. As I recall, there was some problem using the mail app until
contacts had been setup.
Post by NY
It is dire: very cut-down in its features, naff Metro interface, poor
integration with contacts list in that you cannot import and export
contacts by VCF or CSV file.
Microsoft is just following the long-time trend of pushing users to a
webmail client. Despite that Microsoft's (and no other) webmail client
comes close to the feature set of MS Outlook (Outlook, not OE), e-mail
providers have growing dropped supporting any local clients using their
service. When called, they'll help with using their webmail client.
They don't waste the time and money to train their help staff on the
multitude of ancient and current local e-mail clients.

Used to be everyone I knew or helped used local e-mail clients. Now it
seems we're in the minority and most everyone uses webmail clients.
They don't want to be bothered with installing and maintainin software
and a reduced feature set means a smaller learning curve. They don't
need the local client on every host they happen to use, like when
travelling or accessing personal e-mail from work. They just need a web
browser which is ubiquitous on every operating system.
Post by NY
Sadly Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.
I've tried Thunderbird several times. Each time I gave up because of
defects in the product. Didn't help to report the problems because
several already had bugzilla tickets but they were opened over a decade
ago. Mozilla (and now the volunteer dev group) are more interested in
feature bloat than repairing long-time defects in that product. My last
trial of Thunderbird lasted just over 6 months but I gave up and spent
the money to get Office 365 so I could get Outlook.
Post by NY
Outlook (the component application of the Office suite, not Outlook.com) has
- you can't import/export mail account settings to an iaf file
- it stores all the messages in one humungous mess of a pst file,
Only for POP accounts. I gave up on POP long ago. IMAP is so much
better to keep my local client in sync with my account up on the server
and access from multiple endpoints for the same account. With POP,
multiple clients (different endpoints) meant deleting an e-mail that
I've read an no longer want will still appear in any other POP client
connecting to the same account. Rather than rely on backing up a local
PST file for recovery, IMAP uses the repository up on the server which
is always backed up.

While IMAP uses an .ost file, that never got very large. I have 2 IMAP
accounts that I've used for so many years that I cannot remember when I
switch them from POP to IMAP. My .ost file for them after many years is
only 16MB in size. I use auto-archiving in Outlook to purge messages
over 5 years old so that 16 MB is 5 years worth of messages. Size would
depend on your volume of e-mail traffic and how lazy you are in not
deleting garbage messages or old messages no longer relevant.
Post by NY
means that the whole thing has to be copied again to backup medium even
though one message has been added/changed, whereas with Windows Live Mail
it's only that eml file (plus a few control files) which need to be backed
up.
WLM uses the file system as its database. A poor database scheme. It
uses one index file to point at all the individual messages each in its
own file. Databases are a lot faster than having to do multiple file
I/O API calls while serially searching through an index file to find the
other files. If you are backup up a PST (or OST) file then why wouldn't
you be backing up the index file along with the multitude of individual
files for all your messages?
Post by NY
On Windows 7 I use the older version of WLM - the one without the dreaded
ribbon interface and the insistence on trying to send attachments via cloud
storage, rather than attaching them properly as uuencoded or MIME
attachments - so many times I receive emails from my parents who have the
more modern WLM and need to log in (having created an account) to be able to
see the attachments.
Way too many users think e-mail is a substitute for FTP. E-mail was
never intended to be a file delivery scheme. In the past, a polite user
would upload a huge file to some online file storage provider and then
provide a link to the file. Instead of sending a huge e-mail to the
recipient, they get just a link and then THEY can decide whether or not
to download the huge file. Sending huge e-mails eat up more bandwidth
and disk storage than uploading (and later optionally downloading) a
file to a server. All e-mails get sent as plain text. ALL of them.
HTML is text with tag strings. Attachments get encoded into a long text
string. That encoded bloats the original size of the file to 133%, or
often quite more. Many users still have a quota maximum (how much
storage they get). Getting a huge e-mail can consume so much of that
quota that their account is locked up: no further e-mails can be
accepted until the recipient gets rid of that rude e-mail. There are
almost always a restriction on the maximum message size, too. A link
saves bandwidth, doesn't waste disk space, doesn't lock up accounts,
doesn't stall delivery waiting for a huge download, and lets the
recipient choose whether or not to get the file instead of the sender
ramming it down their throat in an e-mail.

Since polite users provide a link to a large file uploaded to a server,
WLM (and Outlook) provide an easy scheme to do that for the sender. The
recipient get an extremely smaller e-mail with just the link.

As to logging in, excuse me but just how are the recipients going to get
your huge e-mail with large file attachment(s) without having to login?
They have a magic Internet service that does not require Internet
access? I'd like to know how that works. When they login to check for
new e-mails, they will get a link in a small e-mail and can immediately
logout to save on bandwidth quota (for those still on dial-up or quota
accounts). By sending them a huge e-mail with a large file attached,
they have to stay online until that entire e-mail gets downloaded.
There is no resume function in e-mail to do partial retrieves. With a
link, THEY can decide if they want to spend the time to retrieve that
large file. With a large attachment, they can't get your e-mail until
all of gets downloaded whether they want that large file or not. Also,
since encoding into a plain text string bloats the size, they would have
to wait longer for the huge e-mail to download than of waiting for a
file to download from a server. Also, e-mail servers are throttled per
connection to provide responsiveness to the huge number of concurrent
connections. Effective downstream bandwidth from file server is much
faster.

As far as WLM and other e-mail clients, I've yet seen one that forced me
to upload a file to put a link in the message. If I use their Insert
feature to add a file, it gets created as a MIME part containing the
bloated text string. It's been a long time since I used WLM. As I
recall, the sender had the *option* of sending a huge e-mail with a file
attached (bloated due to conversion to a text string) or sending a small
e-mail with a link and uploading the file to a server so the recipient
could choose whether or not to retrieve the smaller file (no bloating
due to conversion to a text string). Isn't there an option in WLM
dictating which method to use by default? I don't recall ever being
forced to send a link instead of attaching the file.
NY
2017-04-26 12:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Microsoft is just following the long-time trend of pushing users to a
webmail client. Despite that Microsoft's (and no other) webmail client
comes close to the feature set of MS Outlook (Outlook, not OE), e-mail
providers have growing dropped supporting any local clients using their
service. When called, they'll help with using their webmail client.
They don't waste the time and money to train their help staff on the
multitude of ancient and current local e-mail clients.
It's a shame that the world is going over to webmail because it requires a
web connection to be able to read your historic messages, as does IMAP in a
mail client, whereas offline storage such as POP can be read when you are
out and about (on a laptop or on a phone) and don't have a wifi or mobile
data signal. Obviously you won't be able to send email or receive any *new*
mail in this situation, but it's useful still to be able to refer to a
message that you received a while ago.

Also there is too much risk that you can accidentally delete messages during
a tidy-up and then not be able to restore them from any backup that you may
have taken. And with IMAP if you delete a message on one cllient, it very
often deletes it from the server and therefore from the view seen on another
client (eg you use your desktop as the definitive copy of any messages that
you want to keep long-term, but if all the folders exist on the IMAP server
then if you delete a message when you are using a mobile phone, it's "gone"
from the desktop PC as well because it's gone from the server.

If webmail or IMAP are all you have, you probably get used to a different
way of working, and know not to delete any messages from any device (phone,
tablet, PC) unless you want to delete them permanently.
Post by VanguardLH
Used to be everyone I knew or helped used local e-mail clients. Now it
seems we're in the minority and most everyone uses webmail clients.
They don't want to be bothered with installing and maintainin software
and a reduced feature set means a smaller learning curve. They don't
need the local client on every host they happen to use, like when
travelling or accessing personal e-mail from work. They just need a web
browser which is ubiquitous on every operating system.
Post by NY
Sadly Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.
I've tried Thunderbird several times. Each time I gave up because of
defects in the product. Didn't help to report the problems because
several already had bugzilla tickets but they were opened over a decade
ago. Mozilla (and now the volunteer dev group) are more interested in
feature bloat than repairing long-time defects in that product. My last
trial of Thunderbird lasted just over 6 months but I gave up and spent
the money to get Office 365 so I could get Outlook.
Post by NY
Outlook (the component application of the Office suite, not Outlook.com) has
- you can't import/export mail account settings to an iaf file
- it stores all the messages in one humungous mess of a pst file,
Only for POP accounts. I gave up on POP long ago. IMAP is so much
better to keep my local client in sync with my account up on the server
and access from multiple endpoints for the same account. With POP,
multiple clients (different endpoints) meant deleting an e-mail that
I've read an no longer want will still appear in any other POP client
connecting to the same account. Rather than rely on backing up a local
PST file for recovery, IMAP uses the repository up on the server which
is always backed up.
While IMAP uses an .ost file, that never got very large. I have 2 IMAP
accounts that I've used for so many years that I cannot remember when I
switch them from POP to IMAP. My .ost file for them after many years is
only 16MB in size. I use auto-archiving in Outlook to purge messages
over 5 years old so that 16 MB is 5 years worth of messages. Size would
depend on your volume of e-mail traffic and how lazy you are in not
deleting garbage messages or old messages no longer relevant.
Post by NY
means that the whole thing has to be copied again to backup medium even
though one message has been added/changed, whereas with Windows Live Mail
it's only that eml file (plus a few control files) which need to be backed
up.
WLM uses the file system as its database. A poor database scheme. It
uses one index file to point at all the individual messages each in its
own file. Databases are a lot faster than having to do multiple file
I/O API calls while serially searching through an index file to find the
other files. If you are backup up a PST (or OST) file then why wouldn't
you be backing up the index file along with the multitude of individual
files for all your messages?
Post by NY
On Windows 7 I use the older version of WLM - the one without the dreaded
ribbon interface and the insistence on trying to send attachments via cloud
storage, rather than attaching them properly as uuencoded or MIME
attachments - so many times I receive emails from my parents who have the
more modern WLM and need to log in (having created an account) to be able to
see the attachments.
Way too many users think e-mail is a substitute for FTP. E-mail was
never intended to be a file delivery scheme. In the past, a polite user
would upload a huge file to some online file storage provider and then
provide a link to the file. Instead of sending a huge e-mail to the
recipient, they get just a link and then THEY can decide whether or not
to download the huge file. Sending huge e-mails eat up more bandwidth
and disk storage than uploading (and later optionally downloading) a
file to a server. All e-mails get sent as plain text. ALL of them.
HTML is text with tag strings. Attachments get encoded into a long text
string. That encoded bloats the original size of the file to 133%, or
often quite more. Many users still have a quota maximum (how much
storage they get). Getting a huge e-mail can consume so much of that
quota that their account is locked up: no further e-mails can be
accepted until the recipient gets rid of that rude e-mail. There are
almost always a restriction on the maximum message size, too. A link
saves bandwidth, doesn't waste disk space, doesn't lock up accounts,
doesn't stall delivery waiting for a huge download, and lets the
recipient choose whether or not to get the file instead of the sender
ramming it down their throat in an e-mail.
Since polite users provide a link to a large file uploaded to a server,
WLM (and Outlook) provide an easy scheme to do that for the sender. The
recipient get an extremely smaller e-mail with just the link.
I agree that is is a lot better (and uses far less bandwidth) to upload
large files to a central repository and then send a link to it. When posting
to discussion forums or usenet, I always upload a small version of a photo
etc to postimage.org and send the URL.

It is very easy with email to do everything in one step: attach the file(s)
to the email and send the whole lot in one go. It's easy for novices to do,
without needing extra tuition and extra stages. If Microsoft's cloud-storage
system worked, that would be easy, but you have to faff around with creating
an account on an MS server and all your recipients need to have such an
account to be able to see the attachments. I find that an MS account is used
for so many different things that when you log on as a different user for
one thing, it affects other apparently unrelated things.

The equivalent (and I know this isn't Microsoft) is the way that if you have
multiple Gmail accounts and want to check each one in turn, you find that
your Youtube subscriptions change as well every time you look at a different
email account. When I originally signed up to Youtube I used a disposable
email address as the user ID. Now I need to use gmail as a backup email
account for if my main one's server goes down or as an account which may get
lots of spam, so I'v e created a more memorable address for that, but I find
I'm spending all my time switching webmail between different gmail accounts
and this affects which Youtube account I'm signed into as well.

The perils of things that used to be totally separate being merged so
changes to one affect another.

Yes, ideally I would upload email "attachments" to my own web space so I
have write access only for myself and anyone has read access via a URL. But
it's tedious, especially when you have to reduce the size (pixel dimensions
and file size) of photos manually in Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, whereas
OE, Windows Mail and WLM will do this for you with attachments (OK, the
photo-shrinking algorithm that it uses is pretty dire, but sometimes speed
and convenience is more important than a few JPEG artifacts!)
Post by VanguardLH
As to logging in, excuse me but just how are the recipients going to get
your huge e-mail with large file attachment(s) without having to login?
What I mean is that you login to your own webmail or you set your POP client
to login automatically to download your new emails, but then when you
receive an email from WLM that has uploaded its files to MS's cloud storage,
you are prompted to log in to your MS account (which you may not even have
ever created) in order to see those files. The principle is admirable; the
way MS implement it is not. It would be better if email clients continued to
give you the same facilities (display photo, save photo to your own offline
storage) for a received message, sa if it were a bloated MIME attachment.

MIME attachements are inefficient but they are universal, whereas cloud
storage tends to be rather proprietary and needs you to know the foibles of
the cloud storage that has been used. That's a minor hassle for experienced
people, but it's a nightmare for people who just use their computer as a
tool

Newer versions of WLM (those with the ribbon UI) tend to default to
uploading files to cloud storage, with all the problems this causes for the
recipient, and you have to jump through a few hoops to make it attach files
as MIME. And reading MS-cloud-attachment messages on a non-Windows client
(webmail or some Android mail client) can be a pain, whereas everything can
handle MIME attachments or simple postimage.org URLs. MS, as so often, try
to complicate what could be a simple solution to the problem of not wanting
to attach the same to multiple copies of an email going to multiple
recipients.

I'd rather use cloud storage if it was implemented better so any client can
upload at the sending end and download and display automatically as part of
the message at the receiving end.
Mark Lloyd
2017-04-26 13:03:23 UTC
Permalink
On 04/26/2017 07:21 AM, NY wrote:

[snip]
Post by NY
It's a shame that the world is going over to webmail because it requires
a web connection to be able to read your historic messages, as does IMAP
in a mail client, whereas offline storage such as POP can be read when
you are out and about (on a laptop or on a phone) and don't have a wifi
or mobile data signal. Obviously you won't be able to send email or
receive any *new* mail in this situation, but it's useful still to be
able to refer to a message that you received a while ago.
I use IMAP in Thunderbird, and have no problem copying messages to local
folders. That could be a problem with webmail (though with the server I
use, POP IMAP and webmail all use the same mailbox).

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a
dose of common sense." -- Chapman Cohen
VanguardLH
2017-04-26 23:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by VanguardLH
Microsoft is just following the long-time trend of pushing users to a
webmail client. Despite that Microsoft's (and no other) webmail client
comes close to the feature set of MS Outlook (Outlook, not OE), e-mail
providers have growing dropped supporting any local clients using their
service. When called, they'll help with using their webmail client.
They don't waste the time and money to train their help staff on the
multitude of ancient and current local e-mail clients.
It's a shame that the world is going over to webmail because it requires a
web connection to be able to read your historic messages, as does IMAP in a
mail client,
You need to educate yourself about IMAP. There *is* a local copy. I
can see all my retrieved/sync'ed messages in my local client whether I
have an Internet connection or not. No one using an IMAP client
suddenly loses access to their message because they lost the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Message_Access_Protocol

IMAP is not a web view of your account. It is not a webmail client. It
is a local e-mail client that has its own local message store that
syncrhonizes with the server (which then synchronizes with any other
IMAP clients that connect to the same account).

IMAP was designed to grant access to a mailbox by /multiple/ clients and
to keep the mailbox synchronized between those clients. If you use only
one e-mail client all the time (i.e., you never use another host, like
you do e-mail at work, home, on vacation, the library, or at a friends
house) then POP is sufficient. POP was designed for one-client access.
You don't need synchronizing amongst multiple e-mail clients because
you're only using one. I use IMAP so I have the same view of my e-mail
from my home desktop PC, my smartphone, at work on their workstations,
at my friend's place using his computer, or while on vacation or
travelling. I don't lose availability of a message just because I'm
somewhere else.
Post by NY
Obviously you won't be able to send email or receive any *new*
mail in this situation, but it's useful still to be able to refer to a
message that you received a while ago.
An IMAP client can poll just like it would for POP. The only feature
you lose when offline is IMAP's IDLE/PUSH which has the server alert
your client when a new message arrives. Instead of waiting until the
next mail poll by your local e-mail client, the IMAP server can push a
notification to your IMAP client that a new message just arrived. As
with POP, you can be offline with IMAP, read your local copies, and you
connect when you want to check for new messages or to send them.

For one, and ONLY one, e-mail client, there is no advantage of IMAP over
POP. POP: 1 client access. IMAP: multiple client access. IMAP was not
designed for access to an account by just one client. It's probably
been 2 over decades since I did e-mail at only one endpoint.

Also, IMAP is its own backup. With POP using a .pst or other local
database then someone stealing your computer, a fire destroying it, a
hard disk crash, or other hardware failure or loss or even malware means
you lose your local message store. Yes, if you have backups (something
overly rare with the typical user community) then you can restore the
message store. With IMAP, the messages are still on the server. So I
can just connect a new IMAP client and, voila, I have all my messages
again. If a build a new computer, install the OS and apps, all I have
to do to get back to my prior state with IMAP e-mail is connect the
client to the IMAP server. Poof, all my e-mails are there. No having
to bother with restores from backups. I've even deleted accounts and
recreated them and, voila, my messages are already there. I do my own
backups but it is still nice to have the service doing their own
backups, too. IMAP is itself a backup. Everything is still there up on
the server to get back to working.
Post by NY
Also there is too much risk that you can accidentally delete messages during
a tidy-up and then not be able to restore them from any backup that you may
have taken.
So include the .ost file in your backup or whatever is the local IMAP
message store for your e-mail client. IMAP saves *local copies* of your
messages but keeps them in sync to the server (which then keeps other
clients in sync that connect to the same account). You do not need
Internet access to read the local copies. You can backup the local
message store. What did you think all that download time was for when
an IMAP client connected to the server and downloaded new messages?
Post by NY
And with IMAP if you delete a message on one cllient, it very
often deletes it from the server and therefore from the view seen on another
client (eg you use your desktop as the definitive copy of any messages that
you want to keep long-term, but if all the folders exist on the IMAP server
then if you delete a message when you are using a mobile phone, it's "gone"
from the desktop PC as well because it's gone from the server.
So the result is the separate POP clients getting out of sync. For
those that want to keep their POP clients in sync, the closest they can
do is to configure each POP client to delete the message on the server
when it gets deleted in the client.

When you delete a message (POP or IMAP), the client moves (not deletes)
the message into its Trash or Deleted Items folder. You have not
actually deleted the message. It's still in your message store. Only
when you delete a message in the Trash folder is it permanently deleted
(locally and then on the server after a sync for IMAP). Well, how many
safety nets do you need to prevent you from deleting a file that you
really didn't want to delete?

POP clients also have an option to "delete from server" when you delete
a message in the local message store. Many users enable that option if
not the default. They want to keep the webmail and multiple POP clients
view the same. So POP can do the same thing: you can delete a message
in one client with the result that after the next poll it gets deleted
up on the server, too, and thereby disappear from view in the webmail
client. Other POP clients may still have the old message but then you
have multiple clients with differing messages. To which one do you
wander to retrieve that message you accidentally deleted (TWICE since
the first got *moved* into the Trash folder) in another POP client?

You should be using a different folder than Inbox for archiving old
messages. If you don't delete them using IMAP then obviously they're
still around, and that same archive will be available in each IMAP
client connected to the same e-mail account. You don't end up at a
resort when travelling with your laptop to realize that an archived
message about your reservation and confirmation is way back at home when
the counter rep says they don't have you registered.

If you keep old messages in one POP client but delete them in other POP
clients, the clients get out of sync and you then have to figure out
which one still has the old messages. Nope, not here, try that one,
nope, not there, either, how about here? Since you do backups, I would
think THAT would be your means of recovering an old message that you
deleted (which was not an accidental delete with having to do it TWICE).
Why would you wait until you got to work or to wherever are your other
POP clients to restore that deliberately deleted message?
Post by NY
If webmail or IMAP are all you have, you probably get used to a different
way of working, and know not to delete any messages from any device (phone,
tablet, PC) unless you want to delete them permanently.
Same for POP. Archived messages don't hang around in my Inbox. They
get moved into other folders. It takes twice deleting a message to
permanently delete a message in any local e-mail client whether using
POP or IMAP. I wouldn't bother going to other POP clients to get their
old copy of a message deleted on one host. I'd restore from backups. I
can restore the local message store whether it is POP or IMAP.

POP only understands the concept of a mailbox. There is no folder
support in POP. Typically the mailbox is called Inbox up on the server
and what you see using a webmail client. Say you are using your local
POP client and move a message from your local Inbox folder to your local
Archive folder. Now you're somewhere else and use the webmail client to
your account. Can you see the old message you moved into your Archive
folder in the POP client back at home? Nope. Can you use a POP client
on your laptop while on vacation to look into the Archive folder on your
home desktop? Nope. That message on your local POP client is not
available anywhere else. There is no synchronization. There is no
support for folders.

If POP does everything you need then don't bother with IMAP. Others
want the synchronization, backup, and folder support that IMAP offers.
Some users don't want to use any e-mail protocol: not POP, IMAP, SMTP,
Deltasync, WebDAV, EAS, Exchange, or any of it. They don't want to even
bother with using an e-mail client. For them, webmail clients are what
they want to use.
Post by NY
Yes, ideally I would upload email "attachments" to my own web space so I
have write access only for myself and anyone has read access via a URL. But
it's tedious, especially when you have to reduce the size (pixel dimensions
and file size) of photos manually in Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, whereas
OE, Windows Mail and WLM will do this for you with attachments (OK, the
photo-shrinking algorithm that it uses is pretty dire, but sometimes speed
and convenience is more important than a few JPEG artifacts!)
If you have to reduce the size of files before uploading them, think how
impolite it is to send the originally sized file via e-mail which bloats
the file size by 133%, usually a lot more. What if they don't want the
file? You removed their choice by attaching it to an e-mail. Rare few
are users that configure their e-mail client to thwart retrieval of
e-mails that over some threshold in size.
Post by NY
Post by VanguardLH
As to logging in, excuse me but just how are the recipients going to get
your huge e-mail with large file attachment(s) without having to login?
What I mean is that you login to your own webmail or you set your POP client
to login automatically to download your new emails, but then when you
receive an email from WLM that has uploaded its files to MS's cloud storage,
you are prompted to log in to your MS account (which you may not even have
ever created) in order to see those files.
No recipient of mine that received an e-mail from me with a link to a
file uploaded to OneDrive has ever had to create or login into a
OneDrive account. Do you know how to *share* a file in OneDrive?

The recipient gets a link. They click on it in their e-mail *if* they
CHOOSE to get the file. Their web browser loads, a OneDrive page
appears, and then a Save As dialog appear to let them decide where to
save the file. They never have to login. They do NOT need to create a
OneDrive account. Yes, they do need a web browser and Internet access
to get the file from OneDrive, but who doesn't have a web browser
available (they're ubiquitous in every OS) and to get e-mails means they
already have Internet access.
Post by NY
MIME attachements are inefficient but they are universal, whereas cloud
storage tends to be rather proprietary and needs you to know the foibles of
the cloud storage that has been used. That's a minor hassle for experienced
people, but it's a nightmare for people who just use their computer as a
tool
And then those recipients wonder why they can no longer get new
messages, even when someone calls or texts them to say a message got
sent, because someone sent such a huge e-mail that it consumed the
recipient's disk quota. No further e-mails can be accepted until the
recipient happens to review their e-mail account (by using a web
browser) to delete the impolite huge e-mail.
Post by NY
Newer versions of WLM (those with the ribbon UI) tend to default to
uploading files to cloud storage, with all the problems this causes for the
recipient,
I have not use WLM in quite a while. It has its own newsgroup to
discuss its behavior and usage.

I upload a file to my OneDrive, chare it to create a link, and paste
that in my e-mail. The recipient gets a tiny e-mail, they can CHOOSE to
click on the link to get the file, and they never have to login to
OneDrive. That's because I made the file shared.
Post by NY
I'd rather use cloud storage if it was implemented better so any client can
upload at the sending end and download and display automatically as part of
the message at the receiving end.
Probably the files you attach as MIME parts really aren't that big. Try
sending a 4GB ISO file as an attachment. If you managed to send it,
your recipient won't be happy having to wait for that slow download
(file downloads are much faster than e-mail bandwidth per connection to
the server). What is a "large file" to you might differ than what I
perceive as a large file. Although not fixed in stone, my usual cutoff
between attaching a file (or several of them) or linking to it is 20 MB
(total size for all attachments), also the default threshold for Outlook
(https://www.lifewire.com/increase-outlook-attachment-size-limit-1173679).
If I try to attach a bigger file, Outlook prompts that I should instead
insert a link to the file in my e-mail. I don't have any recipients
still using dial-up. If I did, my decision threshold would be a lot
smaller.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-04-27 22:51:19 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, VanguardLH <***@nguard.LH>
writes:
[]
Post by VanguardLH
You need to educate yourself about IMAP. There *is* a local copy. I
[]
Post by VanguardLH
When you delete a message (POP or IMAP), the client moves (not deletes)
the message into its Trash or Deleted Items folder. You have not
actually deleted the message. It's still in your message store. Only
when you delete a message in the Trash folder is it permanently deleted
[]
Post by VanguardLH
have multiple clients with differing messages. To which one do you
wander to retrieve that message you accidentally deleted (TWICE since
the first got *moved* into the Trash folder) in another POP client?
[]
Post by VanguardLH
deleted (which was not an accidental delete with having to do it TWICE).
1. Not all POP clients do the two-stage delete you describe; some do by
default but not always (e. g. shift-delete in Outlook). Whether they do
or not, it's not a property of the protocol, IMO.

2. I'm moderately well aware of the differences between POP and IMAP,
but (in the _large_ sections I've snipped), I get the feeling you're on
a _crusade_ against POP, for reasons you're (perhaps unconsciously) not
revealing.

[]
Post by VanguardLH
The recipient gets a link. They click on it in their e-mail *if* they
CHOOSE to get the file. Their web browser loads, a OneDrive page
appears, and then a Save As dialog appear to let them decide where to
For that dialog to "appear", doesn't the recipient's browser have to run
a script (or _some_thing)? On all recent file storage sites I've seen,
there's always _something_ more than just a download link (as I'd get if
it was an old-fashioned FTP directory listing, or the file was on a
website owned by the sender). Fair enough - the free file storage sites
have to cover their costs somehow.
Post by VanguardLH
save the file. They never have to login. They do NOT need to create a
OneDrive account. Yes, they do need a web browser and Internet access
to get the file from OneDrive, but who doesn't have a web browser
available (they're ubiquitous in every OS) and to get e-mails means they
already have Internet access.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
I upload a file to my OneDrive, chare it to create a link, and paste
(That - chare - is not a word I know. Is it a typo [if so what for], or
just a word I don't know?)
Post by VanguardLH
that in my e-mail. The recipient gets a tiny e-mail, they can CHOOSE to
click on the link to get the file, and they never have to login to
OneDrive. That's because I made the file shared.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And Jonathan Harker would never have sent all those letters to his beloved
Mina from Transylvania, he'd have texted her instead. "Stuck in weird castle w
guy w big teeth. Missing u. xxxx (-:" - Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13
VanguardLH
2017-04-28 04:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. Not all POP clients do the two-stage delete you describe; some do
by default but not always (e. g. shift-delete in Outlook). Whether
they do or not, it's not a property of the protocol, IMO.
The Shift+Del is an override to the 2-step process. Don't know in how
many e-mail client such an override exists. Outlook also lets you
override the warning that appears noting that the item will be
permanently deleted (instead of moved in the trash folder). You can
even use database editors to go into Outlook's message store to delete
items and use telnet to send commands to the POP or IMAP server but
obviously that is an extreme override method.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
2. I'm moderately well aware of the differences between POP and IMAP,
but (in the _large_ sections I've snipped), I get the feeling you're
on a _crusade_ against POP, for reasons you're (perhaps
unconsciously) not revealing.
I did note that if you are using only one local e-mail client then IMAP
affords no advantage over POP. IMAP was designed for access to the same
account my *multiple* clients. The number of users employing a single
e-mail client has been waning. That's how my 90+ old step-mom does
e-mail. She doesn't have a smartphone, is retired so not using a
computer at work, and doesn't travel anymore (and if she did whe would
use a webmail client since she won't be toting a smartphone, laptop,
netbook, or tablet on her trip). She is hardly the norm for e-mail
users.

I did say if POP does all you want then use that. If you only have one
and only one e-mail client then synchronizing is irrelevant. One
argument against IMAP was the want to be messy by having multiple e-mail
clients out of sync with each other. Another argument was the incorrect
assumption that an IMAP client has no local copies of messages while POP
does. IMAP works offline, too. Since the IMAP message store is local,
it can be backed up, too.

For my elderly step-mom (and my grandma when she was still around), all
they needed was ONE e-mail client to do e-mail. POP was fine for them.
For my aunt, she has MS Office certifications yet still chooses to use
webmail clients at home, at work, and when on vacation. I use IMAP (for
non-Microsoft accounts) because I use *multiple* e-mail clients
connecting to the same accounts.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
For that dialog to "appear", doesn't the recipient's browser have to run
a script (or _some_thing)? On all recent file storage sites I've seen,
there's always _something_ more than just a download link (as I'd get if
it was an old-fashioned FTP directory listing, or the file was on a
website owned by the sender). Fair enough - the free file storage sites
have to cover their costs somehow.
It's been probably about two decades since I've seen extremely
simplistic web sites that use only HTML text and <a> tags for links.
You know a lot of web surfers still using Lynx?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(That - chare - is not a word I know. Is it a typo [if so what for], or
just a word I don't know?)
On my QWERTY keyboard, "c" diagonally downward and to the right of the
"s" key that I meant to tap. Yes, a typo. "c" is not right next to "s"
so I don't know how "c" showed up. Maybe I didn't have my left hand's
index finger on the "f" home key for touch typing. Or could be those
ultraviolet gremlins that only cats can see.
Char Jackson
2017-04-28 14:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
2. I'm moderately well aware of the differences between POP and IMAP,
but (in the _large_ sections I've snipped), I get the feeling you're
on a _crusade_ against POP, for reasons you're (perhaps
unconsciously) not revealing.
I did note that if you are using only one local e-mail client then IMAP
affords no advantage over POP. IMAP was designed for access to the same
account my *multiple* clients.
I take issue with your claim of 'no advantage'. In your previous post,
you correctly pointed out that IMAP provides both a local email store
and an online email store, so even if a person is using a single email
client, they have some additional protections that come with that model.
One of the biggest is the ability to set up the email account on a
freshly reinstalled system and have all of the email automatically sync
from the server to the client, with everything going to its proper
folder.

That, alone, makes POP3 seem obsolete to me, and that's just one of the
multiple advantages IMAP has over POP.
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2017-04-28 18:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
2. I'm moderately well aware of the differences between POP and IMAP,
but (in the _large_ sections I've snipped), I get the feeling you're
on a _crusade_ against POP, for reasons you're (perhaps
unconsciously) not revealing.
I did note that if you are using only one local e-mail client then IMAP
affords no advantage over POP. IMAP was designed for access to the same
account my *multiple* clients.
I take issue with your claim of 'no advantage'. In your previous post,
you correctly pointed out that IMAP provides both a local email store
and an online email store, so even if a person is using a single email
client, they have some additional protections that come with that model.
One of the biggest is the ability to set up the email account on a
freshly reinstalled system and have all of the email automatically sync
from the server to the client, with everything going to its proper
folder.
That, alone, makes POP3 seem obsolete to me, and that's just one of the
multiple advantages IMAP has over POP.
Didn't seem the "IMAP is its own backup" was recognized as important.
You don't have to carry around a message store to put onto another host
to start using e-mail where you left off. With IMAP, you just connect
the IMAP client to your IMAP account and you're back to where you were.
Considering how few users employ any backup scheme for data recovery,
that IMAP is a backup doesn't sway them much. Oh yeah, that think I'm
supposed to do, sure, get to it someday. When someone asks for help on
how to recover a lost file and you mention to use their backup, they
give you a stare like deer caught in headlights or there's a pregnant
pause. When you see that, you know they don't do backups.

Another point that didn't get recognized is that IMAP supports IDLE (and
PUSH). You get an alert from your e-mail client as the server gets a
new message. You don't have to wait until the next polling interval.
Polling at less than 5 minute intervals is considered rude to the e-mail
providers. It consumes their resources for what ends up being empty
polls. Some even have minimal polling intervals and you could get
locked out for awhile for abusing them. Some users think e-mail is like
a chat room. E-mail is not designed for that level of immediacy.
However, having to wait 5 minutes after sending someone an e-mail means
a conversation takes a lot longer. With IMAP IDLE, you don't wait and
you don't have to poll for new messages.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-04-29 10:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
1. Not all POP clients do the two-stage delete you describe; some do
by default but not always (e. g. shift-delete in Outlook). Whether
they do or not, it's not a property of the protocol, IMO.
The Shift+Del is an override to the 2-step process. Don't know in how
Having grown up in the DOS era (or before), I do find that a very
sideways view of the matter! I must admit that in Explorer, I very
rarely use delete rather than shift-delete, the recycle bin being
something I very rarely enter.
Post by VanguardLH
many e-mail client such an override exists. Outlook also lets you
Probably because Windows people have come to expect an oops function.
Post by VanguardLH
override the warning that appears noting that the item will be
permanently deleted (instead of moved in the trash folder). You can
even use database editors to go into Outlook's message store to delete
items and use telnet to send commands to the POP or IMAP server but
obviously that is an extreme override method.
Indeed (-:!
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
2. I'm moderately well aware of the differences between POP and IMAP,
but (in the _large_ sections I've snipped), I get the feeling you're
on a _crusade_ against POP, for reasons you're (perhaps
unconsciously) not revealing.
I did note that if you are using only one local e-mail client then IMAP
affords no advantage over POP. IMAP was designed for access to the same
As another has said, even for such a user, it does provide some sort of
backup, and also a way to get going again more quickly when necessary.
Post by VanguardLH
account my *multiple* clients. The number of users employing a single
[]
Post by VanguardLH
and only one e-mail client then synchronizing is irrelevant. One
argument against IMAP was the want to be messy by having multiple e-mail
clients out of sync with each other. Another argument was the incorrect
assumption that an IMAP client has no local copies of messages while POP
does. IMAP works offline, too. Since the IMAP message store is local,
it can be backed up, too.
I think my main dislike of IMAP - and I realise this is a problem with
_me_, not IMAP - is the feeling of loss of control: I like to know where
my emails are. There's also the concern that "syncing" - which of course
is the main _ad_vantage of IMAP - will do something unexpected. Sort of
combined with the mistrust of cloud services and the like in general; at
worst, something could happen to an IMAP server that, next time I
connected to it, would delete all my local copies. Yes, I'm sure you'll
assure me that there are ways of making sure that doesn't happen, but
the fear would always remain. Again, a problem with me perhaps.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
For that dialog to "appear", doesn't the recipient's browser have to run
a script (or _some_thing)? On all recent file storage sites I've seen,
there's always _something_ more than just a download link (as I'd get if
it was an old-fashioned FTP directory listing, or the file was on a
website owned by the sender). Fair enough - the free file storage sites
have to cover their costs somehow.
It's been probably about two decades since I've seen extremely
simplistic web sites that use only HTML text and <a> tags for links.
You know a lot of web surfers still using Lynx?
No, although I do know several blind users, most of whom I suspect would
be a lot happier if they _could_! [I think most websites today, for
practical purposes, _couldn't_ be used with Lymx. But downloading, in
particular, is difficult via a speech or Braille interface; even with
sight, next time you want to download something, try doing so without
touching your mouse, and you'll see what I mean!]
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(That - chare - is not a word I know. Is it a typo [if so what for], or
just a word I don't know?)
On my QWERTY keyboard, "c" diagonally downward and to the right of the
"s" key that I meant to tap. Yes, a typo. "c" is not right next to "s"
so I don't know how "c" showed up. Maybe I didn't have my left hand's
index finger on the "f" home key for touch typing. Or could be those
ultraviolet gremlins that only cats can see.
Ah, got it. I genuinely hadn't thought of "share"; I was wondering if
you meant "chase", but couldn't make that make sense in the context.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, VO5 (I came, I saw, I washed my hair) - Mik from S+AS Limited
(***@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
Char Jackson
2017-04-30 18:20:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:15:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think my main dislike of IMAP - and I realise this is a problem with
_me_, not IMAP - is the feeling of loss of control: I like to know where
my emails are.
You do know where they are. Each client has a local copy and the server
has a copy.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There's also the concern that "syncing" - which of course
is the main _ad_vantage of IMAP - will do something unexpected.
It should be quite easy to get over that. Just create a new email
account/address and set it up to use IMAP. Forward some of your existing
emails to that account and play with it until you get comfortable. How
long that takes is up to you, but I wouldn't expect it to be long at
all. You'll probably soon wonder why you didn't switch away from POP3 10
years ago.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sort of
combined with the mistrust of cloud services and the like in general; at
worst, something could happen to an IMAP server that, next time I
connected to it, would delete all my local copies.
It's *much* more likely that something will happen to your local copy of
your emails that were retrieved via POP3 (and deleted from the server).
If safety and security are considerations, and I think they should be,
then get off POP3 ASAP and onto IMAP.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, I'm sure you'll
assure me that there are ways of making sure that doesn't happen, but
the fear would always remain. Again, a problem with me perhaps.
I agree with your assessment. Your dislike for the protocol appears to
be a problem with you. ;-)
--
Char Jackson
Ken Blake
2017-04-25 00:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by VanguardLH
Windows Live Mail was NEVER bundled in any distro of Windows. So you
always had to go elsewhere to get a copy to install. Windows Mail is
not the same as Windows Live Mail.
It's a great shame that Outlook Express (XP) and Windows Mail (Vista) were
never available for separate installation on all future versions of Windows.
We all have different likes and dislikes of course, but to me, Outlook
Express was OK, but not great. And Windows Mail (Vista) was poor.

Windows Live Mail is terrible, as far as I'm concerned.
Post by NY
Is the only mail client that MS now support the hideous Mail app that is
built into Windows 10.
Hideous? That wouldn't be my choice of words, but I agree with you;
it's terrible. But it's *not* the only mail client that MS now
supports; they continue to support Outlook.



But my view is very different from yours. I don't care what Microsoft
supports. There are lots of other choices from third-parties, and some
of them are very good. I think everyone should choose what he likes
best, without any regard for what is a Microsoft product and what is
not.
Ken Springer
2017-04-26 15:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Sadly Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.
I see no one else has addressed this, but...

Opening the address book and trying to select multiple recipients is not
the way TB does it.

After your compose window is open, go to the View Menu and open the
Contacts Sidebar or press F9. CTRL-Click the addresses you want, press
the appropriate button at the bottom of the list.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
NY
2017-04-26 15:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by NY
Sadly Thunderbird has some quirks in terms of not being able to open the
address book and then tick all the entries to whom you want to copy an
email.
I see no one else has addressed this, but...
Opening the address book and trying to select multiple recipients is not
the way TB does it.
After your compose window is open, go to the View Menu and open the
Contacts Sidebar or press F9. CTRL-Click the addresses you want, press
the appropriate button at the bottom of the list.
Yes. It can be done. It's just different. I suppose I'm used to MS software
which (for all its faults) does tend to give you a variety of different ways
of achieving the same thing - in this case, it allows you either to open an
new message and select multiple addressees, or else to open the address book
and select multiple people and then say "send" - whichever you find easier.

I really need to install TB and get to know it better, in case I can't get
WLM (which I'm used to) to work if I ever need to upgrade from my present
Win 7 PC to a Win 10 one - not that I intend to use W10 in anger while ever
I have W7 which has a much better UI, even if "under the bonnet" W10 may
have improved things.
Ken Springer
2017-04-26 16:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
I suppose I'm used to MS software
which (for all its faults) does tend to give you a variety of different ways
of achieving the same thing
And it's a double edged sword. With multiple ways of doing things, it
leads to bloated software, which nobody likes either.

I think you can carry it too far, possibly from trying to please
everyone, which we know is just not possible. After awhile it gets hard
to change anything to actually make some things easier.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Ken Blake
2017-04-26 18:36:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:33:56 -0600, Ken Springer
Post by Ken Springer
Post by NY
I suppose I'm used to MS software
which (for all its faults) does tend to give you a variety of different ways
of achieving the same thing
And it's a double edged sword. With multiple ways of doing things, it
leads to bloated software, which nobody likes either.
I largely disagree with that statement. Two points:

1. With most things, adding another way or two of doing something
usually adds only a *tiny* amount to the size of the software.

2. If by "bloated," you mean "bigger," adding anything makes it
bigger, but as far as I'm concerned just being bigger is not something
bad; depending on what is added, it can often be something good.
What's bad is making something substantially bigger than it needs to
be, without making any improvements; that's what I would call
"bloated."
Ken Springer
2017-04-27 01:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:33:56 -0600, Ken Springer
Post by Ken Springer
Post by NY
I suppose I'm used to MS software
which (for all its faults) does tend to give you a variety of different ways
of achieving the same thing
And it's a double edged sword. With multiple ways of doing things, it
leads to bloated software, which nobody likes either.
1. With most things, adding another way or two of doing something
usually adds only a *tiny* amount to the size of the software.
This would depend on the competency of the programmer(s), as well as
merging the feature(s) into the existing code base.
Post by Ken Blake
2. If by "bloated," you mean "bigger," adding anything makes it
bigger, but as far as I'm concerned just being bigger is not something
bad; depending on what is added, it can often be something good.
What's bad is making something substantially bigger than it needs to
be, without making any improvements; that's what I would call
"bloated."
Adding unneeded features is another form of bloat. You end up with a
program with so many features most people never use. Shoot, most word
processor users I encounter of any word processing program seem to never
bother to try styles and formatting for their program. :-(

For instance, does Word also have to double as a page layout program?
Edit graphics?
Etc.?

One thing I've learned over the years, every time a program tries to do
everything for everybody, it never does it well.

Years ago, back in the days of Windows for Workgroups and older, the
general opinion I would read about MS products was the software worked,
but it didn't work well. And basically, it's still my opinion.

I know WordPerfect is your preferred word processor, and some day I hope
to find the time to download and check out the trial. I also preferred
it over Word. :-) But the employment life didn't allow me to choose
what I wanted to use, even though Word XP continually crashed and
corrupted my docs. The longer the doc, the worse it was. :-(

I still have my WordPerfect 4.0 package for the Atari ST/TT computers. <G>
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
...winston‫
2017-04-26 07:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
You won't be able to use the Deltasync protocol coded in WLM to connect
to your Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com. Microsoft dropped Deltasync from
their servers. So you can only use POP, IMAP, and SMTP with WLM. You
can still use those to access a Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com account but
just for e-mail (Deltasync, and its Exchange ActiveSync replacement,
also support contact and calendar sync). Unless you use MS Outlook for
EAS support, any POP/IMAP/SMTP client will work.
EAS is deprecated[1] for Outlook desktop. Exchange is now necessary for
email, contact and calendar sync in the Outlook desktop client.
Smartphone apps using EAS are not affected by the change.

[1] EAS support for Outlook was retained only until the end of the
Outlook.com email account migration from the old server to the new
backend server which runs on Exchange(Office 365 platform). For those
using EAS in Outlook, the account must be removed and reset up using
Exchange via auto-account setup).
--
...winston
msft mvp windows insider, windows experience
VanguardLH
2017-04-26 10:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ...winston‫
Post by VanguardLH
You won't be able to use the Deltasync protocol coded in WLM to connect
to your Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com. Microsoft dropped Deltasync from
their servers. So you can only use POP, IMAP, and SMTP with WLM. You
can still use those to access a Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com account but
just for e-mail (Deltasync, and its Exchange ActiveSync replacement,
also support contact and calendar sync). Unless you use MS Outlook for
EAS support, any POP/IMAP/SMTP client will work.
EAS is deprecated[1] for Outlook desktop. Exchange is now necessary for
email, contact and calendar sync in the Outlook desktop client.
Smartphone apps using EAS are not affected by the change.
[1] EAS support for Outlook was retained only until the end of the
Outlook.com email account migration from the old server to the new
backend server which runs on Exchange(Office 365 platform). For those
using EAS in Outlook, the account must be removed and reset up using
Exchange via auto-account setup).
Oh, that's right. I forgot. I'd get e-mails telling me that I had to
delete my Hotmail account and then recreate it. That was so Outlook
would get rid of the EAS-enabled account defined within it and a new
Hotmail account would use Exchange. Well, I kept pushing that off until
one day I could no longer use Hotmail. Then I had to dig through my
archive of e-mails for the hyperlink to the page telling me what to do.

The migration was high varied. For some people, it happened MANY months
ago. For me, it took so long that I have completely forgot about the
eventual forced transition.
...winston‫
2017-04-27 06:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Post by ...winston‫
Post by VanguardLH
You won't be able to use the Deltasync protocol coded in WLM to connect
to your Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com. Microsoft dropped Deltasync from
their servers. So you can only use POP, IMAP, and SMTP with WLM. You
can still use those to access a Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com account but
just for e-mail (Deltasync, and its Exchange ActiveSync replacement,
also support contact and calendar sync). Unless you use MS Outlook for
EAS support, any POP/IMAP/SMTP client will work.
EAS is deprecated[1] for Outlook desktop. Exchange is now necessary for
email, contact and calendar sync in the Outlook desktop client.
Smartphone apps using EAS are not affected by the change.
[1] EAS support for Outlook was retained only until the end of the
Outlook.com email account migration from the old server to the new
backend server which runs on Exchange(Office 365 platform). For those
using EAS in Outlook, the account must be removed and reset up using
Exchange via auto-account setup).
Oh, that's right. I forgot. I'd get e-mails telling me that I had to
delete my Hotmail account and then recreate it. That was so Outlook
would get rid of the EAS-enabled account defined within it and a new
Hotmail account would use Exchange. Well, I kept pushing that off until
one day I could no longer use Hotmail. Then I had to dig through my
archive of e-mails for the hyperlink to the page telling me what to do.
The migration was high varied. For some people, it happened MANY months
ago. For me, it took so long that I have completely forgot about the
eventual forced transition.
Yes...the migration was long and problematic at both ends(~14 months
start to finish to migrate over 0.6 Billion accounts). Staged rollout
and most likely a long list of constraints for the varied services used,
clients(and versions) accessing the account, and multiple protocols.
--
...winston
msft mvp windows insider, windows experience
Monty
2017-04-24 03:20:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:37 -0400, "Jess Fertudei"
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
I see Windows Live Mail Version 2012 (16.4.3505) at

http://www.oldversion.com/
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-04-24 07:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monty
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:37 -0400, "Jess Fertudei"
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
I see Windows Live Mail Version 2012 (16.4.3505) at
http://www.oldversion.com/
Note that any version from - I think it was - 15 onwards, screws up
quoting, to the extent that in many newsgroups I take, people even
killfiled those using it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.
VanguardLH
2017-04-24 08:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Monty
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a
real copy of Windows Live Mail?
I see Windows Live Mail Version 2012 (16.4.3505) at
http://www.oldversion.com/
Note that any version from - I think it was - 15 onwards, screws up
quoting, to the extent that in many newsgroups I take, people even
killfiled those using it.
Yep, version 15, and later, have quoting not just screwed up but
completely missing. WLM users, just like OE users, are a lazy lot and
will not assume the responsibility for proper quoting (prefix quote
characters, indentation). They just accept whatever their client does.

I don't delete (killfile) posts from WLM users but I do colorize them.
This alerts me the post was created by WLM and will likely be more
difficult to read. Without the alert, and with a short reply, their
reply goes unnoticed since it melds into the quoted content.

Used to be that I color-flagged posts from OE users. Well, that crowd
died off. When Microsoft left Usenet so did lots of OE users, and MVPs,
too. Microsoft's Answers web-based forums cater to boobs weaned on web
browsers despite the lack of threading to see who said what to whom.
Some OE users still here eventually learned of OE-Quotefix.

There is an Autohotkey macro for WLM to do the proper quoting in a
reply. However, the user has to install Autohotkey, find the macro to
add it to Autohotkey, and then remember to press the hotkey while
composing a reply message. The macro is only applicable in the new
message compose window. If a WLM user is unwilling to perform manual
formatting of the quoted content, they should just configure WLM to not
quote the parent post. I'd rather rely on the threading in a discussion
to see what the parent post said rather than the mess that WLM users
create in their replies.

Nowadays I color-flag the WLM posters. They *rarely* differentiate
their reply from the quoted content. Some might but I cannot remember
when I last saw a WLM user review their post before submitting it and
correcting their quoted content. Some just draw a line (a bunch of
hyphens) to delimit their quoted content from their reply content. Most
just slap their reply content at the same level as the quoted content
because that's how their client does it. They don't even read their own
reply before clicking Send. Well, that means they don't trim, either.

Of course, all of that tirade applies only to when using WLM as an NNTP
client to Usenet. The OP might just want an e-mail client. He never
said how he wants to use it. If he still chooses WLM, its Deltasync
support is unusable for Microsoft e-mail accounts. Microsoft dropped
Deltasync from their e-mail servers. WLM was discontinued long ago
(2012) so there will be no updates to add EAS (Exchange ActiveSync) to
it. WLM can still do POP, IMAP, and SMTP, and NNTP (yeah, with quoting
missing in replies for NNTP).

Microsoft had WebDAV. Dropped it. They moved to Deltasync. Dropped
that, too. Now they want their customers to use EAS. POP, IMAP, and
SMTP can still be used with Microsoft e-mail as well as with many other
e-mail providers who subscribe to the standard e-mail protocols and
eschew the proprietary ones from Microsoft.
Ted
2017-04-24 07:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
A little late but may help someone. Try here:
http://filehippo.com/download_windows_live_mail/tech/8305/

Cheers,
Ted
Gianni Turri
2017-04-24 09:33:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:37 -0400, "Jess Fertudei"
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
You can download the full installer from WayBackMachine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20170112124505/http:/wl.dlservice.microsoft.com/download/C/1/B/C1BA42D6-6A50-4A4A-90E5-FA9347E9360C/en/wlsetup-all.exe
--
Gianni
Thip
2017-04-24 14:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
I had to search long and hard for the full version vs. the online
installer. Sorry, I have no link to offer.

WLM just about stopped working for me several months ago. It's hideous,
timeouts and numerous erros. I switched to Thunerbird. I've never liked
it much but I'm learning to live with it. I really urge you to try it.
FredW
2017-04-26 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:37 -0400, "Jess Fertudei"
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Windows Live Mail. Quote, or no quote?

Microsoft has never bothered to make a proper newsreader for Usenet.
They've been offering their e-mail client Outlook Express for the
purpose for ages. It works reasonably well, aided by little utilities
like OE-QuoteFix.

But now we have Windows 7, we have no more Outlook Express. Instead, we
have Windows Live Mail, and we have trouble with it. It is a not too bad
newsreader, apparently, but it is a terrible newswriter! It is
completely and blissfully unaware of all the common Usenet practices,
like bottom posting, cutting off quoted signatures, indenting with quote
character, inserting signatures... As if Microsoft is purposely killing
Usenet! Yet, all of it doesn't prevent people from using it to post
Usenet messages with it.
It shouldn't bother me, as I don't use Windows Live Mail, but it does. I
have to struggle to read and follow terribly formatted messages.
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/


However ...

OE Classic - Replacement for Outlook Express

OE Classic is an email and Usenet reader designed to be a perfect
replacement for Outlook Express, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and
even Mozilla Thunderbird.

The ultimate goal of OE Classic is to be an easy to use, fast, small and
secure program with lots of power features and yet, easy to use for a
beginner. Your data always belongs to you as it is stored in a
public-domain format and there are no storage size limits.

https://www.oeclassic.com/
--
Fred W. (NLD)
Boris
2017-04-26 16:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monty
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:37 -0400, "Jess Fertudei"
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a
real copy of Windows Live Mail?
Windows Live Mail. Quote, or no quote?
Microsoft has never bothered to make a proper newsreader for Usenet.
They've been offering their e-mail client Outlook Express for the
purpose for ages. It works reasonably well, aided by little utilities
like OE-QuoteFix.
But now we have Windows 7, we have no more Outlook Express. Instead,
we have Windows Live Mail, and we have trouble with it. It is a not
too bad newsreader, apparently, but it is a terrible newswriter! It is
completely and blissfully unaware of all the common Usenet practices,
like bottom posting, cutting off quoted signatures, indenting with
quote character, inserting signatures... As if Microsoft is purposely
killing Usenet! Yet, all of it doesn't prevent people from using it to
post Usenet messages with it.
It shouldn't bother me, as I don't use Windows Live Mail, but it does.
I have to struggle to read and follow terribly formatted messages.
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
However ...
OE Classic - Replacement for Outlook Express
OE Classic is an email and Usenet reader designed to be a perfect
replacement for Outlook Express, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and
even Mozilla Thunderbird.
The ultimate goal of OE Classic is to be an easy to use, fast, small
and secure program with lots of power features and yet, easy to use
for a beginner. Your data always belongs to you as it is stored in a
public-domain format and there are no storage size limits.
https://www.oeclassic.com/
Fred, is the Pro version one purchase per machine? And, do you know if
you can do in-line photo attachments?
FredW
2017-04-26 16:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boris
Post by Monty
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:37 -0400, "Jess Fertudei"
Post by Jess Fertudei
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a
real copy of Windows Live Mail?
Windows Live Mail. Quote, or no quote?
Microsoft has never bothered to make a proper newsreader for Usenet.
They've been offering their e-mail client Outlook Express for the
purpose for ages. It works reasonably well, aided by little utilities
like OE-QuoteFix.
But now we have Windows 7, we have no more Outlook Express. Instead,
we have Windows Live Mail, and we have trouble with it. It is a not
too bad newsreader, apparently, but it is a terrible newswriter! It is
completely and blissfully unaware of all the common Usenet practices,
like bottom posting, cutting off quoted signatures, indenting with
quote character, inserting signatures... As if Microsoft is purposely
killing Usenet! Yet, all of it doesn't prevent people from using it to
post Usenet messages with it.
It shouldn't bother me, as I don't use Windows Live Mail, but it does.
I have to struggle to read and follow terribly formatted messages.
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
However ...
OE Classic - Replacement for Outlook Express
OE Classic is an email and Usenet reader designed to be a perfect
replacement for Outlook Express, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and
even Mozilla Thunderbird.
The ultimate goal of OE Classic is to be an easy to use, fast, small
and secure program with lots of power features and yet, easy to use
for a beginner. Your data always belongs to you as it is stored in a
public-domain format and there are no storage size limits.
https://www.oeclassic.com/
Fred, is the Pro version one purchase per machine? And, do you know if
you can do in-line photo attachments?
I am sorry, but I have no answers, I do not use OE Classic (yet ?).
I tried to find the answers on the website but no success.
Loading Image...
--
Fred W. (NLD)
mechanic
2017-04-26 18:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by FredW
I am sorry, but I have no answers, I do not use OE Classic (yet
?). I tried to find the answers on the website but no success.
https://www.oeclassic.com/ws/p/pg/oe-classic-screenshot-10.png
They claim to have good user support - why not just ask them?
Boris
2017-04-27 04:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by mechanic
Post by FredW
I am sorry, but I have no answers, I do not use OE Classic (yet
?). I tried to find the answers on the website but no success.
https://www.oeclassic.com/ws/p/pg/oe-classic-screenshot-10.png
They claim to have good user support - why not just ask them?
Here's one answer found in the Online Help\Messwage Editor:

Picture - Inserts a picture from an external file you selected into the
message body at cursor position.

I did find an OE Classic forum, but I'd have to join to ask a question. I
can just contact OE Classic and ask how many machines one purchase gets
you.
jimrx4
2017-05-01 02:09:00 UTC
Permalink
http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/windows-essentials-offline-installer-download-links/


"Jess Fertudei" wrote in message news:j_WdnVn5rJfSsmDFnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com...

On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?

Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
Rene Lamontagne
2017-05-01 02:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimrx4
http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/windows-essentials-offline-installer-download-links/
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
I run Windows Live mail 2012, it is part of Windows Essentials, try here.

https://windows-live-mail.en.softonic.com/

Rene
Paul
2017-05-01 02:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimrx4
http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/windows-essentials-offline-installer-download-links/
On a new installation of Win7 Home, is there somewhere left to get a real
copy of Windows Live Mail?
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
And if those links no longer work, you can try archive.org .
This is the 137,329,840 byte , 16.3.3828.331 Essentials in English.
Just take a link off the above page, and pump it into the archive.org search.

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20151006171032/http://wl.dlservice.microsoft.com/download/C/1/B/C1BA42D6-6A50-4A4A-90E5-FA9347E9360C/en/wlsetup-all.exe

Paul
. . .winston
2017-05-01 05:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jess Fertudei
Maybe I'm looking it up wrong, but seems MS has none available at this
point.
And if those links no longer work, you can try archive.org .
This is the 137,329,840 byte , 16.3.3828.331 Essentials in English.
Just take a link off the above page, and pump it into the archive.org search.
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20151006171032/http://wl.dlservice.microsoft.com/download/C/1/B/C1BA42D6-6A50-4A4A-90E5-FA9347E9360C/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Paul
Hi, Paul.
Probably a typo - no such version 16.3.3828.331 exists

That link is for 16.4.3528.0331 (aka Windows Essentials 2012 QFE4)
- For Win7, 8x, 10 the above is the preferred version.

Earlier versions that should be avoided if using Windows 8x or 10:
QFE3 16.4.3522.0110 (printing problems later fixed in QFE5 in conjunction
with a QFE5 era IE cumulative update)

QFE2 16.4.3508.0205 (html rendering fixed later in an under-the-hood IE
cumulative patch - WLM uses IE code to print, the IE cumulative patch no
longer available once QFE4 was released; also caused extra characters when
viewing(preview pane or individual message window) and printing messages
e.g. leading '?' and a other non-printable code/characters. Printing
messages caused a variety of printers to print a solid line of 'XXXXXX's and
multiple blank pages; a few non-English versions crashed on opening the
contacts and calendar modes.
--
...winston
msft mvp windows experience 2007-2016, insider mvp 2016-2017
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...