Talk:Outlook Express

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 

Plugins[edit]

A comment about citation needed: there is no source about the lack of plugin support. You can look all Microsoft site and you'll find only IStoreNamespace, IStoreFolder and a few small interfaces as I pointed but there is no page that says: 'Outlook Express doesn't support plugins'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.147.45 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Eudora[edit]

Just a brief comment: Outlook Express was designed to compete with Eudora. It was the first client that did so successfully.

I agree--my Eudora "essay" may have gone over the top.. but it should not be excluded from mention.

--Sam

Security[edit]

Not really security related, but I don't believe that the section about Mail Recall belongs in an Outlook Express article when it is an Outlook (distinction between Office Outlook and the free Outlook Express with Windows) only feature. Maybe it should be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.135.182 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good security practice: when a product has unpatched security flaws, use another one. This is why people have the right to know how many unpatched flaws are in OE, compared to it's competitors Raraoul

But the OE security vulnerabilities and solutions for them are changing all the time, just as they are for other clients. If your point is that OE is inherently less secure than alternates then it violates the NPOV unless you can provide some conclusive proof of it or a link to such proof. Poweroid
NPOV doesn't prevent from giving people the opportunity to see by themselves if a product can be used safely now.
In the current "security" section, nothing says which one is the better one. People have to decide by themselves using the automatically updated information provided by Secunia. So it's NPOV indeed.
NPOV is not hiding facts.
In one hour, or tomorrow, maybe OE will be the browser with the less flaws. And the current security section will still be up to date. Raraoul 20:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok i think i understand what you first thought now. I'll rephrase my first sentence to be more specific. Tell me if it helps you:
"Here is a consensual security practice: when a product provides no way to patch currently known security flaws, don't use it or use another one (at least until the fix is available). This is why people should know how many currently unpatched flaws are in similar products." Raraoul
"Don't use it", "use an alternative" etc are calls to action. I've reworded your last edit to include the fact that a comparative picture of the relative security of competing products is available at the link. Please see if that meets your approval. Poweroid
Good security practices are indeed call to action ! Do want to hide them ? Raraoul
Hey, I hear what you are saying and I agree that OE is bug ridden and flawed. BUT, even if we could prove that, I don't believe the call to action will pass muster here at Wikipedia. I'm happy to let someone else come in with a third opinion. Poweroid
Just as long as those security practices are neutral (as is my rephrased sentence above) and allow the users to see by themselves, there should be no NPOV problem about it. Raraoul
You seem determined to post some "advice" and to steer people towards a particular course of action. Calls for action, particularly of the "don't use it" variety, are not allowed. I can't see that staying but I won't edit it. You post your revision and I'll let someone else revert it :-) Poweroid
Thanks :)
And I won't write "use Sofwtare#1 and don't use Software#2". Only a consensual advice which is: "see by yourself which one currently (right now as you are reading this article) has patched all its known flaws.
In 2 hours or 2 weeks, this "safe" software could be a different one. I don't care just as long as people see for themselves which one it is. An decide for themselves.
BTW i found this to my support:
it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.
This was taken from Npov#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity
Raraoul

PGP in MsOE?[edit]

Maybe someone can amend the article to make it explain if and how it is possible to use PGP encryption with Outlook Express? Or does this kind of information not belong in Wikipedia? (I just added it with Pine (email client))

Digital signatures[edit]

1. In the article, it says that users of Outlook Express cannot read digitally signed messages without opening them in an attachment. I don't know what version this is referring to but in my version (6.00.2600 under XP service pack 2), signed messages open OK, although a message explaining digital signatures appears first, until closed or permanently turned off.

There are different kinds of digitally signed messages. The problem is with those in multipart/signed format.
03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2. It's an annoyance that when someone attempts to reply to or forward a digitally signed message, Outlook Express toggles "sign message" on, even if the sender hasn't got a digital signature. Not anticipating this unusual behavior, the sender often believes he is unable to reply to or forward the message at all. (It is necessary to toggle the "sign" button off.) Howardshippin 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding the image[edit]

You have to be kidding if you think that a screenshot of Outlook Express in the old Mac OS is representative. Please change the screenshot for one of the latest version of Outlook Express in Microsoft Windows XP.

The current image is a image of a very high-resolution Outlook Express-window, and the result is that the image is not so visible as the previous image of OE5, which is not equeal large as the current image. 1() 14:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

POV check[edit]

I added {{POV-check}} to the article because the half of it are criticism, as well as loss of footnotes. A bit of the content in criticism section are concerning Microsoft Outlook and not Outlook Express. There will look good if its neutrality can be checked. --Off! 22:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of criticism for Outlook Express, then, as you say that Outlook is in the criticism section.
In any case, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of criticism or Outlook, so I'm removing the POV-check template. If you want to re-add it, be my guest, but do do some cleaning up if you feel it needs it. --SheeEttin 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree here... the whole article seems to be criticism, with little content besides this. The tone also seems a little too negative, not quite saying 'don't use this', but certainly coming across as lacking a sense of distanced neutrality. Richard001 04:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree as well. Too much of the article is criticism, and the tone isn't NPOV in the criticism section.Nimrand 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{POV-check}} back to the article. This article clearly violates WP:NPOV. Themodernizer 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section needs a few [citation needed] notes. I have added them. Outlook Express, while perhaps not being the best, has been installed on every Windows PC since 1998. Therefore it could be argued that may be the most prolific e-mail client. As such, it is worthy of some criticism. However, the criticism article blankets all versions without addressing what progress has been made. Certainly it has enough competitors out there to makes this an NPOV problem. Group29 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Newsgroups[edit]

Newsgroups, using NNTP, are an important part of the feature set of Outlook Express, and need to be handled in the discussion. I don't know if a newsgroup reader is available in Vista's Mail, but it should be addressed.

Newsgroups used to be the core part of the internet. When browsers took over, many of the mesages in many of the newsgroups were incorporated into various websites, but there is extensive coverage of news and technical issues in the newsgroups that are not available to people who only use their browser for reading and interacting with the messages. Plus, the pipeline and overhead are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced using a newsgroup reader like Outlook Express, rather than a browser, and to people with a slower connection, that is important.

This might better be put in an article on newsgroups, but in discussing the difference between reading and posting to newsgroups with a newsgroup reader like Outlook Express, rather than using a browswer, is that the FIND feature with Outlook Express is way, way, way better than using Google to find relevant articles. MargaretBartley 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft outlook[edit]

I have a friend whose computer got wiped so after he got it back from the tech he found that all of his E-mails were in outlook instead of outlook express is there any way the E-mails can be transferred from outlook to outlook express, if so can someone tell me if its possible. 216.26.210.160 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

yEnc[edit]

I added a note about yEnc and a link to the yEnc article. However, every time I add the information, someone reverts it. I am a yEnc domain expert, and I know that millions of users are downloading yEnc encoded attachments with Outlook Express. There are numerous resources and FAQs on the web about this matter. yEnc is not a commercial or propietary encoding format. It is public domain and the content on yenc.org is public domain. Outlook Express users need a branching off point or information about yEnc and Outlook Express.

208.102.18.202 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, yEnc is already covered in the "Outlook Express Tips" link, so I don't see any reason to add a link specifically for yEnc, especially since this article already has more non-citation external links than are allowed on most articles. The fact that the page you're attempting to link to lobbies users to ask Microsoft to add this feature to Outlook Express is also a concern. Secondly, I'm sure there are many features and standards that Outlook Express does not support, so they can't all be added to the article. The issue is to determine what information about Outlook Express is notable enough to include in the article. Has the lack of this feature impacted affected Outlook Express's adoption rate? Have notable reviewers or critics mentioned this problem? What percentage of users of OE are affected by the lack of this feature? Lastly, please understand that this article is not intended as a how-to or online help manual for Outlook Express. Its intended as an encyclopedia entry, and its decisions regarding its content should be made with that in mind. So, if other editors in addition to the anonymous poster feel this information is notable, then go ahead and add it. Although, I would request that we link to something besides the proposed page (which is much too focused on getting users request the feature from Microsoft), and that we be sure to follow the reliability guidelines for any link we use as a citations. Nimrand (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Outlook Express Tips page is not a reliable page. It's biased, as it's from the creator of yDecode.com, and it only offers yDecode as a solution. yEnc.org is a truly unbiased page as Jurgen is the creator of yEnc, released it to the public domain, and as far as I know, the only commercial program to get Jurgen's actual recommendation is Forte Agent. So, I understand your concerns, but please give an example of what would be accepted as a reliable source in this case. -208.102.18.202 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate Article for Criticism?[edit]

If there ever were a separate article needed for criticisms, this would be the one. DeeKenn (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

re: database corruption and DBX files[edit]

"They are stored in the Recycle Bin."

Huh? CapnZapp (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Internet Mail and News discussion[edit]

Does anybody know where I can get this?

Fair use rationale for Image:Microsoft Internet Mail and News screenshot.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Microsoft Internet Mail and News screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging MSIMN with OE article[edit]

This MSIMN stub and History section of OE are already mostly overlapping. Merging them (with a redirect link) would be appropriate.

No, is a complete different software each with own history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.212.11 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

IE Addon category[edit]

why Outlook Express is in the category IE Addons? --Lastwebpage (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)