Talk:Perion Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-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.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Add external link?[edit]

I was wondering if i could add http://www.oldapps.com/incredimail.htm here.

This is the only site that provides old version of incredimail.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.168.86 (talkcontribs) 05:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No. You have been spamming oldapps.com for a long time, and it's not constructive to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Haakon 10:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Incredimail isn't malware[edit]

"Contrary to some people's speculation, IncrediMail is not malware." This is highly debatable... 201.19.223.77 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement "is not malware" needs a reference. Or is it just self-apparent from the Wiki definition of malware, maybe? --213.112.82.29 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is wrong in stating that Incredimail is not malware. It most definitely is, as given by many sources:

http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/mailnews.html

A quote: "At the time I tried Incredimail, I found it to be such a resource hog. It made my system slow and in general bog things down. It did do fanastic with mail though, but then I found it communicated with the mothership and I dropped it. I removed it and things went back to normal. I ran spyware to do a final cleaning and all is well. Its supposed to have cleaned-up thier act, but I usually don't return to s/w once they've done that. Why should I trust them." from here: http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6122_102-0.html?forumID=44&threadID=12328&messageID=140431

A quote: "Then about 30 minutes later up pops WinPatrol to say Incredimail is trying to write to my start up menu. Now I don't know if incredimail is spyware, but I do know I have no idea how it got on my system, I know I did not want it and it was a right bugger to get rid of (requiring a regedit)." from here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13165115

A quote: "Incredimail is Spyware in that it makes over 1200 changes or more to your computer's registry. It is hard to get out of your computer once you download it. Incredimail comes out of Isreal the last I heard and it does track it users and in a way it is spyware." from here: http://infoave.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t23895.html

http://tpsconsulting.blogspot.com/2005/04/incredimail-is-spyware-longer-you-use.html

and from my own prior experience running Windows, it forcefully installs itself into your system, collects data about you without telling you, hogs resources, contacts its home page continuously resulting in slower webpage loading, and has no "uninstall" method which removes all traces of itself. It does indeed require a regedit and manual deletion of files and folders to remove. It meets every criterion for malware I've ever heard of, including the fact that it is superfluous to the email process and adds no value.

Why is this page locked from editing with the misinformation in place? I'm kind of new to Wiki and don't want to stomp on any toes, but the least we could do is flag it "the neutrality of this article is disputed".

Hosiah 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a program is malware is extremely subjective. The way I see it the real bottom line is this: If the program does everything that you ask it to, and nothing you don't, then it's not malware. For many people, Incredimail does not pass this test. Yes, it does things many people don't want. Sure, it does things in ways that some people don't like. All programs have advantages and disadvantages. It's up to the individual to decide where on the scale each program lies.

As such, there is no "neutral point of view" on this issue. For this reason, if no other, the article should not state that it's not malware - nor should it state that it is malware.

(FYI, I am a pleased Incredimail Premium user, and have been for years)

--JimH443 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to leave my response limited to what I said above, but I have a point of view that I feel needs to be expressed.

First, as to it being a resource hog. Generally speaking, the more capabilities a program has the more resources it's going to use. A related example is the difference between Internet Explorer (or just about any browser) and Hyperterminal (does anyone here even remember that program?). Hyperterminal was ASCII only, no graphics of any sort. Because of this, it was very small (would fit on a floppy if you wanted it to) and used very few resources. Despite the fact that Hyperterminal uses less resources, it's not a very popular program - and IE, Foxfire, Netscape and Opera (et al) are not being called malware due to their requiring more from the computer.

Second, as to its adding itself to startup. Incredimail is by no means the only one. A program that I find particularly annoying in this regard is Adobe's Acrobat pdf reader. Yet I don't hear people claiming that Acrobat is malware. BTW... those who have WinPatrol installed can use its features to prevent Incredimail (or any other program) from loading at startup any time they choose - during installation or at any time after.

Third, it's "calling home." Again, not at all unusual - especially for communications software. It keeps users informed about new releases. My Avant browser does this. So does Windows.

Fourth, the fact that it uses the registry. Come on - you're kidding, right? Can you name 5 programs that don't??

Fifth, collecting data unbeknownst to the user. I admit I am ignorant of, and unconcerned about, this aspect. I will not argue that it does not, nor will I concede that it does.

Unfortunately, you're quite correct about the inability to effortlessly & completely uninstall the program. I see this as a very serious drawback that should be corrected immediately. For me, though, that point is moot as I have no intention of uninstalling it.

--JimH443 07:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be mailware. The simple fact that it is so disputed merits a mention in and of itself. I feel that something about it's possibility should be mentioned in the body of the article. And 1 or 2 links giving each side of the issue. This way both sides are covered, and doing it in as neutral way as possible. 75.120.87.94 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to all this, I'd like to note something. I work for Geek Squad, and hadn't heard of Incredimail before today... when a client called in complaining that Incredimail had taken over her computer. Examining things revealed that this was true... it had hijacked her browser, was using up huge amounts of resources, and basically slowed her system to a crawl and prevented her from doing anything, while insinuating itself into everything she did. As such...

Firstly; there's a HUGE difference between 'uses a nontrivial amount of resources to perform needed functions' and 'is a resource hog that prevents the user from doing anything'. Based on the client's complains and my own assessment of things, Incredimail clearly belongs to the latter category. You don't need that much power to run a mail client, but you DO need it to spy on a user without their consent and control their computer in malicious ways.

Secondly; email programs don't need to be in startup. Anything that you can run yourself when you need it doesn't need to be in startup. The only things that should be in startup is the software you need to run your hardware, security software to defend yourself from threats, and (grudgingly) a handful of other things that may come up on an individual basis that you need to run your particular machine. Anything else just slows you down. Being in startup, in and of itself, doesn't mean malware, but all malware wants to be in startup, because it can't spy on you otherwise.

Thirdly; calling home. Any sort of 'phone-home-ware' should be carefully scrutinized. Occasional update checking may be permitted for vital software only, but spying on the user may not. Incredimail seems to be an example of the latter; there's other reason it should be using as much bandwidth as it does. I haven't given it a conclusive enough examination to prove it as spyware (that's not my job), but there's a good lot of evidence to suggest such.

Fourthly; using the registry. There is a difference between the way that normal programs use the registry and the way Incredimail (ab)uses the registry. I spent over an hour manually removing instances of Incredimail from my client's registry. There had to me more then a thousand entires there. Nothing else does that. The most really awful and insidious malware doesn't do that. That is an order of magnitude more registry entries then even the biggest legitimate program should ever need, barring only Windows itself. That's why it's too much.

Fifthly; their privacy policy explicitly allows them to do this. No legitimate company has such a scummy policy, and their program certainly does enough to allow this. I can't conclusively prove that it does this, but there's evidence enough to more then suggest that it does.

Finally; the uninstallation. It won't uninstall itself. You need to manually expurge it if you want it gone. This takes even trained professionals a long time; based on it's malicious and irresponsible poisoning of the registry. And the fact that it won't uninstall itself is one of the other black marks of malware.

Make your own conclusion on the matter, but I've made mine... and would suggest that the controversy at least be mentioned in the article.
Endovior 04:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from an old version of the Incredimail EULA (no longer present in this form)[edit]

Actual Excerpt from the EULA (End User License Agreement) you agree to when you install Incredimail: "10. UNSOLICITED MATERIALS Any confidential, secret or proprietary information or other material submitted or sent to IncrediMail, including without limitation via any Message sent by You through the Service, Site, or IncrediMail's physical mail and e-mail addresses, or in any other way, will be deemed to be not confidential or secret. By submitting or sending information or other material to IncrediMail or by posting information on any portion of the Service you (a) Warrant that you have all rights of any kind to the material and that to the best of your knowledge no other party has any rights to the material; and (b) Grant IncrediMail an unrestricted, perpetual, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, transmit and distribute the material, and you further agree that IncrediMail is free to use any ideas, know-how, concepts or techniques you send us or post on the Service for any purpose, without any compensation to you or any other person."

The End User License Agreement (EULA) is a legally binding contract between the End User (you) and the software provider (in this case Incredimail). IncrediMail® is a registered trademark of IncrediMail LTD.

Yea, tell me this stuff is a great product to use huh?

~~Brody~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.46.52 (talkcontribs) 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of "Incredimail installation"[edit]

I am not a member of any forums (that i like) and this might help others so here it goes. Somehow the kind of creepy developers of I.M. found where my computer was and now everytime i start my computer there is an orange envelope icon telling me to install, even if i delete it. How do i make it so it is deleted pernamently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.115.179 (talkcontribs) 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're using some version of Windows, I assume? Simple enough; it has to be starting from somewhere, and general startup is the most likely culprit. Run MSConfig, and check your startup items. Get rid of everything you don't recognize/approve of. That's the free version. The $129 version involves a six-hour exorcism; I do it all day, every day. Endovior (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the article[edit]

/begin proposed change/ - Jrssystemsnet 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)



{{verify}} {{neutrality}}

Overview[edit]

IncrediMail is an e-mail client which produces multimedia e-mail.

Its free ad-supported version is available for download at its website. The paid version, IncrediMail Premium, removes its advertisements.

The product is intended to be user-friendly, and it employs a Graphical User Interface and multiple templates. The program offers both audio and video embedding in e-mail messages. Recipients do not need Incredimail installed to see the embedded graphics, but they must use a mail client capable of handling HTML email.

Controversy - technical[edit]

There is much controversy over the usability and viability of HTML email in general. Due to its heavy and very visible use of HTML formatting in its default out-of-box configuration, Incredimail finds itself at the forefront of this controversy as what many of the detractors of HTML email consider an extreme "worst-case example" and many of the proponents consider "fun and friendly."

Some argue that the program increases message sizes (and consequently download times for recipients) and uses more bandwidth than text-only or HTML mail. In addition, the (default) heavy use of HTML and embedded images in Incredimail is difficult to tell from spam in automated filters; at times high-profile pump-and-dump penny-stock spammers have used this similarity to sneak their payloads through those automated filters.[1][2] Preferences within the program can be set, however, to send mail in a plain-text format.

Controversy - legal[edit]

Finally there has been a good deal of controversy over the privacy policy of the company which produces Incredimail. The program collects data such as how many emails are sent, how many pictures are sent in those emails, dates and times the user has the program open, and more.[3]

Verbiage from the EULA Incredimail users must accept in order to install the program is also a source of controversy, as this EULA provision at one time specifically granted the Incredimail corporation "an unrestricted, perpetual, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, transmit and distribute" any email sent using the program itself. This text has since been modified to restrict these rights grants more reasonably to unsolicited email sent to the Incredimail corporation, however.

Further controversy over potential security issues within the Incredimail client and service seem born out by the "Risks" clause in the current EULA, however, which includes very forbidding (and unusual in an email client, see the Thunderbird EULA for a contrasting example[4]) text about "hacking, cracking, nuking," and more:

8. RISKS THE SOFTWARE, SERVICE AND SITE MAY BE VULNERABLE TO VARIOUS SECURITY ISSUES AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SECURE. BY USING THE SOFTWARE, SERVICE AND SITE YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS RISKS, INCLUDING AMONG OTHERS:

Unauthorized exposure of information and material you post on or through the Service.

Exposure to objectionable material and/or parties, including without limitation, content and messages that may offend and which may contain contaminated files.

Unauthorized invasion of your privacy during, or as a result of, your or another's use of the Service.

Spoofing, eavesdropping, sniffing, spamming, breaking passwords, harassment, fraud, forgery, "imposturing", electronic trespassing, tampering, hacking, nuking, system contamination including without limitation use of viruses, worms and Trojan horses causing unauthorized, damaging or harmful access and/or retrieval of information and data on your computer and other forms of activity that may even be counlawful(sic).

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO THESE RISKS, YOU ARE ADVISED NOT TO USE THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICE.

Unfortunately the EULA for Incredimail is not available online at this time, and so can only be readily viewed by downloading the actual program and beginning the installation process.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

Category:Windows email clients

es:Incredimail fr:IncrediMail ro:Incredimail



/end proposed change/ Jrssystemsnet 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


There is obvious controversy about the EULA, as shown by the fact there is a discussion here about it. I think it is fair there should be comment about the "suspicions". However, I think it is unprofessional and against Wikipedia principals to quote something we can't link to and say "it's not online right now...."

Also, reading over this EULA, it appears to say the software MAY BE VULNERABLE to certain risks, not suggesting the company are practicing those risks. That is 100% fair. Isn't it?

Siteadvisor.com (http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/incredimail.com) ranks incredimail safe 100%. I think we also need to add a reference to someone who labels them as Spyware to show the controversy, but it has to be under Wikipedia guidelines of fair, verifiable quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal74 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Series of very heavy edits just now[edit]

This article was completely rewritten as a pure advertising brochure last week by User:Sheerian. I slashed and burned it pretty heavily to try to return it to something resembling a wikipedia article, hopefully with a reasonably neutral pov. NOTE: the edits made by Sheerian were his/her first wiki edits ever, and given the heavy use of relatively advanced markup tags, sheer number of links back to corporate press releases, and tone of the article as a complete re-write I have to suspect the origin was most likely Incredimail Ltd. itself. --Jrssystemsnet (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

This page and its non-capitalized partner, Incredimail, talk about the exact same thing, but they're two different articles. Merge? --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Incredimail was a redirect to IncrediMail until User:Sheerian edited it into a clone of the brochure-like rewrite s/he did here. --Jrssystemsnet (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SweetIM[edit]

I noticed that SweetIM is substantially similar to IncrediMail both in its style of home page, the nature of its spyware/malwareness, and near word for word similarity of some of the scarier terms in its license agreement. And it does have its license agreement on the vendor home page. --ssd (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I noticed that SweetIM is substantially similar to IncrediMail" but much better than Incredimail - too bad it is not offered for outlook.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston20 (talkcontribs) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary format[edit]

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that the Incredimail mail stores use a proprietary format, and that there's no convenient way to convert those to move to another e-mail product? MCBastos (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

References[edit]

Trying to clean up the references on this article. Can't find anything about controversy around the updated Privacy Policy, only around the previous Policy (and that controversy lead to the change). Does anyone know anything offhand? --FeldBum (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability and sources[edit]

Of the 13 sources:

  • 10 are to IncrediMail's website
  • 2 are to blogs
  • 1 is to Microsoft's support site.

This doesn't come even close to establishing notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB & WP:RS[edit]

I would like to remind editors of WP:SELFPUB, which states:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Most of the sources cited are self-published (which violates #5) & many of them are not "about themselves" (which violates #2). These have been tagged as such, and will be progressively eliminated until the article complies with #2 & #5.

I would further point out that many of the new sources introduced (e.g. www.crunchbase.com , www.sharewarejunkies.com , seekingalpha.com ) do not appear to be particularly reliable. I would also note that some of the older ones, on closer examination are likewise unreliable (e.g. the NYT Financial website's mere repetition of the company's self-descriptive blurb). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags[edit]

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ]

I have to disagree with you here. The tags were over lack of sufficient third party sources. I improved the page, adding many high authority sources. The tags were overly critical. I cannot imagine how a NYTimes article could be given a "self published" tag. I removed only the warnings I rectified. I am quite certain the whole purpose of the warning is so that someone will see them and do just that. Have I misunderstood something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirarae (talkcontribs) 06:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Shirarae (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed the {{Self-published inline}} tags from a number of WP:V#SELF-published sources. Your claim that sources such as www.crunchbase.com , www.sharewarejunkies.com & seekingalpha.com are "high authority" is complete balderdash. I did not tag the NYT non-article as {{Self-published inline}}, but as {{Verify credibility}} as, as I stated above, it is a "mere repetition of the company's self-descriptive blurb" in a stock-market summary -- which is not WP:RS, except as an explicit attributed self-description. The sourcing for this article remains ludicrously flimsy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence that this blurb is not of the NYT's own writing can be found in this search. It is the same wording in half a dozen different stock-market summary pages on the company. Such blurbs are written by the company being profiled, and so are not reliable as anything other than a self-description. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Of the sources marked not reliable or not notable (which is nearly all of them), I would object to the following:
  • #5 - http://incredimail.personals.yahoo.com/ seems to be a pretty clear indication that Incredimail has partnered with Yahoo! personals. Either way, I replaced it with a DMNews article.
  • #7 and #8 - I'm not sure why an original article by About.com was tagged as "unreliable". According to Wikipedia, it's one of the 15 visited sites in the U.S. and it is used in more than 300,000 Wikipedia articles as a citation (See here)
  • #12 - Seekingalpha.com is also a reliable source, at least according to its Wikipedia page. The article cited is original to SeekingAlpha, and I can't see why a site that won multiple awards for its reporting would not be considered an "authority" site.
  • #14 - McAfee SiteAdvisor also seems to be a very reliable source, again based on its Wikipedia page. Many other pages seems to be using it as a citation as well.
  • In general, some self-published sources must be allowed on the article page for a company. No organization but that company will have as much information about its products, services, history, financial information (if public), key employees and more. For instance, on the Google page, 41 of its 139 sources (about 30%) are "self-published." Yet, that page is not peppered with tags.
--FeldBum (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


  1. About.com: see this search for WP:RS/N discussions on this source -- generally finding it to not be particularly reliable.
  2. "Seeking Alpha is a free provider of stock market opinion and analysis from blogs, money managers and investment newsletters, and a provider of its own financial content." This is not the description of a WP:RS.
  3. The McAfee SiteAdvisor page is a "Automated Web Safety Testing Result" -- and such computer-generated pages are not considered to be a WP:RS.
  4. Please read WP:SELFPUB again! Pay particular attention to the parts that state: "sources of information about themselves" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". This means that non-IncrediMail SPSs are not permitted at all and that IncrediMail SPSs must be only in the minority, NOT the vast majority as it is currently. And no, there is nothing stating that "some self-published sources must be allowed" -- third party sources are ALWAYS preferred.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Regarding About.com, it seems like the consensus in those discussions was: "It depends; sometimes About.com can be reliable and sometimes it isn't, based on which editor is writing. In conclusion, use a better source if you have one." I think everyone editing this article would prefer a better source, but in the meantime, the About.com review seems to be objective and by an author who has been writing exclusively about email for 12 years. As soon as a better source is found, About.com should be replaced.
  • Regarding self-published sources, I am not advocating a majority of SPS. Currently, the article has three sources out of 19 that are tagged as SPS. That's 16%--hardly an "overwhelming majority." One of those cites is for verbiage quoted from Incredimail's privacy policy. Where else would information like that be found. The article is not based primarily on these sources. At most, two of these sources are used where another source could potentially be used. That strikes me as a "minority." Of course, whenever possible, those sources should be replaced with 3rd-party sources.
  • Obviously, the cites here need more work, as most company pages do (or so I've found). I've been doing what I can, and I welcome any constructive help I can get.
--FeldBum (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that the sourcing for this article ranges from at-best-marginal (about.com), to worthless (computer-generated reports, regurgitation of stock-market-blurb-self-descriptions), to non-existence ({{or}} & {{fact}}). The standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Few of the sources are independent and none of them have solid reliability. While a number of the original SPSs have now been stripped out, the quality of the replacement sources has been ubiquitously poor. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to clean up these resources once and for all. I am still learning here. User:Hrafn, I found these in the recommended Wikipedia Reference Search. I would love if you could tell me which ones look reliable to you:

Also, if various facts throughout the page come from the site itself (being as it is obviously the best source for product information and details) how would you recommend collectively referencing them?

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. Shirarae (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Neither these sources, nor "the site itself" adds up to anything that comes even close to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If "the site itself" is referenced (and it that should be done sparingly, the specific page containing the info should be referenced). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I note the following on WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Need Assistance on this topic:

I can find no good references to this company using Wikipedia Reference Search. Thus there is not enough material to establish notability (in Wikipedia terms). This is quite common for newish companies, it may be that in ten years time there is enough material for a good article, but at present tehre is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks User:Hrafn. I hear what you are saying. I guess I am a little confused how products such as the Amazon_Kindle, 37signals, Etsy, and YouTube, are capable of holding pages on Wikipedia, and this page would not be? It is a ten year old, publicly traded company that people, such as myself, have searched for information on. I have been using the product for 6 years, which in internet years is practically ancient. The information is clearly correct. How is it possible that it cannot be proven on this page as it can be on others?
Also, I was under the impression that the results obtained from Wikipedia Reference searches were automatically reliable references. Is that not the point in having it? Please explain further. It is helpful for me to understand. Shirarae (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not really that surprising -- they're a small company producing one non-prominent competitor out of a large number of competing products in a very mature market (email, along with usenet & ftp are uses of the internet that actually predate the 'World Wide Web'). It's very hard to get much third party media attention doing this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing contained in Wikipedia or in any of the referenced sources should be considered reliable. Edits to Wikipedia are sometimes made by biased individuals or vandals, and bad information can persist in articles for months or years before it is caught and corrected. Referenced sources are often biased and are not "automatically" reliable. Moreover, many sites mirror Wikipedia articles verbatim, so performing a search on the 'net can produce a large number of identical, or near-identical results, giving the false impression that the information is reliable. Since mirroring is performed at unpredictable intervals, mirror sites may contain older versions of Wikipedia articles that conflict with current versions found here.—QuicksilverT @ 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Since there is little WP:RS information on this topic, I am proposing merging it into the article on the company that created this email client, IncrediMail Ltd. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No objection, so merged. As IncrediMail Ltd has no talkpage as yet, I'll move this talkpage (Talk:IncrediMail) there to preserve disucssion history. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Article or advert?[edit]

Nuff said 77.99.163.40 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As the IP post above suggests, this page is written much like an advertisement. The product(s) in question are also highly disputed as to being "ad supported" or "adware" or even "spyware".

Some background reading on the program (largely heresy, but informative nonetheless):

http://email.about.com/cs/incredimailtips/qt/et063003.htm - a possible source to be included
http://tpsconsulting.blogspot.com/2005/04/incredimail-is-spyware-longer-you-use.html
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6121_102-0.html?threadID=43281

Personally, I would never touch the software, but it does seem to be a valid (if a bit snoopy) email program. It would do well if we could include some a criticisms section, at the very least. Pending some work, I've added the {{advert}} tag.
EugeneKay 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Was that article "heresy", or did you mean "hearsay"?—QuicksilverT @ 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the article reads like an advertisement. There is no mention of the hostile behaviour of this program in the main article. Getting this software off a computer is difficult to start with, and moving your messages to a different client is next to impossible due to deliberate obfuscation of the mail database format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.188.87 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Industry certifications[edit]

I've added the info announced by the BBB that they have certified the company and their products, and also a link to the mcafee certification the company announced earlier this year. If anyone else finds positive or negative industry reviews from certified, credible source, please share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.135.196 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Any article about this software needs to address the ease of downloading it by mistake and the fact that it is incredibly hard - almost impossible - to remove from any system on which it has been installed. I have spent $100 so far trying to get it removed from my system. There are literally thousands of complaints about this software. These complaints need to be mentioned. PS: Having spent good cash trying to get this crapware removed, I recently installed Google Chrome for a class that I'm taking, and found this garbage on Chrome. I am quite confident that Google is not responsible for this; and when I search for it in "extensions" in Chrome it does not appear. It has hijacked this new browser: when I open a new tab I am greeted with ad popups that, if cancelled or "x'd", direct me to the advertiser's web page. Please please change this ad to detail the dangers of this miserable software! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashkabibble (talkcontribs) 08:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.dynamoo.com/blog/2007/01/incredimail-spam.html
  2. ^ http://www.clearswift.com/library/blogs/default.aspx?ID=1
  3. ^ http://www.incredimail.com/english/fullprivacy.asp
  4. ^ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/thunderbird-en.html