slemapa wrote:You know, a web based MUA is just another mail client and there are really not many good web based ones.
One is enough. Outlook.com is pretty okay too.
No, it sucks. It can't handle IDN, it does not thread correctly etc.
First of all, they are way slower than desktop clients.
I'm not sure if you have heard about it what with you writing us from 1990, but we people of 2013 generally have fast enough internet access which makes this argument void.
No, it is not about how fast pages are loaded over the net. You know, I've been on 100 Mb/s for the last 7 years, sometimes more than 100Mb/s using link aggregation. You are just dead wrong. It is about how fast the interface is and what features it gives you. It is about how fast you can read, respond (to all, to sender, to list), delete, move and write email etc and page load time hasn't been an issue for years. I have used gmail, outlook web client (or whatever the client is called, maybe exchange webmail), hotmail, the stuff that came after hotmail (outlook), horde, squirrelmail, the stuff that sun used, roundcube among others. I have tested them for features - how well they support IDN, utf-8 local part, html email, threading etc and web based mail clients are not very good. They do not do a good job besides being, well, just web based. The one and only advantage is being web based but sadly they lack many other features.
Second, there are no good ones. Gmail, hotmail etc does not even allow IDN, an old standard. The only IDN aware web based email client I know of is roundcube, the rest sucks badly.
Okay see nobody actually cares about this. Try to understand that. What people care about is not needing to install some stupid .exe because email. Which is why nobody is doing that and outside of people who suffer outlook at work the market for desktop MUAs has been dead for years.
Well, there are people who do care about it, for example I do and many besides me, as many of my friends.
Yes, many people don't care about IDN and pgp because they are lethargic losers
. They mostly use email for messages to and from other lethargic losers, they get one or tops 10 emails a day and they have no problem what so ever with google, ms, or apple reading their email and sending stuff to NSA. They have no clue about sending email to IDN:s because they don't even know what an IDN is and most companies etc are forced to comply with the lack of standard compliance of the fucked up
web mail clients. The have no clue about gpg because they think email is "secure". Basically, most people are just lethargic loser when it comes to email.
And you advocate that this is ok!?!?! It is a sad day. It's like in the days of the browser wars with badly fucked up browsers. Thanks to standardization and some pressure on (mostly) ms we are in a better place know.
They are ok for people not using IDN, for people who do not get a lot of email, for people who do not use gpg and for people who do not follow a lot of lists, but for everyone else - FAIL.
What you mean to say is they are okay for everyone save for a handful of - I dunno, not even nerds, because nerds use gmail or w/e - maybe super nerds? Hyper sperg nerds? Something like that.
I say web mail clients are ok for people who don't know better or just don't need some of the, really basic, features that most desktop clients give you. Following a discussion with, lets say, 50 emails is a pain without correct threading. I have yet to see one web based mail client that threads ok. Gmail does not. Hotmail, and whatever followed, does not. Grouping email based on subject is not threading, it is just brain dead. Ok, roundcube is almost ok.
Yes, using pgp/gpg is for nerds because the web based mail clients don't let you use it.
It is ok to use gmail etc if you dont have higher standards when it comes to email or if you value web access that high, but to rule out desktop clients just because they are desktop clients is not a very good argument. But really, there is a better alternative - use both.