Desktop vs Web for email
After reading the latest xobni thread, I am curious how people choose to read their email. I use gmail because I can access it anywhere, and that feature pretty much trumps all others, privacy concerns included.
54 comments
Whenever possible I use gnus, primarily for the newsgroup-thread-style UI and editing power of emacs. I also take advantage of its inherent customizability with elisp to handle my different From addresses, conditional BCC, filtering, etc.
I use gmail for low priority traffic like mailing lists, and everything else goes through FastMail (http://fastmail.fm/) which is quite simply the best email host I've ever found. For $40/y you get hosting for 50 domains (and 30 aliases on FM's many domains); SpamAssassin; Sieve filtering; secure IMAP, POP and SMTP; 2GB storage; and a nice web UI which suffices when I'm away from gnus.
I use gmail for low priority traffic like mailing lists, and everything else goes through FastMail (http://fastmail.fm/) which is quite simply the best email host I've ever found. For $40/y you get hosting for 50 domains (and 30 aliases on FM's many domains); SpamAssassin; Sieve filtering; secure IMAP, POP and SMTP; 2GB storage; and a nice web UI which suffices when I'm away from gnus.
Interesting, I use the same setup: gnus + fastmail.fm IMAP. IMAP of course lets me use a number of MUAs (such as Mail.app or fastmail's web access) but I primarily use gnus.
Fastmail.fm + Thunderbird. IMAP is the best thing since sliced bread, and with the web interface, I can have my cake and eat it, too.
Sorry for the food analogies; I'm hungry!
Sorry for the food analogies; I'm hungry!
Gmail is the best interface for email, on or off the web.
It really pains me to here so many give a knee-jerk "Gmail is the best answer," as I quite strongly feel that that is no longer the case.
When Gmail first came out, I certainly would have agreed with that statement. When I first received a Gmail invite, I placed "make Gmail address main one" somewhere on my to-do list.
Since then, however, Yahoo has mostly-replaced Yahoo! Mail with Yahoo! Mail Beta, which I strongly feel is far superior to Gmail (and far, far, far superior to the Yahoo! Mail Classic). Its main advantage (but definitely not its only) is its GUI, which contains its own tabbing system, the ability to read an e-mail in an iframe merely by selecting it in the inbox, the ability to move between folders via drag-and-drop, and much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21_Mail#Yahoo.21_Mail_AJA...
When Gmail first came out, I certainly would have agreed with that statement. When I first received a Gmail invite, I placed "make Gmail address main one" somewhere on my to-do list.
Since then, however, Yahoo has mostly-replaced Yahoo! Mail with Yahoo! Mail Beta, which I strongly feel is far superior to Gmail (and far, far, far superior to the Yahoo! Mail Classic). Its main advantage (but definitely not its only) is its GUI, which contains its own tabbing system, the ability to read an e-mail in an iframe merely by selecting it in the inbox, the ability to move between folders via drag-and-drop, and much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21_Mail#Yahoo.21_Mail_AJA...
Last time I tried the Yahoo! Mail Beta, there was no fallback to basic HTML; since I tend to find myself in links quite frequently, that matters. In contrast, Gmail's Basic HTML mode seems to be better every time I try it... that's decisive for me.
Relatedly, but off topic: It still appals me how many sites don't gracefully degrade back to vanilla HTML. Or even check, for heaven's sake, merrily making all of their links Javascript-only. Not nearly as many as assume that you can't possibly be using your own fonts or setting minimum point sizes, admittedly (my eyesight isn't what it used to be, and it never used to be up to much) but even so... I keep hoping that someday a revision of HTML will come out that banishes the javascript: protocol from links altogether.
Relatedly, but off topic: It still appals me how many sites don't gracefully degrade back to vanilla HTML. Or even check, for heaven's sake, merrily making all of their links Javascript-only. Not nearly as many as assume that you can't possibly be using your own fonts or setting minimum point sizes, admittedly (my eyesight isn't what it used to be, and it never used to be up to much) but even so... I keep hoping that someday a revision of HTML will come out that banishes the javascript: protocol from links altogether.
It just copies the Outlook interface. If I wanted that interface, I'd use Thunderbird. Gmail has a fundamentally better GUI.
Yahoo! Mail is both slower and uglier than Gmail. It also forces you to a nasty ad page when you login. Other than that, not bad. I say this having both open on other firefox tabs.
With no "snarkiness" intended I have to ask: Do you have any affiliation with or work for Yahoo?
For reading, maybe, but for writing emails (or anything else) nothing beats emacs.
Gmail is my choice only because it is relatively ad-free. Lack of folders, down-my-throat "conversations" instead of individual messages and pathetic editor are a pain in the back. Gmail sucks when you're managing 4-5 simultaneous email threads daily with various random incoming messages.
I use 3 different computers running two OS'es - that is the only reason I use web-based mail. Back in the day when everything was on my laptop, I liked "TheBat!" and ThunderBird.
I use 3 different computers running two OS'es - that is the only reason I use web-based mail. Back in the day when everything was on my laptop, I liked "TheBat!" and ThunderBird.
I don't understand the lack of folders complaint. Labels achieve the same thing, and more flexibly, even, since the same message can show up in various places, and its read status is what it should be.
I use evolution for work email and use its "vfolders" extensively. They have a different name, and they predate "tagging", but they're really the same thing, and difficult to live without.
In gmail, I would prefer proper threads instead of "conversations", but in practice the difference is minimal.
The crappy editor is its biggest problem, but even that can be worked around.
I use evolution for work email and use its "vfolders" extensively. They have a different name, and they predate "tagging", but they're really the same thing, and difficult to live without.
In gmail, I would prefer proper threads instead of "conversations", but in practice the difference is minimal.
The crappy editor is its biggest problem, but even that can be worked around.
I agree, although if you could login to multiple accounts simultaneously this might solve the problem.
1) Register domain
2) Register Google Apps
3) Shift DNS entries
4) Yeah! 100 x 2GB email accounts, for free, with integrated XMPP! And an incredibly simple administrative interface.
I get frustrated from time to time with the thread-centric organization (especially with long branching threads). Nonetheless, it's my primary mail client.
Funny -- I am migrating away from gmail and back to yahoo's web-mail service. Unlimited storage, great UI. w00t!
I agree 100%.
I use Mail.app for mac. I have an IMAP account that has squirrel mail access and essentially infinite storage. The squirrel mail was a pain and I went to gmail while I was in the corporate world. Now that I have a startup I am mostly on my machine and the webmail is just a backup that I seldom use if I'm on another machine.
-I like drag and drop attachments. -I like the OS integration. Click on an email link from the browser, send something from iPhoto etc... -I hate that when I hit tab on gmail it focuses on the send button. -I like having email offline. -I like to be able to fast-seach AND THEN sort. -I like realtime spellcheck.
Gmail is the best web interface by far but in my opinion it is inferior to mail.app. I think the tipping point comes when you're spending more time on a machine w/o your client, gmail is the way to go.
-I like drag and drop attachments. -I like the OS integration. Click on an email link from the browser, send something from iPhoto etc... -I hate that when I hit tab on gmail it focuses on the send button. -I like having email offline. -I like to be able to fast-seach AND THEN sort. -I like realtime spellcheck.
Gmail is the best web interface by far but in my opinion it is inferior to mail.app. I think the tipping point comes when you're spending more time on a machine w/o your client, gmail is the way to go.
I completely agree -- I use the web for ease on the go. I have way too many computers that I regularly use to bother setting up a desktop client.
Lots of companies don't like email on other servers, calling it a security risk.
That's probably true, but given the lacking security in other areas in almost every company I've heard with this policy, the security excuse is useless.
Lots of companies don't like email on other servers, calling it a security risk.
That's probably true, but given the lacking security in other areas in almost every company I've heard with this policy, the security excuse is useless.
I really don't care for Gmail. I run my own IMAP server and use Mail.app on my Mac, and RoundCube webmail when I'm on another computer.
I use mutt, over ssh if I'm working remotely.
I use both. You don't have to choose just one. Having your own email server gives you lots of options.
Same here. If I'm away from my computer, I use GMail, but if I'm at my computer (i.e. most of the time), it's Mac Mail. Why pass up the UI superiority and integration with the rest of the system? Using both doesn't diminish my ability to use GMail on the road, which is where it has the obvious advantage.
Yeah, but it means you're on the hook if things break. I switched to Gmail a few years ago, and I love that any Gmail breakage is Google's problem, not mine.
Gmail is great, but why would you ever rely on a 3rd party for a main form of business communication? I like having my own servers, but I build in lots of redundancy, so that I'm covered. No matter what happens.
At home I used Pegasus Mail until a year or two ago, when I switched to Thunderbird. At work I use Outlook. I don't have a strong preference for either.
I check email on the web only when I absolutely have to. I like the gmail interface, but still vastly prefer to download my email.
If I can get emacs configured, I'll start using that. I get hundreds of emails a day and at any given time I only care about maybe 5% of them. But it's a different 5% every day and sometimes I want to be interrupted. I need to be able to change my filters on the fly. With Outlook, you have to pull up application-halting dialog boxes and click through several different UIs to change them.
I check email on the web only when I absolutely have to. I like the gmail interface, but still vastly prefer to download my email.
If I can get emacs configured, I'll start using that. I get hundreds of emails a day and at any given time I only care about maybe 5% of them. But it's a different 5% every day and sometimes I want to be interrupted. I need to be able to change my filters on the fly. With Outlook, you have to pull up application-halting dialog boxes and click through several different UIs to change them.
What if you ssh to a server and use a text-based MUA? That does not exactly qualify as desktop, does it. It's a third category, which I personally prefer most of the time.
For the record, I'm using gnus with IMAP and emacs within screen on linux.
For the record, I'm using gnus with IMAP and emacs within screen on linux.
I slipped pretty rapidly from gnus, in emacs, to thunderbird, to gmail - it's just too convenient to have it on the server with a good interface. Sometimes, I do miss the fact that the others are open source, and hackable, though.
The only mail clients that I can make do everything I want them to do are gnus, mutt, and sylpheed. I like having my mail client inside emacs, but I switched back from gnus to mutt. Gnus takes too long to start up and is too brittle if your IMAP connection is unreliable. Mutt does occasionally hang for the same reasons, but then it's just a matter of C-\ and rerun it, rather than taking my whole emacs session with it.
Thunderbird is missing the ability to pipe messages through an external process.
Thunderbird is missing the ability to pipe messages through an external process.
gnus has been ok for me for two reasons:
1) fastmail.fm (the IMAP service I use has been very reliable for years now)
2) I don't actually start gnus, or emacs, or a linux terminal session on a daily basis; I just keep them running and use ssh and screen to get to them. It's only text mode of course, but for the last 5 years or so I rarely had a real need for anything more than text (and if such need arises, I just use the web access to the IMAP server or another MUA).
1) fastmail.fm (the IMAP service I use has been very reliable for years now)
2) I don't actually start gnus, or emacs, or a linux terminal session on a daily basis; I just keep them running and use ssh and screen to get to them. It's only text mode of course, but for the last 5 years or so I rarely had a real need for anything more than text (and if such need arises, I just use the web access to the IMAP server or another MUA).
I abandoned gnus when I decided I needed a spam filter, and just didn't want to spend a whole day fiddling with Emacs Lisp, and worrying about silently trashing my mail.
I've considered switching to gmail several times, but still prefer gnus, the main reason being full control.
Does no one else miss the ability to easily send attachments with web-based clients?
I can't stand desktop mail. It's not portable (sure, lugging a notebook is or having a space limited IMAP helps) and there's always the backup problem. I hate worrying about losing messages so I tend to offload that risk to competent folks over at Google.
As for security, email is not secure. It never was and probably never will be. PGP etc. is too hard for most of the people so even if you use it, majority of your corresponders won't.
Desktop email is an anachronism. With the proliferation of rich mobile devices (e.g. iPhone) it will become obsolete.
As for security, email is not secure. It never was and probably never will be. PGP etc. is too hard for most of the people so even if you use it, majority of your corresponders won't.
Desktop email is an anachronism. With the proliferation of rich mobile devices (e.g. iPhone) it will become obsolete.
You may be confusing email with instant messaging. As a channel for exchanging documents (as opposed to messages) email (and desktop email especially) is still indispensable.
You are 100% right about lack of security though.
You are 100% right about lack of security though.
Don't think so. Desktop mail is not much different from web mail when it comes to exchanging documents. Heck, these days with all these web apps around, you don't even need to use a desktop app.
I disagree. Browsers still do not let you embed your data (files) into submitted pages conveniently. We are still unable to easily grab a file and email it to 5 people using webmail. Moreover, even slightly complex documents (i.e. with MORE than just text with basic formatting) are pain to email/consume with webmail.
Or try emailing me a snipped of source code preserving syntax highlighting, formatting and fonts&colors.
Webmail is in stone age when it comes to feature set and usability. It has one HUGE advantage (mobility) but that's about it.
Most people are fine using it because most people, understandably, are not sending each other "documents", but I would describe a typical personal email rather as "short message".
Or try emailing me a snipped of source code preserving syntax highlighting, formatting and fonts&colors.
Webmail is in stone age when it comes to feature set and usability. It has one HUGE advantage (mobility) but that's about it.
Most people are fine using it because most people, understandably, are not sending each other "documents", but I would describe a typical personal email rather as "short message".
The choice of desktop vs web for email boils down to whether you are an individual user or an Enterprise. I suspect that Xobni is targeting the enterprise. Otherwise, I dont see the point of an outlook plugin. Software as a service has been and will continue to be a hardsell for enterprises due to the security considerations of having a third party handle your proprietary information. Its not just about paranoid IT admins. Companies will probably need dedicated mail servers to be in line with Sarbanes Oxley and other regulatory laws.
So it is always a violation of Sarbanes Oxley for a public corporation to use Google Apps/Gmail?
I did not say that. But they will need a 3rd party auditor to certify that Gmail is "secure" -- whatever that means. SOX has caused more pain than transparency..
They will need to prove more than that. The people sending the mail have certain fiduciary duties to the shareholders of the corporation. It will take some doing to convince an arbiter or, God forbid, a federal judge, that giving clear text copies of internal corporate communications to a third party is consistent with those obligations. Especially since the EULAs of these services typically oblige an enterprise to use the "...It's OK...they promise not to read it" defense.
Even better, an employee of one of these services, quite innocently, sells some of a client corporation's stock. That corporation better hope to whatever they consider Holy that the stock refrains from dropping for a while. SOX makes it a good deal easier to prosecute lots of different parties to the appearance of impropriety. Guilt and innocence goes out the window. What matters is what is LEGAL, and a little something called "burden of proof". In my own opinion, it is so low now that a sick kindergarten age child could hurdle it.
Unless you are a VERY good lawyer, or you can afford one, or preferably 10, I would advise you to stay away from any SOX entanglements. Sell the enterprise some software to run on their own servers, DO NOT offer to manage it if you are a startup.
That said, if you can afford the battalion of attorneys, move forward with your plans. Keep in mind however, indemnity clauses in the new SOX era means you go to prison WITH them should anything go horribly awry.
Even better, an employee of one of these services, quite innocently, sells some of a client corporation's stock. That corporation better hope to whatever they consider Holy that the stock refrains from dropping for a while. SOX makes it a good deal easier to prosecute lots of different parties to the appearance of impropriety. Guilt and innocence goes out the window. What matters is what is LEGAL, and a little something called "burden of proof". In my own opinion, it is so low now that a sick kindergarten age child could hurdle it.
Unless you are a VERY good lawyer, or you can afford one, or preferably 10, I would advise you to stay away from any SOX entanglements. Sell the enterprise some software to run on their own servers, DO NOT offer to manage it if you are a startup.
That said, if you can afford the battalion of attorneys, move forward with your plans. Keep in mind however, indemnity clauses in the new SOX era means you go to prison WITH them should anything go horribly awry.
Thanks for the answer, I didn't know how third party data storage worked under SOX.
I've used gmail for the last couple of years, but only because email hasn't been very important to me and I've had always-on web access. Now that both of those circumstances seem about to change, I think it's time I learned my way around mutt... or some other offline client.
The one thing I dislike about gmail is that I find myself reluctant to use it to write long emails. Especially in Basic HTML view.
The one thing I dislike about gmail is that I find myself reluctant to use it to write long emails. Especially in Basic HTML view.
I use desktop mail (Evolution) unless I'm on somebody else's computer. The biggest reason is that it lets me keep all my mail in one place. I don't want to have to log in to several different web mail accounts, use different UIs and have to remember which account different messages are in.
My primary address is on Gmail, and I do use the web interface when I can't got to my laptop, but I prefer not to.
My primary address is on Gmail, and I do use the web interface when I can't got to my laptop, but I prefer not to.
I use both. I have 3 email accounts, two of which have a webmail interface and one that does not. I primarily use Thunderbird but don't delete messages for n days (well never for gmail) so I can also check with various webmail accounts. Among other nice things the ability to filter out HTML is a "killer feature" I simply can not live without and have yet to see duplicated in any webmail interface.
I like the GMAIL interface, I run it all day long(literally).
I've used other webmail like the new and improved AOL and Yahoo, but it's too feature rich for me,it takes up too much processing power of my 1.4ghz aand 512mb ram puter and I am already used to using GMAIL.
At work I am forced to use outlook, but would much rather use thunderbird.
I've used other webmail like the new and improved AOL and Yahoo, but it's too feature rich for me,it takes up too much processing power of my 1.4ghz aand 512mb ram puter and I am already used to using GMAIL.
At work I am forced to use outlook, but would much rather use thunderbird.
Apple Mail, when I'm away, either my isp webmail or Gmail. I don't like web mail - the user experience is poor and inconsistent.
I used to use desktop email. Pain in the neck - what about when you're using a different PC, what about when you're upgrading to a new O/S, what if you're at an internet cafe and just need to find that email...
GMail is excellent. Well thought out interface, and it just works.
GMail is excellent. Well thought out interface, and it just works.
I love the labels and filters and I use Google Calendar religiously and gmail integrates with that pretty well.
I prefer my email on Evolution/Outlook, much better than gmail.