Talk:Outlook Express

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Eudora 2 Security 3 PGP in MsOE? 4 Digital signatures 5 Regarding the image 6 POV check

[edit] Eudora

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

[edit] Security

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

[edit] PGP in MsOE?

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))

[edit] Digital signatures

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).

[edit] Regarding the image

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)

[edit] POV check

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)