Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Known Bad Email Clients

emailprivacytester.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#61

Post by fsckboy »

nehal3m wrote: post #10
Sophia95 wrote: post #6

Evolution is the only client on Linux (that I’m aware of) that fully supports Microsoft exchange and Google out of the box without any plugins. I used thunderbird for a long time, however I got frustrated so many times after things broke after every update because essential plugins stopped working. Yes, you may say Evolution UI is old, but the software is rock solid and softwares in general are more than their GUI. I…

>It’s good to bring awareness about the tracking but I’m not so bothered by it, as its hard to find software that doesn’t track you these days That's a non-sequitur. Just because it's common does not mean it's okay.

they didn't say it was ok, they said it was good to be informed about it, they were not personally bothered by it, and they added that it's difficult to find software that doesn't do it. there is no non sequitor

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#62

Post by nehal3m »

fsckboy wrote: post #61
nehal3m wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s good to bring awareness about the tracking but I’m not so bothered by it, as its hard to find software that doesn’t track you these days That's a non-sequitur. Just because it's common does not mean it's okay.

they didn't say it was ok, they said it was good to be informed about it, they were not personally bothered by it, and they added that it's difficult to find software that doesn't do it. there is no non sequitor

They said they're not bothered by it as it's difficult to find software that doesn't spy on you. I interpret that as 'I am not bothered by this because there are no alternatives'. So there is a non sequitur.

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#63

Post by esseph »

zettabomb wrote: post #57
esseph wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Exchange on Linux"? You are looking for a minority of a minority of a minority - People using Linux, people using an email client, people using Linux that want all the MS Exchange features. Tons of "general" email clients out there, sure, but you're talking about a largely proprietary system.

Have to disagree, having worked at multiple companies using Exchange for their email servers but with Linux workstations. It's not so uncommon for software devs to request a Linux system, depending on the field. I'll agree that it's less common, but the issue is more the small number of people using Linux rather than Exchange.

Sounds like we actually don't disagree at all, then!

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#64

Post by marcusb »

zettabomb wrote: post #56
marcusb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending the GNOME devs as being perfect, but I'd suggest reading this from the start: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution/-/issues/3095 and then deciding if the author is really being affected by a "toxic development culture" at GNOME.

That issue does not really work in GNOME's favor, based on reading that I'd say they're being pretty toxic.

We’ll have to agree to disagree about that. The clown-emoji guy is out of line (at least, I wouldn’t respond to a user that way,) but the reporter:

* opens up his bug report passive-aggressively complaining about not getting a response to his emailed report, which he sent to a completely unrelated domain

* immediately fished for a bug bounty payout

* submitted his report against a 2.5 year old release, wasting maintainer time and then pushes back that because it came with his preferred distribution[0] that made it the Evolution maintainer’s problem.

* when the maintainers pointed out this was a dependency problem, accuses them of “buck passing” and demands they warn users of specific distributions about the problem he reported, which is, of course, completely impractical for them to do.

* does not engage at all with the Webkit developer who is trying to explain what the problem is and why fixing in Webkit is the right thing.

* demands one of a selected list of fixes from the maintainers. Note: if his suggested fixes are so simple, a PR at this point implementing one of them would have probably been more productive than what he did post:

  I understand that this is completely out of your power to do anything about, and that it is also completely out of your power to put a notice in the UI about the functionality not working for privacy purposes. Please add clown and face-palm emojis to this comment as per my other comments, to indicate you have read it.
He didn’t do himself any favors and, IMO, doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on to complain about the tone of the response he got. He got back what he put out.

0 - a distribution, by the way, that is notorious for distributing hacked up out of date software. See: the OpenSSH key saga as well as projects like XScreensaver that have Debian-specific FAQ entries telling their users how to get reasonably up to date software (https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/faq.html#upgrade)

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#65

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

e-dant wrote: post #41

What's all this controversy with GNOME? I must be missing something. Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that some security issue in a dependency (which is maintained and open and funded, like WebKit or Linux) is not the fault of someone down the line to fix? I can't imagine someone reporting a bug to one of my repos about some race condition in the kernel. Why the hell are you bothering me with that? Tell the LKML.…

One the one hand: Yes, if it's not your code then it's not exactly your responsibility to fix.

On the other hand: As a user, the takeaway isn't "well that's not their fault", the takeaway is "if I use this software, then I am vulnerable to this problem". The question of who's responsible or where the fault lies is irrelevant.

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#66

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

esseph wrote: post #53
theyknowitsxmas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have that problem. Too bad there is no html client that isn't a massive RAM hog.

Do you often run out of memory? Want to understand this more. I know I'm talking from a position of privilege, but it's really hard to find a machine these days with less than 16 or 32GB of RAM from the factory. Even going back several years, DDR4 has been extremely cheap for a long time, and DDR5 is finally closer to general ram prices. Are you using mini PCs with soldered ram?

> Want to understand this more. I know I'm talking from a position of privilege, but it's really hard to find a machine these days with less than 16 or 32GB of RAM from the factory.

* Not everyone is using a new machine.

* Right now, if I go to https://www.bestbuy.com/ and scroll down until I hit a laptop, the first 2 have 16GB, and the third is https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-victus-15-6-144hz-full-hd-ga... with 8GB. It's not even cheap.

* On my desk right now is a mini PC with 12GB, which I bought earlier this year.

* Even if we pretend everyone has 16GB+, it would be nice if we could use that memory for other stuff instead of an email client hogging it.

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#67

Post by esseph »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #66
esseph wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you often run out of memory? Want to understand this more. I know I'm talking from a position of privilege, but it's really hard to find a machine these days with less than 16 or 32GB of RAM from the factory. Even going back several years, DDR4 has been extremely cheap for a long time, and DDR5 is finally closer to general ram prices. Are you using mini PCs with soldered ram?

> Want to understand this more. I know I'm talking from a position of privilege, but it's really hard to find a machine these days with less than 16 or 32GB of RAM from the factory. * Not everyone is using a new machine. * Right now, if I go to https://www.bestbuy.com/ and scroll down until I hit a laptop, the first 2 have 16GB, and the third is https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-victus-15-6-144hz-full-hd-ga... with 8GB…

Maybe, but email clients are basically web browsers these days.

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#68

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

esseph wrote: post #67
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Want to understand this more. I know I'm talking from a position of privilege, but it's really hard to find a machine these days with less than 16 or 32GB of RAM from the factory. * Not everyone is using a new machine. * Right now, if I go to https://www.bestbuy.com/ and scroll down until I hit a laptop, the first 2 have 16GB, and the third is https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-victus-15-6-144hz-full-hd-ga... with 8GB…

Maybe, but email clients are basically web browsers these days.

Okay, but that's worse. Like, there's some argument about whether browsers should display documents vs being an entire operating system with an entire portable execution environment for arbitrary applications... but an email client has no such excuse.

Re: Known Bad Email Clients

#69

Post by esseph »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #68
esseph wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but email clients are basically web browsers these days.

Okay, but that's worse. Like, there's some argument about whether browsers should display documents vs being an entire operating system with an entire portable execution environment for arbitrary applications... but an email client has no such excuse.

I'm not pointing out what I think it should be, I'm just acknowledging the reality of my inbox.
Post reply on HN