Comparing Mail Clients - Authentication
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dcparris Jan 19, 2007 3:59 PM EDT |
I just discovered that MS Outlook only supports the login and MSN login authentication methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-mail_clients Outlook Express offers SMTP Auth. Neither client offers any of the other authentication methods available (MD-5 or any of the others). Is Outlook's inability to handle secure logins a serious problem? Is that a serious handicap, or can that issue be easily blown out of proportion? How does your organization handle stmp authentication? |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 19, 2007 4:24 PM EDT |
We use Notes <barf> |
| jdixon Jan 19, 2007 7:12 PM EDT |
> Is Outlook's inability to handle secure logins a serious problem? For connecting to a server on the Internet, yes. For connecting to a server on your local network, probably not. Your local network is (in theory) secure, so an unsecured login is not a big deal. > How does your organization handle stmp authentication? As with sander, we use Notes. As a complete product, it's excellent, and I don't know of anything else that's really in its class. For just email, it's way overkill. The company that's buying out my division uses Outlook and Exchange. :( |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 20, 2007 6:42 AM EDT |
I hate Notes to no end. A simple POP3/IMAP server, plus a decent wiki, a jabber server and a webDAV/iCal service can do anything Notes can but much better. Notes doesn't even let me make inline replies and I hate that. Not can I force all e-mails to be plaintext. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2007 8:22 AM EDT |
> A simple POP3/IMAP server, plus a decent wiki, a jabber server and a webDAV/iCal service can do anything Notes can but much better. It can probably meet most peoples needs just as well, yes. But I don't think it can do everything Notes can. I think you'd have to add a database server and frontend for that, then integrate them into one interface. However, I'm not a Notes expert, merely a support tech, so each person will have to be the judge of that for themselves. |
| tuxchick Jan 20, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
Don, that's just plain pitiful. I would double-check your information and make sure that Wikipedia isn't leading you astray. If it is true, that definitely is a problem. Just taking a quick look, the leaves out a lot of information, and has some errors. The most important authentication to support, in my needlessly-humble opinion, is SSL/TLS. It's easy to setup and manage, and pretty much universal. At least in the sane Unix-y universe. :) **edit** and yes, an inability to support secure logins is a problem. A big one. sheesh. :) |
| dcparris Jan 20, 2007 10:17 AM EDT |
Tuxxy, I'll do a little double-checking. I also see I did not scroll far enough down to see the separate SSL/TLS table. It shows OL supporting SSL, but not TLS. It seems like a problem to me. I'm just a dumb ol' news editor though. :-) I ain't one of them thar fancy-shmancy rocket-science fellers. You know, the kind what has a pocket protector, and them new-fangled horn-rimmed spectacles and all. Since I only use Outlook at work - and someone else administers the cotton-pickin' thang, I just don't know how serious the problem is. Is it serious Doc? You can tell me. I suppose that, as long as they offer at least SSL, the lack of MD-5 support is a little less worrisome. Otherwise, I would have been running around like Chicken Little - "The sky is falling! Outlook is un-safe! The sky is falling!" :-) |
| tuxchick Jan 20, 2007 11:00 AM EDT |
SSL and TLS are pretty much the same thing. I think only protocol and encryption geeks care about the differences. The important bits are both the login and data transfer are encrypted, and it's easy to set up since only the server has to authenticate itself. Of course, with a promiscuous embracer of random unsafe executables like Outlook it hardly matters, since the dumb thing rolls out a big red welcome mat right into the guts of the operating system to any malware that strolls by. Big deal if user's precious and unique multiply-forwarded blonde jokes are encrypted during transmission, when just using Outlook + Windoze is akin to rolling in honey and lying on a fire anthill. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 20, 2007 4:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:then integrate them into one interface Um, please no. An integrated interface is not what you need to offer the same functionality that Notes offers. Actually, most Notes users I know (the one's in my office) would love for separation on the functionality. Why would you want to load all of Notes if all you want to do is check if some document has been added to database X, or if you just want a quick IM with person Y? Better: people don't want to be bothered by other people's IM's (SameTime) when they just want to check their e-mail quickly. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2007 7:06 PM EDT |
> Why would you want to load all of Notes if all you want to do is check if some document has been added to database X, or if you just want a quick IM with person Y? Well, I agree, but that's what Notes does. I didn't say it was the right thing to do, but if you want to duplicate Notes functionality, that's what you need to offer. And, for reasons I've never understood, most people seem to prefer it that way. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 21, 2007 12:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:And, for reasons I've never understood, most people seem to prefer it that way. At my office, all I hear is complaints about the Notes bloat :-) |
You cannot post until you login.