Post by: Silver Bullet on September 13, 2005, 05:00:50 PM
Web-based ?
POP3 ?
Thanks
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 13, 2005, 05:21:43 PM
http://www.fepg.net/
I have a couple of mail.com accounts PITA.
one hotmail account so-so
a couple of Yahoo accounts (Best IMO)
Post by: K Frame on September 13, 2005, 05:30:47 PM
Post by: Phyphor on September 13, 2005, 05:40:26 PM
Post by: grampster on September 13, 2005, 05:56:12 PM
edit: Actually I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird. I forgot I switched.
Post by: K Frame on September 13, 2005, 06:23:07 PM
I'll be damned if I'm going to install MS Outlook (aka Virus Propagator 2, Delux Edition) on any of my computers.
If it comes preloaded, it's IMMEDIATELY stripped off.
I suppose I could go with another package like Eudora, which isn't a wide-open door for bugs, viri, and intrusions...
Post by: HForrest on September 13, 2005, 06:27:11 PM
Post by: garrettwc on September 13, 2005, 06:36:24 PM
#2 Gmail
Post by: Vodka7 on September 13, 2005, 07:24:30 PM
But hey, they're free, try em all out
Post by: jefnvk on September 13, 2005, 08:09:50 PM
And yeah, I do use Outlook. Never had any issues with it.
Post by: jamz on September 13, 2005, 08:28:06 PM
love, james
Post by: mtnbkr on September 14, 2005, 02:32:21 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
My cable internet provider (Cox in Northern Virginia) gives you SEVEN e-mail accounts.
I'll be damned if I'm going to install MS Outlook (aka Virus Propagator 2, Delux Edition) on any of my computers.
If it comes preloaded, it's IMMEDIATELY stripped off.
I suppose I could go with another package like Eudora, which isn't a wide-open door for bugs, viri, and intrusions...
Where's the rolling eye smiley when you need it...I'll be damned if I'm going to install MS Outlook (aka Virus Propagator 2, Delux Edition) on any of my computers.
If it comes preloaded, it's IMMEDIATELY stripped off.
I suppose I could go with another package like Eudora, which isn't a wide-open door for bugs, viri, and intrusions...
You can use Outlook without getting viruses if you simply exercise a bit of common sense. Most of the virus problems come from idiot users clicking things they shouldn't. I've been using Outlook as my email client at home (makes managing 3 accounts easy) for 5 years now and haven't had a single computer virus infection.
As for free email services, I've been happy with Gmail. Hotmail wasn't too bad a few years ago. Mail.com blows. It's so ad driven now, it's almost useless.
Chris
Post by: client32 on September 14, 2005, 03:18:04 AM
you can use either web based or pop3.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 14, 2005, 03:22:19 AM
I'm kinda looking to limit my exposure from spamming to my main email service.
Thanks.
Post by: Marnoot on September 14, 2005, 06:16:51 AM
Quote from: "Mike Irwin"
I suppose I could go with another package like Eudora
Give Mozilla Thunderbird a try. Fully capable, free email program. With its extensions you can get it do just about whatever you want and its adaptive junkmail filter works great for me.
Post by: K Frame on September 14, 2005, 06:37:35 AM
It's heading to your office to give you the biach slapping you richly deserve.
"You can use Outlook without getting viruses if you simply exercise a bit of common sense."
I don't think you'll disagree that Outlook is the portal through which the vast majority of virus infections spread, and that many of those infections are propagated via e-mails that APPEAR to have come from a trusted source.
Thanks, but I find that it's far easier, and more logical, to give Bill Gates the fickle finger of fate that he so richly deserves than go "Hey Chris, did you send me this file, or do you have a virus" about 50 times a week for the various friends who send me attachments.
You best of all know that I'm not some super secret computer ubergeek (unlike some people I know
), so for me the most "common sense" option is to simply destroy the infection vector at its source.Anything I can do to keep that sawed off little pansy from controlling every aspect of my computational life is just fine with me.
Post by: client32 on September 14, 2005, 08:43:42 AM
"so for me the most 'common sense' option is to simply destroy the infection vector at its source"
Mike, this message isn't aimed directly at you. I am just going to respond to your quotes since I get the same arguments every day.
As I am sure you know there are several ways to to aid in the battle against spam and viruses. Two have been suggested, use common sense and use another program. First, on common sense, not every has it when it comes to computers. That is unfortunate, but this is the case for everyone. Educating everyone is simple security practices would help, but is not really possible. Second, using another program. Right now that is a great option. However, the other program you choose isn't bullet proof. The simple fact is that right now MS products are targeted. When the tides shift (if they shift) and another products takes a big chunk of the market share, you will see problems there as well.
What is the point of all this rambling...... well simply put, please to fall into a mindset that since you don't use outlook, you can't get infected with a virus.
Post by: K Frame on September 14, 2005, 09:21:58 AM
I don't believe that for a second, nor have I tried to claim it.
It is true that Outlook is the target of opportunity right now.
But why is that?
Because so damned many people use Outlook, personally and professionally. The saturation rate is extreme.
Another reason is because Microsoft's security practices for its software have been, for years, a damned joke.
Bill Gates has done one thing well -- help drive the cost of computers down to where just about anyone can afford a computer.
He's also done one thing amazing poorly -- ensuring the security of the applications that are virtual world-wide standards.
Post by: jefnvk on September 14, 2005, 09:31:44 AM
Quote
Another reason is because Microsoft's security practices for its software have been, for years, a damned joke.
Ah, we studied this for a bit in one of my CS classes. There is a common misconception out there that just because something is open source, it can't have lax security practices either. Just because anyone can look at the code, doesn't mean anyone has.I think if we didn't let every grandma and 6 year old use a computer, the virus rate would drop incredibly. People not knowing what they are doing contributes just as much to problems as any security-riddled program.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 14, 2005, 09:59:31 AM
Post by: igor on September 15, 2005, 02:27:33 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 15, 2005, 05:40:11 AM
If it is, it hasn't been for very long.
The security emphasis on Windows and other MS applications have been lacking for years. I'm not sure, but I suspect that it was in part because the systems WEREN'T open source. It seems that the predominant thinking was "Well, if we don't share the code with anyone, we don't have to worry so much about security testing and sealing the holes. We can deal with things as the crop up," which is exactly what Microsoft did for years.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 15, 2005, 06:40:11 AM
Quote
The security emphasis on Windows and other MS applications have been lacking for years. I'm not sure, but I suspect that it was in part because the systems WEREN'T open source. It seems that the predominant thinking was "Well, if we don't share the code with anyone, we don't have to worry so much about security testing and sealing the holes. We can deal with things as the crop up," which is exactly what Microsoft did for years.
That's what the open source geeks want you to believe. Most users (the 6yo and the grandmother listed above) don't want that kind of security because they lose nifty features and have to learn how to use their shiny new computer. USERS hate security because it impacts the way they *want* to use a computer. Try sitting in a technical meeting with a few non-technical managers and find out what end users think of security. You present them with more than a single login (even when dealing with multiple systems) and they lose interest. Ma and Pa down the street don't care about security and don't want to be bothered. Toss them a Linux CD and they'll be just as insecure as they are with Windows. It's not enough that the applications are "secure", they have to be properly installed on a secure system (which requires proper installation as well). The sort of person who can't avoid virii in Outlook would likely be just as fscked with an Open Source solution. They're better now, but back when I was using Linux frequently, a default install was a secure as a screen door. Then again, Windows isn't any better, but both can be secure IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING (I run several Windows servers that are audited by the govt yearly and I've never failed an audit). Chris
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 15, 2005, 07:34:36 AM
I've got invites, if anyone wants them.
Post by: jefnvk on September 15, 2005, 08:33:35 AM
Quote
That's what the open source geeks want you to believe. Most users (the 6yo and the grandmother listed above) don't want that kind of security because they lose nifty features and have to learn how to use their shiny new computer.
Exactly, that is what I have been trying to get at. Open source has nothing to do with it, unless you want to look through the thousands of lines of code trying to figure out what each does. The people being affected are not going to be doing that. And again, just because the code is open to look at, doesn't mean anyone is.It is kinda like a car. Most people are never going to open the hood and figure out how and why everything works, and see if any improvements can be made. All they want is to turn it on and have it work.
Another potentially bad thing about open source, under many licenses you are free to modify and distribute the code. If we ever get to the point where open source is dominant, I see a big threat being misleadingly advertised products. Someone takes a good product, enters a few lines of malicious code, and redistributes it under the original name. Grandma and the 6 year old (probably not even me) are not going to look through all the code to make sure that it is right, the only way it is going to be found out about is when it does whatever it is designed to do. Sure, I could MD5 sum it, but honestly, how many people on the internet know what an MD5 is?
I'm not saying that one is better than the other, just that someone saying that one is completely better/safer/securer than the other isn't taking everything into consideration. Simply put, those that know what ther are doing are going to be much more secure with whatever they are using, than someone who doesn't know what they are doing on the most secure system.
A good IE v. Mozilla example. I hit a website that tried to load something on my computer with IE. It made a pop-down box that looked exactly like the Info bar telling me how to disable my security to get this great feature. For the fun of it, I tried it with FireFox. It wasn't the same exact way, but it did tell me exactly how to install this latest and greatest thing that I needed to view that site. With something like that, it doesn't matter how secure the system is, if the person using it isn't smart enough to recognize a threat. Same with the virus outbreaks at the company I co-oped for. Everytime, it was some idiot running an executable that they got. They didn't affect anyone that didn't run it, just the ones stupid enough to realize menaked.jpg.vbs is not a file to try and look at.
Post by: K Frame on September 15, 2005, 08:47:00 AM
"Try sitting in a technical meeting with a few non-technical managers and find out what end users think of security."
Hello, been there, done that, both with Navy Federal and with SAIC. I know I've never really gone in to depth about what I do for a living, but I thought I had at least covered that part of my background with you. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a computer geek. I'm just the person you clowns call when you want your gobblese turned into something intelligible that the average human being can understand.
I also categorically disagree that Ma and Pa don't care about security. They both care about and want security, but security that is ACTUAL security, not the smoke and mirrors wracked full of holes BS that Bill Gates has been selling for years.
Post by: jefnvk on September 15, 2005, 10:34:53 AM
Quote
OK, go I guess what we're really getting at, then, is that Outlook and the rest of Gateland applications are the securest applications on the face of the earth, they're just "misunderstood"?
Nope, just that the open source isn't as secure as everyone makes it to be. Somehow along the popularity gain of open source, 'potentially more secure' evolved into 'no security problems'.http://www.cert.org/ Poke around there. Just on the front page of threats, I see MS, Apple, Firefox, UNIX and Cisco all listed with recent vulnerabilities.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 15, 2005, 11:29:09 AM
Quote
OK, go I guess what we're really getting at, then, is that Outlook and the rest of Gateland applications are the securest applications on the face of the earth, they're just "misunderstood"?
No, just misconfigured. Just because a product is insecure out of the box doesn't make it insecure forever. That's good though, it keeps me employed. 
Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 15, 2005, 11:41:08 AM
Hence my point that Microsoft has ignored potential security problems for years.
Post by: roo_ster on September 15, 2005, 12:40:26 PM
I'll take the risk that some character inserted malicious code into an open source app. We already take that risk with all the proprietary code developed for MS in India & other points east. Difference is, we have absolutely no chance to catch the backdoor inserted into MS code by an Indian coder & manager paid the equivalent of 10 years' salary by the Chicoms. We have a chance to catch such a bit of code in an open source app. Don't think such a snippet of code could get by honest MS code auditors? Three words: "Excel Flight Simulator."
Post by: roo_ster on September 15, 2005, 12:43:06 PM
Firefox & T-Bird have so many user-empowering extensions, I have much more control of my web experience. And I don't have to wade through menus to do it.
Post by: Marnoot on September 15, 2005, 01:16:50 PM
Quote from: jfruser
Firefox & T-Bird have so many user-empowering extensions, I have much more control of my web experience. And I don't have to wade through menus to do it.
That right there is why I use Firefox and Thunderbird over IE and Outlook. At the moment, you are slightly less likely to be compromised on the internet when using Thunderbird/Firefox, but that's simply because it hasn't been targeted nearly as heavily. Vulnerabilities certainly exist. But security isn't the reason I use open-source where possible; there are two main reasons: Configurability (extensions/plug-ins in Firefox and Thunderbird; more features constantly added, no need to wait 4 years for the next version to get new features), and Cost (Microsoft Office is expensive. I use Open Office 2. For most of what most people use Office for, Open Office works great. I'll grant that there are advanced features that OO lacks, and in such cases I'll use MS Office.) I'm not an open-source geek, my usage of open source is limited to Firefox, T-Bird, Open Office, and various misc. little utilities and codecs. I assume by open-source geek, mtnbkr, you're referring to those with the [pothead voice]"Dude! You can't like, own source code!!"[/pothead voice]-type attitudes. Open-source for me is just an alternative. Sometimes what's available in the open-source world is worse than commercial applications, sometimes better, and sometimes comparable.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 15, 2005, 02:14:32 PM
Quote
Hence my point that Microsoft has ignored potential security problems for years.
Maybe I wasn't clear...Every system needs to be secured. The features necessary for security are there, they aren't configured because doing so without knowing the context makes the user's life painful. Users buy other systems when the one they chose first is too difficult to use.
Quote
I assume by open-source geek, mtnbkr, you're referring to those with the [pothead voice]"Dude! You can't like, own source code!!"[/pothead voice]-type attitudes.
Yes. FWIW, I use a mix of open and closed source software. What's more important than what you use is knowing how to use it and when.
Chris
Post by: jefnvk on September 15, 2005, 02:50:30 PM
Quote
Hence my point that Microsoft has ignored potential security problems for years.
Or, as mentioned earlier, they configure functionality right out of the box. If people have to wade through settings to get their email to work right because MS had every port shut off, they aren't going to like it.
Post by: InfidelSerf on September 15, 2005, 04:38:14 PM
I have a 100 invites if any one wants one
Post by: Guest on September 15, 2005, 06:50:03 PM
Thunderbird - email client of choice
Hushmail is another free Web based one I use, encrypted. www.hushmail.com.
Now as an CIS/IT student, and I admit I am NOT where many of you are.
I am requred to use IE for some class material. I most often do this thru the College's IT Lab/ or IT Bldg.
When I had to have a free web based email client, ( required to find two and use for Internet Technologies) - I used hushmail and Lycos.
"Done seen" too many folks having trouble wth MSN, Yahoo, OE and all sorts of nasties. In fact , some folks will not accept these for a email addy for some class related matters.
Lycos? Who in the hell is gonna target Lycos? I guess I still have an account from that semester, never rec'd any spam or bunch of other stuff either from them. The MSN and Yahoo folks sure did.
I did let the husmail expire from that semester, I have another account now...
I have one instuctor that finally tried Firefox and Thunderbird...took notice of my Screen Shots - different from everyone elses..."what is that ...a 'fox'
?
My email he noticed too, we send in assignments via email to him instead of WebCT or Moodle...
For fun I sent him a Screen shot of T-Bird. "what is that supposed to be?"
"You do realize we [College] are sponsored by MicroSoft, Cisco, HP...?
I replied " we may be, don't mean I gotta use it except when required...and I did not personally receive any money".
I am not only the eldest student in his class, I am also the official 'Non-Conformist' of ALL the classes he teaches.
'Non-Conformist" is good for extra bonus points - right?
Post by: jefnvk on September 15, 2005, 08:37:23 PM
Quote
In fact , some folks will not accept these for a email addy for some class related matters.
My teachers usually only like mail from our school account.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 16, 2005, 06:42:33 AM
I went another direction, but I appreciate your making the offers.
Post by: Vodka7 on September 16, 2005, 07:20:14 AM
Now that it's open to the public, no one needs invites anymore.