NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/comm/12486

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 5.8 KB | 142 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!dorner.slip.uiuc.edu!user
From: [e-mail] (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: QM vs Eudora/POP (was Re: QM vs MS Mail)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.apps
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: dorner.slip.uiuc.edu
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:19:50 GMT
Lines: 128

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
McKay) wrote:
> The following highlight some of the differences between QuickMail and Eudora

I'm going to do my best to respond impartially, but I'm not exactly an
unbiased commentator :-).  I'm not so much interested in defending Eudora
as pointing out a few things people may not have thought about.

> *  Eudora designed for use with POP3 mail systems on the Internet such
> as the one on ux1.cso.uiuc.edu.  QuickMail is designed first as a LAN
> Electronic messaging system with some good SMTP support provided by
> third party add-ins.

I think that the intent behind the programs is reflected in usage.  Eudora,
by virtue of requiring a POP/SMTP server is a bit much for a small,
Mac-only LAN.  On the other hand, the larger your Internet, the more
difficulty you're likely to have with QuickMail, and the less useful many
of QuickMail's nifty features are.

> *  Eudora is a solid and well-crafted piece of programming.

Thanks for the vote of confidence; from my vantage point things don't
always look so good.  :-)

> *  A basic QuickMail server with an SMTP gateway can easily be generated
> in less than a half hour.  A POP server is more complicated to generate and
> maintain.

Yes and no.  *If* you already have a UNIX box, installing a POP server is
no sweat, nor is adding user accounts.  SMTP you probably have already.

If you don't already have a UNIX box or other mainframe-type-system, you're
in for quite a little kettle of fish...

> *  Addressing in Eudora tends to rely more heavily on textual input
> while QuickMail tends to rely more heavily on graphical, point and click
> addressing schemes.

Dunno.  Eudora has menus from which mail can be generated, and a Nicknames
window (in 1.3) from which mail can also be generated, no typing necessary.
 Finally, the "Make Nickname" command (also in 1.3) lets you make new
nicknames with a minimum of fuss.

It's my understanding that it's (somewhat) awkward to address mail to
someone not already on a QM menu.

> *  QuickMail has a NameServer database that is easily editable to include names
> and address both on and off campus.

How many names?

> *  With a POP3 Server/Eudora solution, one needs to be the administrator of the
> POP3 server in order to have control and customize it's nameserver.

You mean you need to be administrator of the 'ph' server, don't you?

> *  QuickMail users can search the NameServer database by just typing a
> few characters of part of the name.

You can do this with Eudora nicknames.

> *  QuickMail has a "Priority" feature, allowing the sender to designate mail
> of varying priority for sorting by the recipient.

So does Eudora (1.3).  Neither QM nor Eudora's priority schemes are
terribly interoperable, as there is no Internet standard for this.

> *  QuickMail has Receipts so that one can tell if mail that has been sent
> has been read.

See comp.mail.headers for a long discussion of this.  Again, we have a
matter of scope; QM's receipts will be fine on a LAN, but not very reliable
if your mail is mostly to Internet sites, there being no Internet standard
for this.

> *  In QuickMail, users can "unsend" mail sent to local users that has been
> sent but not yet read.  This does not apply to mail sent through a gateway
> to the internet.

Once again, a feature that's nice for a LAN, irrelevant for an internet.

> *  QuickMail's Mail Log of outgoing messages resides in the same window
> as the active mail.  Eudora requires one to go to the Mailbox menu and
> select and open various mailboxes/folders.

On the other hand, I do not believe QuickMail has the same organizational
capability for mail that Eudora does.

> *  QuickMail has Voice Mail capabilities.  Eudora does not.

LAN only, of course; don't expect QM to interoperate with much of anything.

The MIME standard will allow this to be done interoperably.  I intend to
support MIME, as I presume will the QM gateway vendors.

Personally, I'm not sure voice mail is a plus, but that's a whole different
story. :-)

> *  QuickMail has a conferencing feature.

On the local LAN, right?

> *  An option to send QM messages to pagers will shortly be available from
> a third party.

Qualcomm does this now with Internet mail.

I think the choice between Eudora and QuickMail boils down to a few things:

1. What percentage of mail is exchanged with the world outside your LAN?
The bigger the percentage, the less attractive QM's features are.
2. Do you now run a UNIX or other mainframe-type operating system?  If the
answer is no, Eudora is much less appetizing.
3. How many users will you have to support?  The bigger the number, the
more likely you want Eudora.
4. How much money do you want to spend?  (This used to be a clear win for
Eudora, since Eudora is free.  However, now that Apple charges a LOT for
MacTCP, you have the same trade-off as for the other things; QM is better
(cheaper) for a small number, Eudora is better (cheaper) for a large
number, or a site already with MacTCP.)

Which really all are the same question:  Are you more interested in your
LAN or the Internet?

(I don't mean that as a rhetorical question; rather, it's a very practical
question, that different people will answer in different ways.)
--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm, Inc.