Incredimail

[Napoleon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi All,
I'd like to ask some advice on using incredimail.
1. is it safe to use incredimail?
2. does incredimail contain spywares?
3. is incredimail compatible with Outlook & Outlook Express?
I am using Windows XP Home SP2, IE 6, NAV and MSAS.
Thanks,
Napoleon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

It should be named Incredible Resource Hog. Are you sure that you really want that on
your system? Many people do not appreciate receiving that type of email. It may be
pretty, but it takes up inbox space, and takes longer to download than plain text email
messages, which people who have dialup accounts or small drives will not appreciate. It
has been a while since I tested Incredimail, but I remember it being slow to load. I
cannot remember if there was advertising to make up for it being free. I do not know if
the newer versions contain adware or spyware. As for it being compatible with Outlook
Express: I do not understand the question. If you mean: Will people who receive
messages that you create with Incredimail be able to open and read them with the Outlook
Express email client, YES. Will they want to? That is the Big question....
--

T.C.
t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
Remove [NoSpam] to reply



"Napoleon" <bonaparte@waterloo.ii> wrote in message
news:42ef0c89$0$19068$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Hi All,
> I'd like to ask some advice on using incredimail.
> 1. is it safe to use incredimail?
> 2. does incredimail contain spywares?
> 3. is incredimail compatible with Outlook & Outlook Express?
> I am using Windows XP Home SP2, IE 6, NAV and MSAS.
> Thanks,
> Napoleon
>
>

 

[map]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Napoleon wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'd like to ask some advice on using incredimail.
> 1. is it safe to use incredimail?
> 2. does incredimail contain spywares?
> 3. is incredimail compatible with Outlook & Outlook Express?
> I am using Windows XP Home SP2, IE 6, NAV and MSAS.
> Thanks,
> Napoleon

I have been using it for over two years now.
The free version will slow your system down due to the banner
advertising,however the registered version has no ads and is not hard on
system resources.
In responce to people not wanting to recieve a HTML e/mail you can always
send them in plain text as well, depending on who your sending too, I due
this when sending e/mail that is bussiness related or if I'm e/mailing
someone in this newsgroup it really isn't a problem.
Yes it is spyware free.
Yes it is compatiable with OE and if you want you can still use OE it does
not replace it.

Also NAV is compatiable with IM in reguards to scanning your incoming e/m.
I hope this helps.


Mike Pawlak

 

[Napoleon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thank you very much Tom Cruise, that was exactly the answer I want for the
question on compability with Outlook Express, thanks again.
Cheers



"t.cruise" <t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eerXgPzlFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It should be named Incredible Resource Hog. Are you sure that you really
> want that on
> your system? Many people do not appreciate receiving that type of email.
> It may be
> pretty, but it takes up inbox space, and takes longer to download than
> plain text email
> messages, which people who have dialup accounts or small drives will not
> appreciate. It
> has been a while since I tested Incredimail, but I remember it being slow
> to load. I
> cannot remember if there was advertising to make up for it being free. I
> do not know if
> the newer versions contain adware or spyware. As for it being compatible
> with Outlook
> Express: I do not understand the question. If you mean: Will people who
> receive
> messages that you create with Incredimail be able to open and read them
> with the Outlook
> Express email client, YES. Will they want to? That is the Big
> question....
> --
>
> T.C.
> t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
> Remove [NoSpam] to reply
>
>
>
> "Napoleon" <bonaparte@waterloo.ii> wrote in message
> news:42ef0c89$0$19068$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> Hi All,
>> I'd like to ask some advice on using incredimail.
>> 1. is it safe to use incredimail?
>> 2. does incredimail contain spywares?
>> 3. is incredimail compatible with Outlook & Outlook Express?
>> I am using Windows XP Home SP2, IE 6, NAV and MSAS.
>> Thanks,
>> Napoleon
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I have used it for 5 years now and I LOVE IT!!!! (the free version) my
computer is working just find and it is not using all of the resources!!!!I
would HIGHLY recomend it!!
"Napoleon" <bonaparte@waterloo.ii> wrote in message
news:42ef0c89$0$19068$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Hi All,
> I'd like to ask some advice on using incredimail.
> 1. is it safe to use incredimail?
> 2. does incredimail contain spywares?
> 3. is incredimail compatible with Outlook & Outlook Express?
> I am using Windows XP Home SP2, IE 6, NAV and MSAS.
> Thanks,
> Napoleon
>

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Jhoschak wrote:
> I have used it for 5 years now and I LOVE IT!!!! (the free version) my
> computer is working just find and it is not using all of the resources!!!!I
> would HIGHLY recomend it!!
> "Napoleon" <bonaparte@waterloo.ii> wrote in message
> news:42ef0c89$0$19068$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>
>>Hi All,
>>I'd like to ask some advice on using incredimail.
>>1. is it safe to use incredimail?
>>2. does incredimail contain spywares?
>>3. is incredimail compatible with Outlook & Outlook Express?
>>I am using Windows XP Home SP2, IE 6, NAV and MSAS.
>>Thanks,
>>Napoleon
>>
>
>
>
My son uses it as well as a number of my colleagues. I've also used it
but the novelty wore off a couple of years back and I've since
uninstalled it. It's not really a resource hog and as for people not
wanting to receive html email... that's your call. I don't mind
receiving this type of email and as far as I know, most of my friends in
my address book have no preferences one way or the other. It certainly
livens up the email experience. Try it for a while and see what 'you'
think of it.

 

[Gordon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Jhoschak wrote:
> I have used it for 5 years now and I LOVE IT!!!! (the free version) my
> computer is working just find and it is not using all of the resources!!!!I
> would HIGHLY recomend it!!

Why? What does it do that other more standard Email clients don't do
other than have the ability to make ludicrously-garish emails?

 

[Gordon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

James wrote:
> It certainly livens up the email experience.

I think that's one of the saddest comments I've seen for a long time!

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

gordon wrote:
> James wrote:
>
>> It certainly livens up the email experience.
>
>
> I think that's one of the saddest comments I've seen for a long time!

LOL... hey, Gord, different strokes for different...

I might just as easily have remarked that your thoughts are by no means
the "measure of all things", right? Because you and a few others posting
here don't like html mail and the bells and whistles offered by IM, does
not translate into IM being bad program. As you can see from my user
agent string, I share your views regarding Thunderbird. But by no means
would I attempt to dissuade someone else from using OE or Free Agent by
ascribing some sort of "sad commentary" to such usage. Lighten up, Man.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Robert Moir wrote:
> James wrote:
>
>>gordon wrote:
>>
>>>James wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It certainly livens up the email experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think that's one of the saddest comments I've seen for a long time!
>>
>>LOL... hey, Gord, different strokes for different...
>>
>>I might just as easily have remarked that your thoughts are by no
>>means the "measure of all things", right? Because you and a few
>>others posting here don't like html mail and the bells and whistles
>>offered by IM, does not translate into IM being bad program. As you
>>can see from my user agent string, I share your views regarding
>>Thunderbird. But by no means would I attempt to dissuade someone else
>>from using OE or Free Agent by ascribing some sort of "sad
>>commentary" to such usage. Lighten up, Man.
>
>
> Well said.
>
> As the person who wrote the first and I think most venomous comment about
> HTML mail, I want to say that I don't think it is up to me to tell people
> what format to send their emails out in, but rather to tell those people
> what formats i'm prepared to receive should they ever want to write me. A
> subtle but very important difference, I'm sure you'll agree.
>

ABsolutely (and I like your attitude).

 

[Gordon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap+msnews@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uSl9weCmFHA.708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> James wrote:
>> gordon wrote:
>>> James wrote:
>>>
>>>> It certainly livens up the email experience.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that's one of the saddest comments I've seen for a long
>>> time!
>>
>> LOL... hey, Gord, different strokes for different...
>>
>> I might just as easily have remarked that your thoughts are by no
>> means the "measure of all things", right? Because you and a few
>> others posting here don't like html mail and the bells and whistles
>> offered by IM, does not translate into IM being bad program. As you
>> can see from my user agent string, I share your views regarding
>> Thunderbird. But by no means would I attempt to dissuade someone else
>> from using OE or Free Agent by ascribing some sort of "sad
>> commentary" to such usage. Lighten up, Man.
>
> Well said.
>
> As the person who wrote the first and I think most venomous comment
> about HTML mail, I want to say that I don't think it is up to me to
> tell people what format to send their emails out in, but rather to
> tell those people what formats i'm prepared to receive should they
> ever want to write me. A subtle but very important difference, I'm
> sure you'll agree.
>

There's a problem with that. Unless you know that someone is going to email
you beforehand, you can't tell them you don't accept HTML mail! Very often
the first you know about it is when this whopping great email arrives,
unannounced, in your inbox.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Gordon wrote:
> "Robert Moir" <robspamtrap+msnews@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uSl9weCmFHA.708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>
>>James wrote:
>>
>>>gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>>James wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It certainly livens up the email experience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think that's one of the saddest comments I've seen for a long
>>>>time!
>>>
>>>LOL... hey, Gord, different strokes for different...
>>>
>>>I might just as easily have remarked that your thoughts are by no
>>>means the "measure of all things", right? Because you and a few
>>>others posting here don't like html mail and the bells and whistles
>>>offered by IM, does not translate into IM being bad program. As you
>>>can see from my user agent string, I share your views regarding
>>>Thunderbird. But by no means would I attempt to dissuade someone else
>>>from using OE or Free Agent by ascribing some sort of "sad
>>>commentary" to such usage. Lighten up, Man.
>>
>>Well said.
>>
>>As the person who wrote the first and I think most venomous comment
>>about HTML mail, I want to say that I don't think it is up to me to
>>tell people what format to send their emails out in, but rather to
>>tell those people what formats i'm prepared to receive should they
>>ever want to write me. A subtle but very important difference, I'm
>>sure you'll agree.
>>
>
>
> There's a problem with that. Unless you know that someone is going to email
> you beforehand, you can't tell them you don't accept HTML mail! Very often
> the first you know about it is when this whopping great email arrives,
> unannounced, in your inbox.
>
>
Give a little credit to the one sending the email. If I don't know the
person to whom I'm writing, I would be highly unlikely to use html. I
take the intended recipient into account. For those new to email, no
doubt they'll err and be told in no uncertain terms that their html mail
was not appreciated.

Additionally, I think that today far more are on broadband than
previously. Thus the argument that it will take forever to download this
html mail is not "as" relevant as it was a few years back. Albeit, it
still helps to know your intended audience. I really don't see IM as a
problem. As I said before, I no longer use it but my son and his wife
(as well as two of my colleagues) do and when I receive mail from them,
I enjoy the little extra touches. It's just me (and it might be "just"
the OP as well). Like I said, "different strokes..."

 

[Gordon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"James" <leushinonospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uwoG0SDmFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>>
> Give a little credit to the one sending the email.

Unfortunately, whilst you may be sufficiently informed to do that,
Inredimail has gained the reputation of being used by many many people who
don't!

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Gordon wrote:
> "James" <leushinonospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uwoG0SDmFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>
>>Give a little credit to the one sending the email.
>
>
> Unfortunately, whilst you may be sufficiently informed to do that,
> Inredimail has gained the reputation of being used by many many people who
> don't!
>
>

Really? And where did you gather the stats to support that contention?
Or is it just hearsay?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:19:20 -0700, James <leushinonospam@gmail.com>

>...as for people not wanting to receive html email... that's your call.

I'd prefer to avoid receiving HTML, as HTML can contain:
- autorunning scripts
- malware that exploits defects in MS's HTML handler
- misleading fake URL text over links that go somewhere else
- call-homes to remote graphics ("spam this guy, he's reading!")

I prefer not to send email, because I think it's presumptious to say
"I'm sure you trust me to potentially try to run scripts on your PC
etc. while you read my 'message', not so?"

OTOH, as a Eudora user with "Use Microsoft Viewer" disabled and remote
graphics set not to display, HTML poses no particular risks to me.


>-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
"Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:19:20 -0700, James <leushinonospam@gmail.com>
>
>
>>...as for people not wanting to receive html email... that's your call.
>
>
> I'd prefer to avoid receiving HTML, as HTML can contain:
> - autorunning scripts
> - malware that exploits defects in MS's HTML handler
> - misleading fake URL text over links that go somewhere else
> - call-homes to remote graphics ("spam this guy, he's reading!")
>
> I prefer not to send email, because I think it's presumptious to say
> "I'm sure you trust me to potentially try to run scripts on your PC
> etc. while you read my 'message', not so?"
>
> OTOH, as a Eudora user with "Use Microsoft Viewer" disabled and remote
> graphics set not to display, HTML poses no particular risks to me.
>
>
>
>>-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
>
> "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>
>>----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Like I said, "Different strokes for different folks." You prefer one
thing, I happen to prefer another. End of story.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:53:14 +0100, James wrote
(in article <#kmLPpCmFHA.3608@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>):

> Robert Moir wrote:
>> James wrote:
>>
>>> gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> James wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It certainly livens up the email experience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that's one of the saddest comments I've seen for a long time!
>>>
>>> LOL... hey, Gord, different strokes for different...
>>>
>>> I might just as easily have remarked that your thoughts are by no
>>> means the "measure of all things", right? Because you and a few
>>> others posting here don't like html mail and the bells and whistles
>>> offered by IM, does not translate into IM being bad program. As you
>>> can see from my user agent string, I share your views regarding
>>> Thunderbird. But by no means would I attempt to dissuade someone else
>>> from using OE or Free Agent by ascribing some sort of "sad
>>> commentary" to such usage. Lighten up, Man.
>>
>>
>> Well said.
>>
>> As the person who wrote the first and I think most venomous comment about
>> HTML mail, I want to say that I don't think it is up to me to tell people
>> what format to send their emails out in, but rather to tell those people
>> what formats i'm prepared to receive should they ever want to write me. A
>> subtle but very important difference, I'm sure you'll agree.
>>
>
> ABsolutely (and I like your attitude).

A very close friend actively sought out an email client that would only
accept email in plain text - it bounces HTML back to the source. I know
because he forgot to tell me and the first three emails I sent him bounced -
until he enlightened me. I respect this - HTML can harbour all kinds of
nasties (not a problem for those of us who don't use Windoze) and is bloated
(he only has a single line ISDN connection - he can't afford to use both
lines).

I respect his views - and think they're valid. I have now set my client to
only send in plain text.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:20:05 +0100, Gordon wrote
(in article <eHdHzZDmFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>):

> "James" <leushinonospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uwoG0SDmFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>>>
>> Give a little credit to the one sending the email.
>
> Unfortunately, whilst you may be sufficiently informed to do that,
> Inredimail has gained the reputation of being used by many many people who
> don't!
>
>

Bit like AOHELL... ;o) <eg>

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

WhY do you bother? No one cares what the likes of a troll like you has to
say.
http://tinyurl.com/az88m
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
IFC

"Evadne Cake" <sarah.balfour@craigy34.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF17C0C0001D2137F0509550@news.ngroups.net...
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:20:05 +0100, Gordon wrote
> (in article <eHdHzZDmFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>):
>
>> "James" <leushinonospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uwoG0SDmFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>>>>
>>> Give a little credit to the one sending the email.
>>
>> Unfortunately, whilst you may be sufficiently informed to do that,
>> Inredimail has gained the reputation of being used by many many people
>> who
>> don't!
>>
>>
>
> Bit like AOHELL... ;o) <eg>
>

 

[James]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Evadne Cake wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:20:05 +0100, Gordon wrote
> (in article <eHdHzZDmFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>):
>
>
>>"James" <leushinonospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:uwoG0SDmFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
>>
>>>Give a little credit to the one sending the email.
>>
>>Unfortunately, whilst you may be sufficiently informed to do that,
>>Inredimail has gained the reputation of being used by many many people who
>>don't!
>>
>>
>
>
> Bit like AOHELL... ;o) <eg>
>
No, it is not like AOL. You simply do not "get it" nor does the other
responder. Let's try it again, slowly this time.

Incredimail is a perfectly valid email client. Tens of thousands of
people employ it to communicate with family and friends. As I mentioned
earlier, my son uses it as do several of my friends and co-workers. Most
of these people have broadband (as do I) and it is not a problem for any
of us in terms of speed. Yes, it "can be" more cumbersome for those on
dial-up but even then it does not take forever to download. As for it
harboring some nefarious "nasties" as it were, I've been corresponding
with the above for nearly seven years now and none of us have ever had
such occur. Nasties can come in all manner of email clients today so one
has to take precautionary steps regardless of the email program. There
is no shortcut to common sense.

I no longer use Incredimail myself although I purchased it so I have a
lifetime license with the company. I must admit to enjoying the email I
receive from those with Incredimail but it is not enough to induce me to
return to the program.

If you don't like the program, that's your business. There's no need to
demonize it... no need to predict all manner of evil ensuing when one
uses it. It does not have the "bad" reputation another poster ascribed
to it. It's simply an html email client that some prefer and others do
not. End of story.

 

[Gordon]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

James wrote:
> WhY do you bother? No one cares what the likes of a troll like you

"Evadne Cake" isn't really a troll. If you REALLY want to know all about
trolling, just hang out in comp.os.linux.advocacy for a while!