Indentifying the Bad Guys

mailhunter · 2 Dec 2004, 11:30 AM

I would like to know which eMail services are strongly discouraged. I know of at least one in which the admin was reading users mail - there could be many more. Or there might be other reasons why we should not even signup for the service.

I happened to stumble across one such service here that is apparently so terrible that it cannot even be discussed. (sorry, Mods, I never knew) If I'd only known that before I would not have even bothered to get an account there.

Has anyone made a list of email providers to avoid? Along with the reasons why, that would be extremely helpful in informing the public - maybe the most important information this forum could provide.

beeboy · 2 Dec 2004, 12:50 PM

I had made a list of services I did not like some time ago and I can add some more. ***********, jlmail, fusemail, and canada.com come to mind. Bear in mind, just because I do not like them does not mean they are BAD.
Most of those everyone powered email services suck only because of popups, banners, and ads.
http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...threadid=17142

[moderator: removed banned service name]

Killer · 2 Dec 2004, 12:55 PM

The only "bad guy" I could recall now is aventuremail. Why are they bad? Check all those threads here about aventuremail. Most of them provides the details for you to decide if they are bad enough for you.

http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...der=descending

war17 · 2 Dec 2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beeboy
I had made a list of services I did not like some time ago and I can add some more. ************, jlmail, fusemail, and canada.com come to mind. Bear in mind, just because I do not like them does not mean they are BAD.
Most of those everyone powered email services suck only because of popups, banners, and ads.

The first service you listed is banned, so we cannot talk about it. Besides, it is no longer in business. Fusemail is a great service. It's service provides 100MB storage, POP3, IMAP, SMTP, almost 100% uptime, and no ads. Webmail has some nice features. You may be thinking of another service.

**gdg** · 2 Dec 2004, 03:21 PM

Maybe he was referring to fuzzywebmail, which was in his list.

Fusemail does fit some of the characteristics in his list of issues, though. I would personally not use it.

xmailer · 2 Dec 2004, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gdgrph
Fusemail does fit some of the characteristics in his list of issues, though. I would personally not use it.

Fusemail may be fine now, for all I know, since I haven't really used it much since my account was recently "unlocked", but two "black marks" against it in my book are that it caused me to be locked out of my most-used yahoo account (including the messenger) for a day or so, and, in a move not all that dissimilar to what aventuremail was somewhat heavily criticized in these forums for doing, they suspended the accounts of us early users who helped them test their system, holding them hostage, essentially, pending subscription to one of their paid plans. I also seem to recall that their web interface didn't receive exactly "stellar" reviews from many users here, although they may have improved on that by now as well.

dodger · 2 Dec 2004, 11:42 PM

mail.com, at least in its "free" form. Any move of your mouse triggers a pop-up explosion, and if you have a pop-up blocker working then the site slows to a glacial crawl

xmailer · 2 Dec 2004, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dodger
mail.com, at least in its "free" form. Any move of your mouse triggers a pop-up explosion, and if you have a pop-up blocker working then the site slows to a glacial crawl

I had almost forgotten about mail.com. Must have been repressed memory syndrome.

Their service gradually evolved from being one of the most useful free email services (particularly the free forwarding, which seemed highly reliable), to now being what I would probably regard as one of the worst. Just think "hotmail" but with even more popups, possibly even more spam (if that's possible), and without the 250MB upgrade (at least as far as I've thus far heard).

bryanh · 3 Dec 2004, 12:06 AM

xmailer,

Comparing our service (FuseMail) with some of the extremely questionable email businesses mentioned in this thread is a bit harsh and inaccurate IMHO. I will certainly not name names but some of which I believe have even been banned from this forum as they are very questionable.

I think it is fair to point out some omitted pieces of information to xmailer's discussion concerning conversion of free accounts.

1.) Users were aware (assuming you read our statement) that at some point the service would be converted to a paid service over 6 months in advance of suspending service for members that did not convert.

2.) Users received email notices to notify them over 45 days in advance of the date in which they must upgrade to a paid account before service would be suspended.

3.) Users received repetitive notices (4 in total I believe) between the initial contact of 45 days and the date in which they must upgrade or risk being suspended.

The barriers to starting an email business (as with most internet businesses) are extremely low. So I can appreciate the difficulty to the consumer on determining which services are funded on a penny-bank and built to cut-corners by reselling someone else’s network, servers, and platform.

Make no mistake, there are a lot of reputable email providers in this forum and then there are also services that come and go quickly, we believe we are in the list of reputable email providers but certainly it is up to you to make that determination.

Our business is operated as an LLC from the state of Missouri with successful operations of internet businesses of management dating back to 1997. Our network of servers is located in the Equinix Ashburn, VA datacenter. We are co-located and own and operate our cage of servers. We do not resell or lease operations out to a 3rd party. I want everyone to be aware of the "full-story" so they can effectively judge who we are compared with.

It is certainly up to you to judge our company. However, you must be aware of the accurate recollection of events in order to fairly judge.

xmailer · 3 Dec 2004, 12:26 AM

I tried to make it clear that I was speaking about fusemail from it's earliest beginnings, as I best recall it, and, yes, you're correct in pointing out the difference in fusemail giving its users warning ahead of time about the supsension of accounts, as compared to aventuremail's just apparently deleting them with no warning.

So while you may be correct in regarding my comparison to aventuremail as somewhat harsh, I wasn't particularly attempting a comprehensive "balanced" review of the fusemail service, or attempting to personally "judge" it, fairly or otherwise, but, as beeboy suggested above that the fact that some people may dislike a particular service for reasons of their own doesn't neceassarily mean that it's a "bad" service, I was merely trying to elucidate some of the "issues" which may be behind some negative opinions some may harbor for the service. Of course, your above post has now introduced somewhat greater "balance" to the discussion.

beeboy · 3 Dec 2004, 01:23 AM

Thankyou for clarifying xmailer.
It was not my intent to single out Fusemail as a "bad" service. My feelings on Fusemail are apparent from past posts.
It is true many of us do not trust Fusemail but it certainly is not a bad service.
My apologies to Bryanh.

**gdg** · 3 Dec 2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beeboy
slow to login or website is too slow

This part is what made me think of Fusemail. Even with a broadband connection, it seemed slow quite a bit, but that does not mean it is a bad service. Not to harp on Fusemail...I'm sure they are a great service for those that stick with it. I personally did not like it because of the interface. Too cluttered, too many graphics, and when I was using it, I kept thinking it would be appropriately renamed "Disneymail" or "Candymail."

Even the name or domain "fusemail" was a turnoff. Why the big focus on just that one aspect, as though no other provider did that? The name also may bring to mind the idea of an email service that will sooner or later blow up, depending on how short the fuse is.

bryanh · 3 Dec 2004, 11:06 PM

Thanks for the feedback. Have you also tried the beta interface? You may find this to operate much faster.
http://www.fusemail.com/beta.html

colinc · 9 Dec 2004, 06:13 PM

The Fusemail web interface has always seemed slow to me, even on a T1 or 512kb connection. There are simply too many icons and they are too big. Can't see why they are needed. Afterall who ever heard of all that rubish in Outlook, Eudora, etc which are inherently faster anyway.

As for the beta version they suggest here, and which I now see they said they would introduce a month ago, it does not support Mac OS 9.2 as far as I can see. So that's me stuffed if they introduce it as far as I can see.

And then there is reliability recently. You should see their own forums on this! [www.fusemail.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=8419#8419]. Users want service info posted on the front page, but Fusemail sayy the [slow] forums are the best place - best for who?

**gdg** · 10 Dec 2004, 05:05 AM

Both Fusemail and Mailsnare were considered good competitors for serious email at one time...especially Mailsnare, but I tend to laugh at the offerings of both services now, in light of what is now available for free or pay with the big boys, Yahoo, MSN, and in the future, Gmail. Runbox, Fastmail, and Mailsnare used to be the best alternatives to the larger services discussed on the forum, but now, with Mailsnare's pitiful offerings and Runbox's pitiful service ailments, the only one of the "alternative" or "boutique" email services I can take seriously anymore is Fastmail.

2 Dec 2004, 11:30 AM	#1
mailhunter Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 18	Indentifying the Bad Guys I would like to know which eMail services are strongly discouraged. I know of at least one in which the admin was reading users mail - there could be many more. Or there might be other reasons why we should not even signup for the service. I happened to stumble across one such service here that is apparently so terrible that it cannot even be discussed. (sorry, Mods, I never knew) If I'd only known that before I would not have even bothered to get an account there. Has anyone made a list of email providers to avoid? Along with the reasons why, that would be extremely helpful in informing the public - maybe the most important information this forum could provide.

2 Dec 2004, 12:50 PM	#2
beeboy Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 551	I had made a list of services I did not like some time ago and I can add some more. *********, jlmail, fusemail, and canada.com come to mind. Bear in mind, just because I do not like them does not mean they are BAD. Most of those everyone powered email services suck only because of popups, banners, and ads. http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...threadid=17142 [moderator: removed banned service name]** Last edited by Shelded : 3 Dec 2004 at 10:09 AM.

3 Dec 2004, 12:26 AM	#10
xmailer Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: USA Posts: 5,485	I tried to make it clear that I was speaking about fusemail from it's earliest beginnings, as I best recall it, and, yes, you're correct in pointing out the difference in fusemail giving its users warning ahead of time about the supsension of accounts, as compared to aventuremail's just apparently deleting them with no warning. So while you may be correct in regarding my comparison to aventuremail as somewhat harsh, I wasn't particularly attempting a comprehensive "balanced" review of the fusemail service, or attempting to personally "judge" it, fairly or otherwise, but, as beeboy suggested above that the fact that some people may dislike a particular service for reasons of their own doesn't neceassarily mean that it's a "bad" service, I was merely trying to elucidate some of the "issues" which may be behind some negative opinions some may harbor for the service. Of course, your above post has now introduced somewhat greater "balance" to the discussion. Last edited by xmailer : 3 Dec 2004 at 12:31 AM.

9 Dec 2004, 06:13 PM	#14
colinc Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1	Fusemail slow and unreliable The Fusemail web interface has always seemed slow to me, even on a T1 or 512kb connection. There are simply too many icons and they are too big. Can't see why they are needed. Afterall who ever heard of all that rubish in Outlook, Eudora, etc which are inherently faster anyway. As for the beta version they suggest here, and which I now see they said they would introduce a month ago, it does not support Mac OS 9.2 as far as I can see. So that's me stuffed if they introduce it as far as I can see. And then there is reliability recently. You should see their own forums on this! [www.fusemail.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=8419#8419]. Users want service info posted on the front page, but Fusemail sayy the [slow] forums are the best place - best for who?

2 Dec 2004, 12:55 PM	#3
Killer Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Singapore Posts: 6,762 Representative of: Killer.kkk.sg	The only "bad guy" I could recall now is aventuremail. Why are they bad? Check all those threads here about aventuremail. Most of them provides the details for you to decide if they are bad enough for you. http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...der=descending

2 Dec 2004, 03:21 PM	#5
gdg Moderator Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,308	Maybe he was referring to fuzzywebmail, which was in his list. Fusemail does fit some of the characteristics in his list of issues, though. I would personally not use it.

2 Dec 2004, 11:42 PM	#7
dodger Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 114	mail.com, at least in its "free" form. Any move of your mouse triggers a pop-up explosion, and if you have a pop-up blocker working then the site slows to a glacial crawl

3 Dec 2004, 12:06 AM	#9
bryanh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 199 Representative of: Fusemail.com	xmailer, Comparing our service (FuseMail) with some of the extremely questionable email businesses mentioned in this thread is a bit harsh and inaccurate IMHO. I will certainly not name names but some of which I believe have even been banned from this forum as they are very questionable. I think it is fair to point out some omitted pieces of information to xmailer's discussion concerning conversion of free accounts. 1.) Users were aware (assuming you read our statement) that at some point the service would be converted to a paid service over 6 months in advance of suspending service for members that did not convert. 2.) Users received email notices to notify them over 45 days in advance of the date in which they must upgrade to a paid account before service would be suspended. 3.) Users received repetitive notices (4 in total I believe) between the initial contact of 45 days and the date in which they must upgrade or risk being suspended. The barriers to starting an email business (as with most internet businesses) are extremely low. So I can appreciate the difficulty to the consumer on determining which services are funded on a penny-bank and built to cut-corners by reselling someone else’s network, servers, and platform. Make no mistake, there are a lot of reputable email providers in this forum and then there are also services that come and go quickly, we believe we are in the list of reputable email providers but certainly it is up to you to make that determination. Our business is operated as an LLC from the state of Missouri with successful operations of internet businesses of management dating back to 1997. Our network of servers is located in the Equinix Ashburn, VA datacenter. We are co-located and own and operate our cage of servers. We do not resell or lease operations out to a 3rd party. I want everyone to be aware of the "full-story" so they can effectively judge who we are compared with. It is certainly up to you to judge our company. However, you must be aware of the accurate recollection of events in order to fairly judge.

3 Dec 2004, 01:23 AM	#11
beeboy Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 551	Thankyou for clarifying xmailer. It was not my intent to single out Fusemail as a "bad" service. My feelings on Fusemail are apparent from past posts. It is true many of us do not trust Fusemail but it certainly is not a bad service. My apologies to Bryanh.

3 Dec 2004, 11:06 PM	#13
bryanh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 199 Representative of: Fusemail.com	Thanks for the feedback. Have you also tried the beta interface? You may find this to operate much faster. http://www.fusemail.com/beta.html

10 Dec 2004, 05:05 AM	#15
gdg Moderator Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,308	Both Fusemail and Mailsnare were considered good competitors for serious email at one time...especially Mailsnare, but I tend to laugh at the offerings of both services now, in light of what is now available for free or pay with the big boys, Yahoo, MSN, and in the future, Gmail. Runbox, Fastmail, and Mailsnare used to be the best alternatives to the larger services discussed on the forum, but now, with Mailsnare's pitiful offerings and Runbox's pitiful service ailments, the only one of the "alternative" or "boutique" email services I can take seriously anymore is Fastmail.