|
Email Comments, Questions and Miscellaneous Share your opinion of the email service you're using. Post general email questions and discussions that don't fit elsewhere. |
|
Thread Tools |
26 Mar 2005, 05:11 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 13
|
disappointed runbox users
I've been happily using runbox for years, ever since they switched to paid-only accounts. My business relies on me giving prompt answer to clients, receiving large attachments from them without having them worry about the size (I used to say "if you can send it I can receive it" ). I am now disgruntled and ready to switch, after months of unreliable service, countless delayed and lost emails, two lost contracts and extensive problems with IMAP connectivity.
Where should I go now? What other service offers features similar to those of runbox? I'm looking for a paid or free provider that can give me the following, in order of importance: - IMAP that works !!! - Support for Opera & Safari - 1 Gb storage or more. relatively large attachments (at least 5Mb) - 99.9% uptime & fast web interface - extensive, customizeable (sp?) Filter rules, spam & virus protection - POP retrieval that works - file storage w/ FTP acess - proper support for different character sets - Hotmail retrieval that works - no ads.. I'm kind of lost with all the offerings and I don't really feel like going through every provider and trying out their services one after the other. Anyone have suggestions for disgruntled runbox users? |
26 Mar 2005, 09:15 AM | #2 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 546
|
Re: disappointed runbox users
Quote:
Could be an option. Get your own domain and attatch it to a web account set up as many email addresses as you like! (Well at least 100). |
|
26 Mar 2005, 12:39 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 123
Representative of:
Mailarge.com |
Re: disappointed runbox users
Quote:
Ernie |
|
26 Mar 2005, 01:01 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 164
|
That could probably be rephrased as "support for standards-compliant browsers" of which there really aren't any, but sites that strive for true compliance generally work better on all browsers. You won't find many sites that test on Opera and Safari specifically who aren't also striving for that W3C validation tag.
Hotmail retrieval that works is a dead issue I think. Hasn't MS recently made changes to Hotmail with the specific purpose of preventing this? I could be wrong, but I thought that was a moot point for now. Honestly, it sounds like Fastmail would be a good switch for you except for the file-storage with FTP thing. I don't understand why people think that file storage services and email services are the same thing. Why exactly should an email service be expected to bundle file-storage services with their offerings? I just don't get this. Of all the things to bundle with email (like say, an LDAP address book, vCal calendars, or other PIM functions), why do so many people zero in on the file storage thing? I guess I just don't get it. |
26 Mar 2005, 01:12 PM | #5 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 240
|
Re: disappointed runbox users
Quote:
Fusemail 2.0 does not work for Opera and Safari, but Fusemail 1.0 works. No ads and hotmail retrieval works for both, but if want to fuse Yahoo free, Fusmail is the only option. Once logged in, Fusmail 2.0 is very fast, MailSnare is relatively slow, but you want to check it out... I would recommend that you take a trial in both, but I would advise you Fusemail. |
|
27 Mar 2005, 12:36 PM | #6 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 13
|
file storage
You know it's funny, when Runbox first introduced file storage I thought to myself now that's useless since I already had storage space at the university and on clients' servers, but since then I've found that I use it very frequently to send out attachments repeatedly. I have a few pamphlets, forms and information documents that I send out to people that email me about my consulting service at least 3-4 times a day, and with this feature I can easily send these attachments without having to upload them. This is a big plus, since I spend more time on other people's computers than my own. So now I just can't live without file storage...
Fastmail definitely looks like the most interesting and closest to the features that Runbox offers and in the same price range, and I don't really need the FTP access to the file storage space. Anyone have an idea of how fastmail's address book measure's up to runbox's? how reliable are they in general? Fusemail has nice and interesting features, but it seems that I won't be using half of them. And they're significantly more expensive than runbox or fastmail. And while I do like their layout and the look, I definitely would need a lighter (fast) secondary interface for when I just want to quickly check mail because of the long initial loading time. They don't seem to support Safari either, though I haven't tested it. And they don't have the file storage. But they definitely have the coolest looking interface ! one thing about fusemail, i saw that they offer unlimited bandwidth... isn't it bandwidth problems that got runbox into trouble in the first place? (I don't really know in fact, just asking) wouldn't the same thing happen to fusemail if they got too popular too quickly ? |
27 Mar 2005, 12:54 PM | #7 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 240
|
Fusemail has got 2 webmail interfaces-
1) Fusemail 2.0 It may take a long time to login, depends. But when it loads, it rocks, its extremely fast. And if you choose non-ssl , its blazing and rocking fast, but ssl is also fast too once the inbox loads... 2) Fusemai Classic 1.0 Fusemail Classic works on almost all browsers, be it IE , Firefox, Opera, Safari etc. etc. It also has a FuseMobile interface which allows composing mail and checking mail from all folders.... About bandwidth, no reliability problems presently, so why limit the bandwidth, once Fusemail Team start feeling its effect, they will have a look at it. And I read somewhere in Fusemail forums that if they see a user consuming very high bandwidth, they contact him/her privately and get it sorted... And there are never problems because of bandwidth all of a sudden, there is a gradual effect..... I think Check this if you like |
27 Mar 2005, 01:05 PM | #8 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,452
|
Seb,
You want reliable IMAP and POP3, 1GB storage, Opera and Sarfari compatible, and 99.9% uptime? You need to search yourself. Different services have some of these features, but I don't know of any that have all. If you find one, let us know. Hotmail retrival will work for those who have a Hotmail account before September 28, 2004 and have been using WebDAV or httpmail. |
28 Mar 2005, 01:00 AM | #9 |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 922
Representative of:
xxos.us |
Definetly get a hosting account with a provider with cPanel (or one of the alternatives). You should get all you need, except of course for maybe some advanced webmail options--but I see Horde has a nice interface--have a look at them.
|
28 Mar 2005, 01:17 AM | #10 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA Northwest
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: file storage
Quote:
Suggestions that you consider a web host might work if you need the file storage to be FTP; but web hosts have crummy interfaces to their mail and I prefer Fastmail's interface to the Horde, Squirrelmail, etc that I see at web hosts. |
|
28 Mar 2005, 01:20 AM | #11 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA Northwest
Posts: 3,849
|
And why would a clever fellow such as you still need Hotmail retrieval? Perhaps you use it for throwaway mail addresses? Try a yahoo.com account or make addresses using sneakemail.com? I've got Hotmail retrieval in Fastmail but I let the Hotmail account expire.
|
28 Mar 2005, 04:58 AM | #12 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8,687
|
Re: file storage
Quote:
personal web site with file storage? Sherry |
|
28 Mar 2005, 05:35 AM | #13 |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 4,259
|
“Regrettably”, I have to agree with my friend Shelded once again (a private joke...).. In essence he says what I had in mind. I would only add that while Mailsnare is an excellent service with an outstanding technical support, they fail when it comes to email/files storage - they only offer 100MB for the same cost that Fastmail offers 600Mb email + 30MB file storage.
Also I would add Tuffmail.com to the pool of potential candidates. Check the Personal Premium account, for a $40 a year. http://www.tuffmail.com/personal.php PS - As Sherry above indicates you may get FTP with Fastmail soon. |
28 Mar 2005, 11:06 AM | #14 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
The main problem of MailSnare for me is its webmail interfaces are both slow and extremely simple. I would prefer Fusemail's interface or Runbox's interface to that, sorry Fastmail but I feel that Fastmail has got a really ugly interface, even after style sheets... Thats why I have just dismissed Fastmail from my mind.... |
|
28 Mar 2005, 11:17 AM | #15 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 922
Representative of:
xxos.us |
Quote:
What? Fastmail not having a good interface? Preposterous! |
|