Talk:Eudora (email client)

old misc

The following line will soon become outdated:

"Recently PC Magazine gave Eudora it's highest rating"

The year of the rating should be given. Also, a URL would be handy.

EmRick 21:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed the line completely. It seemed biased because it mentioned only one positive recension whilst ignoring totally other email clients. 145.64.134.233 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Eudora has many excellent features. [...] It also has very nice filters..". Well, maybe, but this sounds more like a sales pitch than a neutral article. AndrewWTaylor 18:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Eudora didn't pioneer the concept of an always-present folder list as this article claims. Eudora instead had pull-down menus for choosing mailboxes. You could, in later versions, open a folder window, but this was after Outlook came out and people started demanding it, I think. However, I'm not sure enough of this to change it. Jerry Kindall 6 December 2005

I don't get this either. The proper way to use Eudora isn't to have one mailbox windowpane open and switch the mailbox being viewed in it using a mailbox list, viewing messages one at a time in a third static windowpane one at a time.

The proper way to use Eudora is to have all of your important mailboxes open at the same time in seperate windows (typically in and out, tiled one above the other), with whatever messages you're viewing/editing also open in their own seperate windows. This worked best on Macs since it required MDI on inferior GUIs like M$/X Windows. Really, the screenshot should be swapped to depict this.

This is also what makes Newswatcher (MTNW is my fave) so awesome. 207.177.231.9 07:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Claris Emailer had the folder list even before Outlook. I think I even read somewhere that a lot of Outlook was written by former Clarus employees once that company was folded (or severely cut, at least). Eleusinian 04:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any source for Eudora being the first with an always-present folder list, and the statement had been left unsourced for a long time, so I went ahead and removed it. XMog (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

version history

Come on, let's add some dates and version numbers, for a history outline of this important program! 69.87.203.71 08:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pandora?

"An open source version of Eudora named Pandora based on the Mozilla codebase (like Thunderbird) is under development by the Mozilla Foundation."

I'm going to change "Pandora" to "Penelope" -- I don't see any source-basis for the term "Pandora" in this context -- and it would be confusing, since there was a different email client by that name in 1999:

"Joseph Bogner has a nice drawing of a chicken with thumbs up on his web site under copyright of Digital Adrenaline - so what? Well, there is truly unique software to be found on the same web site - freeware and all. The name of the software is Pandora - an e-mail client, and its download is 18 KB - in other words 0.65 % of the size of my main e-mail client and only 0.35% of the size of Eudora Pro.

Joseph explain that Pandora started up as a project to create a working e-mail client less than 10 K in size, then the project went a bit out of hand and grew... Still, as he wrote: "Pandora is the only program that I know of which can check your mail, send new messages and site quietly in the tray for only 18kb of executable size." (source: www-suite101-com/article.cfm/professional_travel/18222) -69.87.204.57 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion: By 2019, there is a very Eudora-like new mail client named Pandora - probably the developer did not know the prior art. Anyway, I added said mail client to the article. Those are not related, I guess. --Tuxman (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Qualcomm involvement in Penelope

This statement is misleading: "In 2006 Qualcomm development ceased and Eudora was donated to the Mozilla Foundation with the expectation of its being rebuilt upon their Mozilla code base." The real situation is explained better in the Open Source section.

- There was no "donation" or other formal agreement with Mozilla - Qualcomm continues to pay the Eudora engineers for Penelope development; thus, saying that Qualcomm development ceased is untrue

Given the recent news articles about companies editing Wikipedia articles to put positive spin on things, I'm reluctant to edit the entry myself.

S1dorner 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it better now? (Yes, you should refrain from touching the article -- but please do make suggestions here on how to improve the article.)-69.87.204.54 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eudora-main.png

Image:Eudora-main.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Open Source?

If the new version is open-source, where exactly is the source? Does it require proprietary compiling tools?

The key "detail" to understand is that none of the old sources are ever going to be made public. "Opening the Source" is exactly what they will never do. There is no chance of the public getting access to the old sources, continuing to use the old products, and then changing/improving as desired.

Instead, the plan is for the company team to create an entirely new program, based on Thunderbird, that has some Eudora-like features. Which would be fine, if it was done fast and well. But so far, it seems to be a fiasco, just convenient cover for the fact that an email client that some users are very attached to is going away. All under the cover of giving the new fantasy product the same name as the old program.

The change to the new version is taking forever. There is seldom any communication from the developer team. The development process itself does not seem to be open -- the team does not seem to communicate with each other in public. There is no evidence that anyone other than the company team is really involved, has access, or can be involved. Progress is so slow, and the key features the potential users want such as retaining the mailbox file structures have been dropped -- there is no reason to think that this product will ever come to fruition.

People who want to use Eudora are stuck with 7.1-2006 and previous versions. The 7.1 download seems to still be available, but not the paid mode. This would be a very important detail to document in the article -- what the situation is for people who are using paid mode, whether it will keep working, and whether there is any way for them to get it back if they lose it for various reasons. Are they still paying? -69.87.200.181 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, 'free software' is not a license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.67.75 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudora OSE 1 was released in early September 2010. OSE = open source edition. Banjodog (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

New Mail Sound?

I haven't used Eudora for years, so I don't know if this is still the case, but Eudora's default new mail sound was identical to the chimes at the beginning of the log jingle from Ren and Stimpy. Does anyone know the connection? I've been wondering about this for years.Bugloaf (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was probably ripped from Ren & Stimpy. That was a popular sort of thing to do back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.208.45 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked both the Eudora sound AND the Ren&Stimpy intro music. They sound similar, but the height of the noted and the intervals are quite different. So: no! the sound comes NOT from Ren & Stimpy, even if it's similar up to a point. (here the ren&stimpy intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQLuee4k60o) --Horia mar (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed from Ren and Stimpy, but from the beginning of their fake-commercial for "Log". Listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7mNr5WMjA -- Bovineone (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

One more vote for them being the same, after extensive personal research … --scruss (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Proprietary v open-source versions

Until my edit the article confusingly displayed at the top that it's about the (older) proprietary version but contained a lot of info re the open-source version as well, including the latest version, licence and website link. Much more than required to show the relationship of both incarnations.

I suggest that either:

1. all information about the open-source version, including latest release, features and weblink, is removed from this article (then the message at the top may be reinstated); or
2. this article and the Eudora OSE are merged into one article.

The way it is now is confusing and also it's difficult to keep both articles in sync. 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.241.37.94 (talk)

Current development by Team HERMES

The current version of the article states that "Eudoramail", forked from the original source code, was the de-facto successor of Eudora, as edited by @Hugh Turdmuncher. Now this actually confuses me. Is there any source on this official succession? Tuxman (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not the developer, but as a loyal customer I'm in regular contact with them via Signal instant messenger. So, here's my understanding of the situation, in re sourcing.

1. The source code for the last version on which Qualcomm worked (Eudora 7.1.0.9) is hosted by the CHM as a museum exhibit (i.e. in a state of historic preservation). In this state it can not be added to or changed.
2. The CHM-hosted museum exhibit requires a special, expensive toolkit made by Perforce in order to compile. Even then, compiling Eudora 7.1.0.9 requires making some changes to the Qualcomm source code.
3. Because of the toolkit price, the "normal" Open Source workflow is basically untenable (everyone would essentially have to have a copy of the Perforce toolkit). So instead, Team Hermes bought the toolkit and sells Eudoramail 8 as commercial software.
4. The casual user would be hard-pressed to notice differences between Eudora 7.1.0.9 and Eudoramail 8, except that Eudoramail 8 connects to modern IMAP servers and Eudora 7.1.0.9 doesn't. There's a lot of acronyms being slung around, like TLS, OAuth2, POP3, IMAP4, but that kind of nonsense just fades into the background.
5. Because of manpower issues (this is a small start-up), there's nobody currently working on the Hermes web page BUT their official Indiegogo page works as a de facto store-cum-landing page, run by Hermes employees (you buy the software by "donating" $1 or more on Indiegogo, and then you get a license key by e-mail).
6. I really don't know how to navigate Wikipedia's sourcing policy in regards to this matter. I am certain that WP:NOTABILITY would come into play if "Eudoramail" were to split into its own article. But in my opinion "Eudoramail" should not split into its own article, because it's a de facto sequel to Eudora 7. On the other hand, all information in re: Eudora OSE should split, because it's an unmaintained extension to Thunderbird that has nothing in common with Eudora except for the name (and the publisher).
7. I believe Indiegogo (which hosts the de facto Hermes Eudoramail 8 web page) is on the WP:BLACKLIST, but WP policy allows primary sources, even "self-published" ones, with caution (see WP:V#Self-published_sources, etc.)

But it's not some kind of exceptional claim to say that Eudoramail 8 exists, it's compatible with Windows 11 and Linux through Wine, and that its web page, where you can read about it and buy it, is https://igg.me/HERMES80. I wouldn't even call that "advertising"; it's a primary source, sure, but that's about it. --Hugh Turdmuncher (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A shop site is very much advertising. That said, while the product named "Eudoramail 8" is - and I don't even doubt that - a fork of what once was Eudora (there are good reasons why it is named "Eudoramail" and not "Eudora"), it is not the same thing as Eudora. There is probably nothing wrong with mentioning that the open-sourced Eudora is being used to create new products, but even if you call it "version 8", it is still a different thing, similar to Pandora Mail being "an implementation of" Eudora without being Eudora.

However, as Eudoramail "wouldn't meet WP:NOTABILITY" (which is probably the case), I'm not even sure if it would make even more sense to wait until it actually exists in a "released" and "final" version. --Tuxman (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it wouldn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, I said that WP:NOTABILITY would merit consideration if Eudoramail were spun off into its own page. Which I am not convinced it ought to be—and especially not yet.

Moreover, the word "fork" implies that development continues both by the original author and by the new author—or, at the very least, on two different "tracks". This is a case of passing the torch (something similar happened with LimeWire, which got forked into FrostWire but also got a continuation in WireShare [which, you'll note, is a redirect to LimeWire])

You mentioned Pandora, but that's very much a red herring, because Pandora (like Eudora OSE) has approximately 0% Eudora code. It is a GUI reimplementation, an imitator, a fake. Eudora OSE carries the Eudora name, but doesn't even imitate the original GUI like Pandora does. Also 0% Eudora code.

Eudoramail has 100% Eudora code. It is named differently for trademark reasons (according to the developers, they were told that "Eudora Pro" and "Eudoramail" were both acceptable as names for the new-old product, but "Eudora" simpliciter was not).

If you look at Jack Yan's review, he even says: "Here is the first real successor to Eudora 7. It’s not Thunderbird with Eudora buttons. This is the real thing." Given the similarity in substance between Eudora 7 and Eudoramail 8, sharing a Wikipedia page seems like the right thing to do. --Hugh Turdmuncher (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack Yan does not have the final word on whether Eudoramail is Eudora or not. I don't know how much Eudora code is in Pandora, but that's not relevant for the question whether Pandora is "an Eudora" or not. Eudoramail is not Eudora either. Eudora development stopped after version 7 or - if you count Eudora OSE's beta versions before the rebranding - version 8. (So, Eudora 8 already was a thing, making "Eudoramail 8" an even worse name.)

Coming back to the trademark thing, Qualcomm - the only people who can decide on what Eudora is and what is not - had officially said that Eudora 8 (later named Eudora OSE, but it was Eudora version 8 for a while) was the successor to Eudora 7, regardless of how much code they shared. And no, a fork does not require the original code to be still in development.

So "Eudora 8" is either Eudora 9 (if Qualcomm says so) or a completely different product. Right now, it's the latter. I genuinely wish that you stop reverting the article with misleading information. Please don't do that again.

--Tuxman (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the trademark thing is hugely important, and Qualcomm does not own the trademark. They assigned it to Len Shustek, the curator at the Computer History Museum. Following your line of reasoning, he is "the only [person] who can decide what is Eudora and what is not". I have been in contact with him and he agrees with me: Eudoramail picks up from where Eudora left off, and in effect, it IS Eudora. It is not a defunct mail client.

Pandora is not endorsed by Qualcomm, nor by Len Shustek, nor by Team Hermes; I am pointing to it as something that, following your opinions, should not be mentioned on this Wikipedia page. Yet it is mentioned regardless. By a casual reading, though, you'd think Pandora is a potential successor to Eudora. If so, only spiritually.

The only one who is reverting the article with misleading information is you. I genuinely wish that you put a cork in it. Please do that. --Hugh Turdmuncher (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Eudora is not the same thing as Eudoramail. I never said Pandora was equal to Eudora either.

Enough of these edit wars. This has to end now. --Tuxman (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What, exactly, is your problem? I'm fine with saying that Eudoramail is only one successor to/fork of Eudora 7 (even if creating others would be highly impractical) and that it's not anointed by the CHM like a French king. If this is what you want to make clear, I'll do that. On the other hand, though, it's also misinformation to say Eudora is totally defunct. And until Eudoramail needs its own page without question (I have serious doubts it will, WP:NOTABILITY or not), it'll need to be discussed here, just for completeness' sake. Eudora OSE is discussed too much (the hatnote and a short section, with a link to the main Eudora OSE article, should be enough). --Edward Werner (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Asked for a third opinion. --Tuxman (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have read the discussion here, and the article. As I understand it, the question is whether Eudoramail should be counted as a release of Eudora, either Eudora 8 or Eudora 9. My conclusion is that, given the history, and that Eudora was discontinued for a significant time, it will be confusing to call Eudoramail a version of Eudora. It has the trademark, and it appears that it has the old source code, but it will be clearer to refer to it as a successor to Eudora. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with phrasing it that way, and drawing a bright-line distinction between that and Qualcomm E7. Especially given that a second trusted source can be quoted as "on the base of Eudora 7's source code". What I'm not fine with is reverts, reverts of reverts, and edit warring. But that means it should be OK to include a link to Eudoramail's home page or Indiegogo page (which Tuxman has also reverted). --Edward Werner (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)