Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Which email program do you use on your Mac?

1/1: Which email program do you use on your Mac?

AOL Mail 17 (0.40%)
Apple's Mail 2,984 (70.20%)
Entourage 533 (12.54%)
Eudora 197 (4.63%)
GnuMail 13 (0.31%)
GyazMail 23 (0.54%)
Magellan X 0 (0.00%)
Mailsmith 22 (0.52%)
Mulberry 12 (0.28%)
Mutt [UNIX] 56 (1.32%)
Outlook in Classic 12 (0.28%)
Pine [UNIX] 58 (1.36%)
PowerMail 21 (0.49%)
QuickMail Pro 7 (0.16%)
SweetMail 3 (0.07%)
Thunderbird / Netscape / etc. 133 (3.13%)
Yahoo web-based 71 (1.67%)
I don't read Mail on my Mac 15 (0.35%)
Other... 74 (1.74%)
Other polls | 4,251 votes | 46 comments

Which email program do you use on your Mac? | 46 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Which email program do you use on your Mac?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Apologies in advance...
Authored by: robg on May 21, '04 01:02:11PM

If I left your personal favorite email app out of the list ... there are only so many poll choices available, so I had to skip a few to make the rest fit...

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
multiple choice
Authored by: Moofisto on May 22, '04 05:01:50PM

You listed all the ones I normally use all right, but the poll only can allow for voting for one!

I use:

- Mail (normally. I like the UI and the bundles like MailPictures, etc)
- mutt in Terminal (for locally delivered mail)
- Mozilla Thunderbird (when I need extra flexibility, such as compliant HTML mail versus text/enriched, etc)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Spymac
Authored by: pete on May 27, '04 09:33:32AM

I no longer am connected to the internet from home. When I was, I used Mail. Now that I am not, I use Spymac. When iTools changed to .mac, I wasn't about to pass $160 (Cdn) to Apple to continue with a web-based e-mail account. Spymac started up to fill the void.

Being offline since January, I have used this free service more and more. They now offer 1gig storage, which has caused a population explosion and a few problems, but overall it is pretty good.


pete



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why Use anything else
Authored by: sonnyjz on May 21, '04 04:06:34PM

I love pine and mutt, use them still on a few mail servers. Outside of the host-based mail clients why would you use anything else other than mail.app ?

---
- Sonny Zambrana
http://wontstop.com



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why? Speed
Authored by: vital on May 22, '04 04:18:05AM

I can search for a message in roughly 1/10th of the time it takes Mail.app to find it. I can switch folder full of messages (literally 1000's of them) almost instantly. I can quickly access multiple mailservers and retrieve my mail with out grinding things to a halt and then filter them all quickly.

I don't need HTML/rtf messages. Email wasn't really designed for that anyway. I deal with a large volume of email daily [100-120 message, not counting SPAM], that I need to be able to read and respond to, and I need to be able to store and search for them.

It boils down to speed for me. Different people may have different needs, but I really don't believe that Mail.app is a solution for every email need that people have.

--V



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why? Speed
Authored by: swedentom on May 24, '04 12:36:57PM
I can switch folder full of messages (literally 1000's of them) almost instantly.
I have a folder with 11000+ messages. Switching to that folder takes less than a second, so I wouldn't say that Mail.app is that slow. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]
Why Use anything else
Authored by: thochman on May 22, '04 07:12:52PM

Why? O Mutt, how I love thee, let me count the reasons why...

  • Speed
  • Remote accessibility via SSH
  • Customization (key bindings, macros)
  • Simple integration with procmail, and hence other e-mail tools like spam filters
  • Geek factor :)

Sure, Mutt isn't as pretty as Mail.app, and I like to use OS X apps wherever possible. But the reasons listed above are the main reasons I've chosen to use Mutt instead. The only real drawback is lack of support for HTML mail.. However, that is easily fixed with a simple key binding to pass the e-mail to Safari. And I get very few legitimate HTML messages anyway. :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
mutt, et.al.
Authored by: sjk on May 22, '04 07:59:09PM

I might be using mutt if its IMAP support were more complete. I've primarily used Mulberry for several years now, first on Solaris and on OS X since late 2001. The mulberry-discuss list is an excellent resource, full of helpful, interesting, insightful topics.

Right now my ideal e-mail program would be a combination of features and interface from Mulberry, Apple Mail, Gmail (beta), and mutt.

FastMail is my favorite ESP.



[ Reply to This | # ]
mutt, et.al.
Authored by: babbage on Jun 02, '04 02:28:30PM
Right now my ideal e-mail program would be a combination of features and interface from Mulberry, Apple Mail, Gmail (beta), and mutt.

In other words, your ideal e-mail program is Pine.

And yes, I agree, it's wonderful :-)

---
--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

mutt, et.al.
Authored by: sjk on Jun 02, '04 10:31:24PM

Pine's UI leaves much to be desired. AFAIK keybindings still can't be cutomized. And when I tried v3.x it felt too "modal". Hard to imagine anyone who's used mutt extensively being able to tolerate Pine's "rigid" interface.

Forgot to include MM (great command line MUA on TOPS-20; Columbia University wrote a UNIX version) and MH in my list. And Emacs-based VM. :-)



[ Reply to This | # ]
mutt, et.al.
Authored by: babbage on Jun 03, '04 09:56:45AM

You mention Pine's lack of keybinding flexibility as if that's a bad thing, but really, why would that be a good thing? I don't want a mystery meat UI; I want clear, consistent behavior and preferably would prefer to have good documentation for that behavior. Pine's keybindings -- much of which is inherited from Emacs -- are clear, well thought out & documented, and predictable. I have better things to do with my time than try to come up with a different set, ya know? :-)

And Pine 3.x is ancient history by now. The program had already reached 4.00 by 1998, and as of last month is on 4.60. If you're going to compare to Mutt, then be consistent: Mutt didn't even exist until the end of 1998. Moreover, Mutt has been updated four times in the past two years, while Pine has had nine releases that brought it from 4.44 to 4.60 (with big changes at 4.5x & 4.6x) in the same span of time.

It would appear that the Mutt users are two wrapped up in coming up with new keybindings to make much useful progress with their software, eh? :-)

Really though, Mutt has the reputation as the "flexible" mail client while Pine is perceived to be the "training wheels" one, but having spent time using both, it seems to me that Pine is at least as flexible in any ways that count (better IMAP support, etc) and is far less confusing to use. I've seen little if anything that a Mutt user could do that couldn't be done in nearly as few keystrokes in Pine (not counting cheating like binding a series of commands to one keystroke, which Pine obviously doesn't allow), to the point that the practical differences between the two are negligible, and the clearer, more consistent UI in Pine becomes a real advantage -- at least to me.

In any case, the only obvious thing is that they're both better than nearly any GUI mail client. Talk about training wheels! Sheesh! :-)

---
--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

mutt, et.al.
Authored by: ilchymis on Dec 29, '04 08:32:14PM

I like Pine and I use it when I have to deal with remote IMAP boxes. However, its inability to deal with Maildir boxes means I won't be using it as my primary user agent, at least for now. (Or at least I don't think that it can do Maildir, as much as I've tried... correct me if I'm wrong.)

I've always seen mbox as a very fragile format; I'm much more comfortable keeping my important mail in a Maildir folder, regardless of the (mild) performance loss associated with the format. So, it's Mutt for me.



[ Reply to This | # ]
HTML mail in mutt
Authored by: Moofisto on May 26, '04 08:09:27AM
oooooh...actually you can use mutt's MIME autoview to show rendered HTML inline.

links provides the rendering. It's colorful and pretty. I'm also set up to have HTML display in my default GUI browser, though I realize that I rarely used that. Reading it layed out in Terminal was enough. I used to use mutt a lot more, now that we have Thunderbird and Mail.app has gotten better, I still use it for local mail.

I based what I did on Gary Johnson's work, and modded it for OS X. Replaced w3m with links, and modified his mutt_netscape script to use the default browser. Made handlers for image attachments to go to GraphicConverter, and that sort of thing. mutt is fun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

re: Why Use anything else?
Authored by: acurrie on Jun 03, '04 07:54:10PM

I stopped using Apple Mail after it corrupted some of my mailboxes. I had moved over to Mail after my Entourage mail database got similarly corrupted. Now I'm back on Eudora, and will never switch again!



[ Reply to This | # ]
re: Why Use anything else?
Authored by: shavenyak on Dec 29, '04 08:45:24PM

What happens if Eudora corrupts your mail? :P



[ Reply to This | # ]
Reviews?
Authored by: thornrag on May 21, '04 05:06:30PM

Nice list of mail apps, more than half of which I wasn't aware of. Maybe what we need somewhere is a review of some of the more obscure ones. I love Mail.app, but there are plenty of things that I would welcome in an alternative mail client, if I knew about them...



[ Reply to This | # ]
iPine?
Authored by: agraboso on May 21, '04 11:28:07PM

Wouldn't it be nice to have Pine with the GUI rewritten in Cocoa.

I've been using Pine for a long time before arriving to the Mac platform 8 months ago and I really love it. The shortcut system feels much easier than Mail.app's and switching between the mailbox index and the messages themselves by using "<" and ">" is just much more comfortable than having to share screen space between the two.

Mail.app, on the other side, integrates much better in Mac OS X, of course, being able to display HTML code with the Safari engine, clicking on links working out of the box and the icon in the dock displaying the number of unread messages. The junk mail filter system is quite good, too.

Is there any programmer out there that dares to take this challenge? I wish I could, but my programming skills are too basic...



[ Reply to This | # ]
iPine?
Authored by: nothingmuch on May 23, '04 09:58:46AM

The university of washington imposes licensing limitations, so you can't (afaik) release such a program without a lawyer.

Otherwise, if the source code is properly layered, wrapping it's logic in some Obj-C classes, and replicating the view shouldn't take too long. I bet it can be very graphical (think embedded images, WebCore, moving stuff, drag and drop) at the same time too.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Mutt GUI?!
Authored by: nothingmuch on May 23, '04 09:49:36AM

I tried googling for this, but I can't seem to find it...

What is it?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Mutt GUI?!
Authored by: robg on May 25, '04 12:50:26AM

What is it? It's my mistake :). Mutt was only supposed to be listed once, but I got confused while cutting and pasting the list around -- I'd listed it twice, thinking there was a GUI version, and meant to cut this one. It's now been cut, and the vote that it had was given to Mutt [UNIX].

Thanks for pointing out my mistake! :)

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Two
Authored by: Iowa Boy on May 24, '04 12:16:05PM

I actually use two interfaces: mail app by Apple and Yahoo.

Does a .mac subscription have a web interface to your .mac email address?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Two
Authored by: jen729w on May 25, '04 01:57:44AM

.mac surely does have a web interface, and it's not bad at all. Doesn't do much, other than read and write mail, but then what would you expect?

Sign up for a free 60 day .mac account and play around - that's all I've got at the moment. I quite like .mac - does anyone have any comments? Is it worth the subscription? I like the iMovie hosting thing. Childish, yeah. Simplistic, yeah. Fun? Yeah.



[ Reply to This | # ]
It's $99. How do you feel about that?
Authored by: Bookman on May 25, '04 01:25:04PM
I quite like .mac - does anyone have any comments? Is it worth the subscription? I like the iMovie hosting thing. Childish, yeah. Simplistic, yeah. Fun? Yeah.

It really all depends on how much $99 sticks in your craw. Some people see that as exorbitant; others see is as well worth it, and for varying reasons: the mac.com email address itself, the free stuff and discounts that come along during the year, the web integration with the iApps and Backup, & iDisk being those that I value.

Myself, after availing myself of the $49 price for iTools users, I vowed I would not renew the second year unless they lowered the price. Well, they didn't, but I did, although I did get a $20 discount for referring one other user who adopted .Mac.

So far I feel I have gotten a good deal for what I paid. Would I rather it was free or at least half the cost? Sure. Can I promise I will sign up the year I have to pay full price? No. But I'm enjoying it and the useful integration for the modest things I do. Check it out: homepage.mac.com/pchien, or .../uaug.

One thing I must say: Kudos to Apple for making it possible to incorporate HTML pages one has created "by hand" in HomePage. Haven't tried it yet, but it makes HomePage itself potentially three times as useful for many people without compromising the novice's ability to use HomePage.


--Books

[ Reply to This | # ]
.Mac HomePage
Authored by: sjk on May 25, '04 06:49:26PM

I wish it were possible to assign an alias to a .Mac account for HomePage access instead of having to use the name part of the @mac.com e-mail address. Same with iChat.

I'm strongly opposed to divulging e-mail addresses through use of them with other services and wish more providers would realize that and provide an alternative.



[ Reply to This | # ]
.Mac HomePage
Authored by: shavenyak on Dec 29, '04 08:53:15PM

You could add an email-only account for 10$ (I think?) and use the main .mac name for the web stuff. Come to think of it, you can add aliases for free - you still might get some spam to the main address you'd have to weed through, but you could filter it out in a mail client.

I'm a pretty new Mac user, but I thought .mac was worth the money, even though I don't really plan to use the email address (I'm very happy with fastmail.fm). Incidentally, I primarily use Mail.app, but I prefer Thunderbird when I'm forced to use a Windows machine.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Eudora -> Mail.app for this boy
Authored by: dzurn on May 24, '04 02:53:43PM

I've been using Eudora forever, seemingly, and I really liked and trusted its new Junk Mail filter. However there's two points I hate about it:

1. "Eudora needs your attention". 95% of the mail I get is spam, which Eudora can properly 'junk'-ify into the Junk mailbox. However the auto mail check insists on notifying me that I have no "real" mail. This was promised to be fixed 2 or 3 updates ago.

2. No HTML rendering at all. Even though I don't want to see the images (web bugs, etc.) necessarily, Eudora should at LEAST show me the rendered HTML. No way in Eudora.

So I decided to try out Mail.app

Moving to Mail was far easier than I thought. "Eudora Mailbox Cleaner" does a much better job than Mail.app of importing all my Eudora mailboxes, read/unread status, attachments, filters, etc. It made the transition a no-brainer! The only thing that I miss is the 1990's look of Eudora and its drawbacks.

Mail.app just feels so right.

---
Madness takes its toll.
Please have exact change.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Entourage by choice?
Authored by: Han Solo on May 24, '04 08:57:04PM
I'm curious how many of those 1 in 10 (or more) readers who use Entourage (or Outlook in Classic) do so because they need access to particular services at the office, and would otherwise use another mail client. Not an anti-Microsoft rant (per se), but I am curious how Microsoft's dominance in office apps (and, frankly, in most IT departments) affects what software people use. After all, unlike Word and Excel, this poll makes clear that there really are numerous realistic options for e-mail clients outside of a few large vendors. (Not that that doesn't prevent most of us from using Apple's Mail.app — including yours truly. Another argument for bundling affecting choice, I guess.)

Had e-mail protocols not existed prior to Microsoft emerging at the dominant software company in the world, one must wonder whether an e-mail standard that wasn't a proprietary, closed Microsoft format (again, think Word, Excel, etc.) would have ever existed. Or whether e-mail — largely like instant messaging now — could not cross proprietary networks. Imagine how different communication would be today in that world....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Entourage, most definitely by choice
Authored by: SnowLprd on May 25, '04 02:21:10AM

While there are undoubtedly going to be folks who use Entourage in order to access corporate Exchange servers, such users appear to be in the minority. The majority made a conscious choice to pay for Office just to enjoy the many advantages of using Entourage over Mail/iCal/AddressBook. The linking of mail, contacts, tasks, and calendar events in an integrated database stands out as one of the most important advantages, but there are numerous others. Personally, I've always been fond of Entourage for its impeccable handling of Japanese contact fields (you can thank Dan Crevier, former MacBU member, for those features). Entourage is also one of the most scriptable applications on the OS X platform, and the members of the Entourage mailing list are prolific producers of some of the slickest scriptwork I've ever seen. Anyway, I could go on and on, but I think everyone gets the point by now... :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Entourage, most definitely by choice
Authored by: sjk on May 25, '04 06:53:47PM

Thanks for the question and response since it's something I've been curious about.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Entourage, most definitely by choice
Authored by: mshmgi on May 26, '04 11:21:16AM

I bought Office X soley for Entourage. It is the best email client I have ever used and not nearly as frustrating as mail.app (I used mail.app as my primary client from 10/2001 - early 2003). I recently uninstalled mail.app from my home eMac and installed Entourage there as well. I gave mail.app a fair trial (nearly 3 years), but it simply does not measure up to Entourage.

Entourage gives me mail, calendar and guestbook in one app (not 3) and its "rules" are much better than mail.app was (when I was using it - I dunno now).

Of course mail.app is free ... so you've got to like that.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Entourage, most definitely by choice
Authored by: macdaddy2008 on May 29, '04 11:56:59AM

For a long time, I was a hater of Microsoft in general. But with the new Entourage 2004, Microsoft has made one product that I absolutely love. The integration and other excellent features make it my e-mail client of choice.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Entourage by choice?
Authored by: dangottesman on May 26, '04 01:55:09AM

I use both Mail and Entourage - Mail's junk mail filterning is the best (most effective, most reliable) that I've seen to date (as far as clients go, that is). However, from a composition standpoint, Mail just isn't up to snuff.
Entourage has better keyboard support (such as the ability to hop from one word to another by using cmd-arrow keys, just like in Word, QuarkXPress, and a few other heavy hitters), and much more sophisticated Rules functionality.
[for the curious - Mail checks all my accounts every minute, and downloads anything it thinks is junk from the server, filing it away for me to review later. When I get 'real' mail, I read it in Mail, and when I need to reply to something, I manually check/send in Entourage, which downloads the latest good mail (files it, etc), and then I write my reply from there.]
To Mail's credit, however, (playing Devil's Advocate here) its support for PGP is the best I've seen in any client, and, I would imagine that once it hits 3.0, will be a more mature, full-featured application that I'll seriously consider switching over to.
Cuz having 2 mail clients open all the time is kinda silly.
:)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Key bindings
Authored by: sjk on May 26, '04 10:33:28AM
Re: ... hop from one word to another by using cmd-arrow keys

I use (and prefer :-)) Emacs-style option-f [moveWordForward] and option-b [moveWordBackward] keybindings for that sort of functionality in Cocoa apps. See Key bindings for technical information and examples.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Entourage by choice?
Authored by: ashill on May 27, '04 11:04:38AM
such as the ability to hop from one word to another by using cmd-arrow keys, just like in Word

That's option-arrow keys in Mail, just like every Mac application I've used except Word since OS 7. cmd-arrow keys go to the beginning and end of the current line.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Outlook in Classic
Authored by: solinvictus on May 25, '04 11:30:12AM

Well, since Entourage v.X and 2004 depend on Exchange 2000sp3 or better, I'm still stuck with Outlook 2001 in Classic for connectivity to our Exchange 5.5 environment.

We're piloting Exchange 2k3 in June, though, so I can finally kiss Classic goodbye! As Classic running Outlook (even in the background) eats an insane amount of CPU time (easily 65% to 80%), I'll be quite happy to see it go.

---
Lex Talionis



[ Reply to This | # ]
Accessing Mail.app data from other programs
Authored by: taxi on May 26, '04 01:38:47AM

I have a PC that sit's next to my iMac - what I want to be able to do is telnet/ssh into my mac, and read my email from the command line.

I think this might be possible, maybe using links (not symlinks) to the files, and making pine read them.

has anyone else done this sort of thing?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Accessing Mail.app data from other programs
Authored by: Moofisto on May 26, '04 06:38:33AM

Yes.

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20021031064721177
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030728045834495
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030218124955274



[ Reply to This | # ]
Mail Brain Dead
Authored by: rocteur on May 26, '04 11:55:45AM

I can not believe so many of you use Apple Mail..

Just one point.. How can you mark a mail as important or low priority ?

I'm not going to go on about it but I am just surprised!!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Marking a message as important
Authored by: alisdair on May 27, '04 09:55:19AM

From the menus: Message -> Mark -> As Flagged. Tada.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Mail Brain Dead
Authored by: pete on May 27, '04 10:33:36AM

I used Apple's Mail because it was included with the system software, not to mention - free. Being a single home user, it was all I needed for my purposes.


pete



[ Reply to This | # ]
Mail Brain Dead
Authored by: adrick42 on May 29, '04 07:57:51PM

Well, for starters I use this

MailPriority v1.4.1

---
If we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time?

The Merovingian -- 

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mail Brain Dead
Authored by: derPlau on Jun 01, '04 05:10:01PM

Well, jeez. I don't! If a mail is important, I respond to it or act on it immediately; if it's not, I don't.



[ Reply to This | # ]
The best email program of them all!
Authored by: dualusbibook on May 29, '04 03:29:24AM

I can't believe I didn't have the option of choosing Claris Emailer 2 !!!!

The only reason I still keep launching classic is for Emailer, can't bring myself to using a new program. I just works.
(-:

Anyone else crazy as me still running Emailer?

Just to show its age, it hasn't been updated since 1998 (-:



[ Reply to This | # ]
The best email program of them all!
Authored by: davidnorton on May 29, '04 11:09:57PM

Ha... I loved Claris Emailer back in the day. Then we switched to Outlook Express for a while... then Entourage... now I use Mail.app for everything. It works, it is pretty, just does what I want.

I have two IMAP email accounts, get about 15 emails/day, maybe more. I have one rule -- Bounce Icon in Dock for every message. I have about 20 local folders on my sidebar, and only put messages in there once I have replied or done what needs to be done... my inbox hovers between 3 and 13 messages. I just try to delete messages I won't ever need again. Junk Mail filter is off... don't ever get spam. I am on one discussion list and about 3 weekly newsletter lists. Email is something I keep open in the background, I use it for communicating with most of my clients, but it is not a large, time-consuming process for me.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: The best email program of them all!
Authored by: iGnome on May 31, '04 04:47:13PM

I've never touched Emailer, but I used Organizer for some time before I discovered that Palm Desktop was basically carbonized Organizer.

Then when I got a Palm, Palm Desktop started corrupting my files, crashing randomly, and so on, so I switched to iCal. I like iCal. I would love iCal if it had recurring to-do's.



[ Reply to This | # ]
AppleMail lack of searching capabilities
Authored by: lazygopher on Jun 03, '04 01:33:18PM

I like Apple Mail in pretty much all respects - but I can't believe that Apple still hasn't addressed the woeful lack of a searching interface in AppleMail. As far as I know, you can only search on ONE condition (From=foobar or Subject contains Blah, or whatever) - Netscape Mail allows you to search on a lot of conditions ANDed or ORed together. Since I keep most of my important stuff in my email, it's a problem that I can't search it very well.



[ Reply to This | # ]