From: jjmckay@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim McKay)
Subject: QM vs Eudora/POP (was Re: QM vs MS Mail)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:33:27 GMT

Joe Niski <niski@ssd.intel.com> writes:

>In article <BzD5n2.FH1@eis.calstate.edu> Tom Nakada,
>tnakada@eis.calstate.edu writes:
>>
>>"cc:Mail is not fast, it needs some client tweaking, and its RAM
>>requirements (in the neighborhood of 1MB) can be a mojor obstacle. But in
>>many cases it has better features, a better interface and a better basic
>>structure than competing E-mail packages. A Mac cc:Mail remote client is
>>in the works, so the major missing components in cc:Mail's line are the
>>numerous gateways that QuickMail enjoys. If your priority is delivering
>>reliable E-mail to everyone's desk, however, cc:Mail 2.0 is the one to
>>look at first." 

Then there's the part where one can delete another user's cc:Mail directory.

>my ruthless opinions:
>QuickMail is a dog (last version i dealt with was 2.2.7, i beleive),
>ESPECIALLY ITS USER INTERFACE - getting mail addressed to external

I have a lot of users who like QM, ESPECIALLY ITS USER INTERFACE

>systems is a nightmare no user should be subjected to (see John Norstad's
>article from >1year ago re: QM vs. Eudora). For a large system, you often
>need to patch the Finder to increase the max # of open files. Mail gets
>corrupted often, in my experience. Last time i used it, you had to run
>the administrator program on the mail server itself if you have a gateway
>installed, and the software was incompatible with Timbuktu.

That was all fixed well over a year ago and tweaked in rel 2.5.1.
However, a dedicated QM server is pretty much necessary.

I support or help support several sites with both Eudora/POP3 and QuickMail.
The following is based on my expereince supporting 200+ users of either or both
of the e-mail apps.  In general, if someone can deal a little bit with UNIX
*and* like it, they will like Eudora.  Otherwise, if one is a casual 
user with little experience other than a Mac, I suspect they will prefer 
QuickMail.  I've had QM users glad to switch to Eudora; some were happy while
others have asked to be switched back to QuickMail.  Most of QuickMail's
quirks involve the server application, which some admins report to be quirky.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if the time spent on QM quirks is any 
graeter than time spent administering a POP server.  

I find that most anti-QM folks are rather UNIX literate while those who love
QM do not care for UNIX and almost always use a mouse.

Recently, I decided that one of my sites should be switched from QM to
Eudora and NUPop as the computer support personnel on that campus
prefferred that solution.  In that context it appeared that POP mail would
be a better solution.  A month later, the users requested to be 
switched back to QuickMail as the campus' POP server was not powerful 
enough to support the heavy usage it received.  Users had a hard time logging
into the server (due to the load) and could not get access when they needed
the mail most.  They, much to my surprise, prefferred QM's interface too.  
I could probably relate a similar story in the context of QuickMail.  

The point is, it seems that POP mail vs QuickMail vs cc:Mail vs MS Mail 
is very much "religious" in nature, just like Macs vs Unix vs MS-DOS.

The following is from a presentation I did last spring at the University
of Illinois.  Although it does not reflect everyone's opinions at the U of I
(not by a long shot) I feel it is pretty accurate.  I wish to thank those
of either the Eudora and QM persuassions who offerred comments and thereby
assisted in this casual comparison.
QuickMail and Eudora: A Brief Comparison

****************************************************************************
The following highlight some of the differences between QuickMail and Eudora

by Jim McKay with contributions from U OF I mail users and adminstrators.

*  Eudora designed for use with POP3 mail systems on the Internet such 
as the one on ux1.cso.uiuc.edu.  QuickMail is designed first as a LAN 
Electronic messaging system with some good SMTP support provided by 
third party add-ins.

*  Eudora requires the administration of a POP3 server on a Unix or MS-DOS 
host and thus requires a thorough knowledge of such operating systems.  There 
is no POP3 server for Macintoshes except under A/UX.  QuickMail 
relies on the Macintosh operating system.

*  Eudora is a solid and well-crafted piece of programming.  
QuickMail tends to be a little quirky at times and its programming 
appears to be sloppy in places.

*  A POP3 server tends to be more reliable than QuickMail when there are 
over 100 clients on a server.  Some have found that a second QM server 
is required after about 100 users.

*  A basic QuickMail server with an SMTP gateway can easily be generated 
in less than a half hour.  A POP server is more complicated to generate and 
maintain.

*  A QuickMail system gives the administrator a great degree of 
control over the mail system.  With a POP3 server and Eudora there is 
varying degrees of control, depending on who administers the server.

*  Eudora has solid dial-in capabilities for sites with some sort of 
terminal server.  QuickMail's is very good, but again sometimes quirky.  
From firsthand expereince, AppleTalk Remote Access can be used quite 
happily in place of QM Remote.

*  One can access POP mail with Eudora over the Internet.  QuickMail access 
over the Internet is technically conceivable but definitely not 
practical at this time, though it will be probably within a year or two.

*  Ph is well integrated into Eudora.  Some folks at the University 
of New Mexico are supposed to be developing a version of the 
QuickMail NameServer that will also have hooks into Ph, but hey that's 
vaporware.

*  QuickMail has a direct MS-DOS and OS/2 client counterpart.  POP mail 
clients are available for the PC  including NUPop and an upcoming release 
of Eudora. 

*  Mixed opinions ("religions") on QuickMail and Eudora interfaces.

*  Eudora's interface is more textual and less graphical than that 
of QuickMail's interface.  UNIX technoweenies generally prefer Eudora's 
interface while end- users who primarily use Macs prefer QuickMail's 
interface.  Eudora has a more "UNIXy" feel while QM is a bit more Mac-oreinted.
Eudora relies a bit too heavily on pull-down menus while QM is more icon driven.

*  Addressing in Eudora tends to rely more heavily on textual input 
while QuickMail tends to rely more heavily on graphical, point and click 
addressing schemes.

*  QuickMail has a NameServer database that is easily editable to include names 
and address both on and off campus.  QM access to Ph has not yet been released.  
*  With a POP3 Server/Eudora solution, one needs to be the administrator of the 
POP3 server in order to have control and customize it's nameserver.  (Not the 
case with accounts based at many universities' centralized mini or mainframe
POP servers.)

*  QuickMail users can search the NameServer database by just typing a 
few characters of part of the name.  Ph can have wildcard characters in 
a search but it is a little more complicated to use.

*  QuickMail has a "Priority" feature, allowing the sender to designate mail 
of varying priority for sorting by the recipient.

*  QuickMail has Receipts so that one can tell if mail that has been sent 
has been read.

*  In QuickMail, users can "unsend" mail sent to local users that has been 
sent but not yet read.  This does not apply to mail sent through a gateway 
to the internet.

*  QuickMail  allows one to enclose up to 16 documents at once.  Eudora 
requires one to use the "Attach Document" command for each enclosure.  
Once can not stay in "Attach Document" mode in Eudora.

*  QuickMail's Mail Log of outgoing messages resides in the same window 
as the active mail.  Eudora requires one to go to the Mailbox menu and 
select and open various mailboxes/folders.

*  QuickMail has forms/stationery with radio buttons, scrolling fields 
and graphics.  Eudora does not.

*  QuickMail has Voice Mail capabilities.  Eudora does not.

*  QuickMail has a conferencing feature.  Once can use the Unix '"talk" 
command, although Eudora has no such feature itself.

*  Unix users will like being able to use their textually-oriented 
.mailrc files for large mailings.  Similar results can be achieved 
with QuickMail's graphically- oriented Groups feature.

*  Instant notification of incoming mail with QuickMail rather than 
every x minutes with Eudora.

*  Eudora has outstanding documentation.  QuickMail's is mediocre in content 
mainly becasue it has poor organization.

*  QuickMail will probably integrate well with the emerging OCE (Open 
Collaboration Environment) developments from Apple.  (OCE is Apple's system 
7 extensions for email, encryption, security, collaborative writing, etc.)

*  Eudora could easily take advantage of this as well as it was 
System 7-savvy way before QuickMail.

*  An option to send QM messages to pagers will shortly be available from 
a third party.  Becuase of its large following at research institutions, 
it's conceiveable that someone might produce such connectivity, allowing 
Eudora users to send messages to pagers.

*  Eudora has aliases and nicknames as a shortcut for sending mail to frequent 
recipents.  QuickMail has address books and groups as a similar feature, 
although each program approaches this function diiferently.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm