Talk:Email clients based on Thunderbird

what does this mean "Because it reuses a copy of Thunderbird its not unusual for users to update it to use the next major version of Thunderbird before its released or find a web site that has modified it for them. " Wsm 11:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is rather confusing and the entire sentence can probably go without losing any information. Also, I think only official download links authorized by the respective application should be referred to, not any 3rd-part web sites. --Rsx11m 13:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Portable Thunderbird is basically a copy of unmodified Thunderbird files plus a custom launcher. If you want to use a version of Thunderbird that it doesn't support yet, you can replace the appropriate bits if you're willing to take the risk. My impression is that's common when waiting for the next major version to be officially released. I'll try to improve that sentence, and maybe include a link to something that provides more details.

Ok, it's not clear what is meant in its current wording. --Rsx11m 21:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that we should never link to download sites that aren't authorized by the respective application. No explanation was provided why we should do that. We normally want to point to an official web site for downloads rather than something like CNET downloads or the Add-ons Mirror to minimize risk but in this case we're talking about user contributions that aren't available from the author. Did you notice that it was for alpha and beta builds of Thunderbird 3 ? I've seen posts on how to do this (and links to private builds) in the PortableApps forums before, and it never seemed to bother the author. Tanstaafl 15:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main concern is obviously that the user has to assume a site linked from here is "safe" to use. Thus, as long as this can be ensured (or at least assured), it should be ok, but it's certainly our responsibility to double-check the credibility of such sites. --Rsx11m 21:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I've updated the Postbox section and tried to shorten some paragraphs without loosing information, but it still is disproportionally detailed compared with the other sections. Links to screenshots and feature lists are available for other applications as well but not explicitly listed here. In general, a link to the top page (which you would expect to contain such items) and pointing to some noteworthy documentation on the vendor's or someone else's site should be sufficient. --Rsx11m 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason it has so much detail is because I got the impression there was a lot of interest in it and a lot of that information is not easily obtained from the vendors web site. I don't see any reason why we have to provide the same amount of information for each implementation.

I looked for some separate links for screen shots and feature lists for Portable Thunderbird. There don't appear to be any, all the information they provide is on the main page. I couldn't find any for Eudora 8 either. I did find a recent review of Eudora 8 Beta 5 that included a lot of information and a screen shot so I added a link to it. As a compromise I removed the table of links in the Postbox section, and moved the sentence about it only supporting seven addons to the following paragraph. Tanstaafl 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just trying to avoid the impression that one application is getting more attention than the other, thus providing links of one type for one application would imply to also provide them for the other applications as available. The compromise is fine, the itemized list seemed a bit redundant and I only linked to the respective main page of the SM 2.0 documentation. I was also digging a bit in the PB 1.0b14 sources (the open-source part which is published, nothing is known about whatever they replaced or added on top) and made the reference to Mozilla code used a bit more specific. --Rsx11m 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)