Outlook needs to die in a fire. It has become unusable.
@Sempf I literally only use "Outlook (Classic)".
@nerdpr0f I literally have to use what my clients have. And it SUUUUUUUUCKS.
@Sempf bring back pine or elm
@popio Oh, elm. I miss elm.
@Sempf @popio
Pretty sure pine is the same thing as elm.
@FritzAdalis @popio Is it? Been a looooong time.
@Sempf @popio
Sorry, pine stands for Pine Is Not Elm. Not sure why I remember that.
@FritzAdalis @popio Curse of the greybeard.
@Sempf @FritzAdalis I still don't remember why we needed more than ASCII in email. Pretty sure that was Outlook that decided text wasn't pretty enough.
@Sempf It's been unusable for 30 years.

@stuartl Well, if you wanna be really picky sure. Honestly find me a mail app that doesn't fit that, broadly.

But outlook actively prevents the user from doing good work, and that's inexcusable. I don't think you can say THAT about Eudora or Thunderbird. Outlook just tries to do too much.

@Sempf Well… I say it's been unusable for a few reasons:

1. it's a standards pariah, ignoring agreed Internet standards in favour of doing its own thing (winmail.dat for example)
2. it's a security nightmare (MSIE renderer for unsanitised HTML email anyone? Today it's a web-based client in a dedicated web browser, so after using Word's HTML renderer, we're back to using a full-blooded web browser and putting our faith in sanitation of the HTML.)
3. it's an unreliable piece of excretia that frequently corrupts its own local storage database
4. it forces rich text views with no option to view text/plain parts of emails (which means companies _generate_ emails with broken text/plain parts without realising it because their choice of client doesn't even let them test that part)

These days, it'll also be partially vibe-coded too.

@stuartl Wow. That was a damning, and very accurate, list.