Old Outlook, New Outlook or Outlook Web Access
-
I managed about 10 email accounts each day. So Outlook is the best option for me. OWA isn't even an option. All the accounts I managed are on office 365 and I rarely have issues.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
I managed about 10 email accounts each day. So Outlook is the best option for me. OWA isn't even an option. All the accounts I managed are on office 365 and I rarely have issues.
I don't have any issues with Outlook, so I wasn't sure what the deal was with people hating it so much.
I also have a SED, so I'm not worried about the data on my machine.
-
I have very little issues. Sometimes my CRM connector forces me to reboot but that is about it.
-
@BRRABill said:
@Minion-Queen said:
I managed about 10 email accounts each day. So Outlook is the best option for me. OWA isn't even an option. All the accounts I managed are on office 365 and I rarely have issues.
I don't have any issues with Outlook, so I wasn't sure what the deal was with people hating it so much.
I also have a SED, so I'm not worried about the data on my machine.
You have to secure your end point
That's an issue. -
@scottalanmiller said:
You have to secure your end point
That's an issue.We will have to agree to disagree on that one, sir.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You have to secure your end point
That's an issue.We will have to agree to disagree on that one, sir.
But you were the one having to fix having Outlook, right? If Outlook isn't an issue, no need to secure it. OWA is already secure without encryption. So if you feel Outlook isn't secure... that's your issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But you were the one having to fix having Outlook, right? If Outlook isn't an issue, no need to secure it. OWA is already secure without encryption. So if you feel Outlook isn't secure... that's your issue.
Who knows?
I am of the ilk if someone (ANYONE) says ... yeah my product is secure, and doesn't put ANY files on your local machine I
a -- don't believe them or
b -- don't believe them, but test it to see if maybe they were telling the truth -
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But you were the one having to fix having Outlook, right? If Outlook isn't an issue, no need to secure it. OWA is already secure without encryption. So if you feel Outlook isn't secure... that's your issue.
Who knows?
I am of the ilk if someone (ANYONE) says ... yeah my product is secure, and doesn't put ANY files on your local machine I
a -- don't believe them or
b -- don't believe them, but test it to see if maybe they were telling the truthWhy not just configure your machine to not let them put things on it then?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why not just configure your machine to not let them put things on it then?
Because I like local copies of things, and am not ready to jump on your all-cloud bandwagon just yet.
:bowtie:
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why not just configure your machine to not let them put things on it then?
Plus I still like local Outlook 2007 better than OWA.
THERE I'VE SAID IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You have to secure your end point
That's an issue.I've been trying to use OWA a little more, secure the endpoint kind of thing.
So, say I get a PDF attachment today. To read it, it downloads itself to my hard drive, in the Temp Internet Files. Note, even though the e-mail says a PDF is attached, it seems this is a LINK to the PDF, not a PDF itself, which I am assuming would open in Word Online.
Anyway: how do you work around this?
Also, if you do ever have to work on files offline, what do you do? Download them, then delete them?
-
How do you define attached versus a link when you are talking about a web interface? To me they are one and the same thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
How do you define attached versus a link when you are talking about a web interface? To me they are one and the same thing.
Well, the e-mail says "PDF ATTACHMENT" but when you click on it, it opens in Adobe Reader, and is located on my
drive.Other PDFs seems to open right in OWA (using Word Reader, or Word Online ... whatever it is called), so I would think that doesn't cause an issue.
-
Subsequently, are you sure OWA makes no local files?
Or do you you an incognito mode when accessing all your websites?
-
@BRRABill said:
Subsequently, are you sure OWA makes no local files?
Or do you you an incognito mode when accessing all your websites?
OWA makes local files for performance. If security is your concern, yes, incognito would be the way to go. Easy to choose which method you want to use in that way.
-
I found out that you can select messages using Shift + UP / Down arrows... I'll try this and see how it works out. I still have to click on the first message, but that is livable, I think.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
OWA makes local files for performance. If security is your concern, yes, incognito would be the way to go. Easy to choose which method you want to use in that way.
But if you are looking to not keep any data on the endpoint, isn't that what you would naturally recommend?
Or, do you consider:
- data on the endpoint
- security of data on the endpoint
to be two discrete things?
-
@dafyre said:
I found out that you can select messages using Shift + UP / Down arrows... I'll try this and see how it works out. I still have to click on the first message, but that is livable, I think.
It certainly does work very similar to Outlook. I'll give it that,
-
@BRRABill said:
@dafyre said:
I found out that you can select messages using Shift + UP / Down arrows... I'll try this and see how it works out. I still have to click on the first message, but that is livable, I think.
It certainly does work very similar to Outlook. I'll give it that,
Yeah. But in outlook, I can use CTRL + Up / Down and Space to tag only the messages I want.
Most of the Outlook style keyboard shortcuts (CTRL Q, CTRL U, CTRL N, CTRL R, etc... still work).
-
@dafyre said:
Yeah. But in outlook, I can use CTRL + Up / Down and Space to tag only the messages I want.
Most of the Outlook style keyboard shortcuts (CTRL Q, CTRL U, CTRL N, CTRL R, etc... still work).
I always used CTRL + mouseclick to select messages that weren't next to you.
That seems to work still.
