XP/Vista-compatible clients for modern email services?

[BAW30s]

Hi, I'm just coming to this thread as I am now facing Microsoft cutting off my client's access to my Hotmail account on September 16th, and am wondering what to do.

My desktop runs Windows XP, and I am still using Outlook Express after having found a way to update TLS on XP a year or two ago.  Now, though, I am getting wrong password warnings about half the time as MS give notice that all is not well as they prepare to deny service to clients without Modern Auth.

I'd be grateful to hear from other contributors whether any of the aforementioned programs will work with MS accounts after September.  OE Classic looks like the best bet at the moment, as the program appears to be fully supported and updated.  The makers state that it functions on all Windows from 2000 to 11, that it looks like Outlook Express and accepts Outlook Express message stores, and that it was upgraded with Modern Auth two years ago.  It is also said to be very light on resources.

I'd be glad to read any informed comments on the subject.

At the time that MS was requiring the TLS upgrade, it offered a legacy server for those unable to comply.  I am nurturing a faint hope that this server might continue to work with Basic Auth after the others cease to do so.  It's frustrating that MS do not seem to be offering such an alternative means of access this time, particularly as some other service providers will continue to work with Basic Auth for the time being.

 

[Jody Thornton]

I was using Roytam1's MailNews, and switched over to Epyrus recently.  I'm in the same spot as you are @BAW30s with an Outlook account, so I am intrigued to see what comes about.  I am considering forwarding all of my Outlook mail to one of my other providers.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Jody Thornton

[Mark-XP]

1 hour ago, Jody Thornton said:

I was using Roytam1's MailNews, and switched over to Epyrus recently.

May i ask you @Jody Thornton, why you did switch, and, which are the (main) advantages.

I like the MailNews/TB2 look very much, so, maybe you use the ClassicTB2 Theme for Epyrus coincidentally - does it work fine?

[Jody Thornton]

1 hour ago, Mark-XP said:

May i ask you @Jody Thornton, why you did switch, and, which are the (main) advantages.

I like the MailNews/TB2 look very much, so, maybe you use the ClassicTB2 Theme for Epyrus coincidentally - does it work fine?

Oh, I wanted an x64 build and Roytam1 wouldn't compile one (even though Interlink was an x64 application).  Epyrus was, and I nearly mimicked the look of Interlink.

[Mark-XP]

Thank you @Jody Thornton, MailNews(32 bit) runs nicely in both of my Windows environments, XP/32 and Win7/64, but i'll try out Epyrus anyway - since it seems to be maintained slighty stronger.

[Jody Thornton]

On 8/9/2024 at 3:47 AM, BAW30s said:

Hi, I'm just coming to this thread as I am now facing Microsoft cutting off my client's access to my Hotmail account on September 16th, and am wondering what to do.

It appears that the account services from Outlook.com have been blocked by Microsoft from older mail clients that do not have Oauth2 authentication.  Today, Epyrus will NOT receive mail from my Outlook account.

[Dave-H]

Yes, they said it would happen on September 16th, it actually happened a week later, yesterday.

I'm using an OAuth2 proxy to maintain access to my Hotmail account using Aurora (the successor to Eudora) and it works fine.
Unfortunately, it won't work on XP, so I'm now having to boot into Windows 10 to access my Hotmail account, unless I use webmail of course.

[user57]

On 9/11/2024 at 4:45 PM, Jody Thornton said:

Oh, I wanted an x64 build and Roytam1 wouldn't compile one (even though Interlink was an x64 application).  Epyrus was, and I nearly mimicked the look of Interlink.

can i ask why is having x64 important ?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, user57 said:

can i ask why is having x64 important ?

I basically asked the same thing many many months ago.

Bottom line, it isn't, and even Roytam agrees that it isn't.

But some people think that since their computer is x64, then "everything" on it should also be x64.

"To each their own", of course.

[Jody Thornton]

1 hour ago, user57 said:

can i ask why is having x64 important ?

It may not important be to anyone else - but Interlink WAS a native x64 application, so I can't see why no one else would want ported applications to be natively 64-bit (especially for XP x64).

Anyway, I run Windows 8.  I just wanted a 64-bit replacement at the time for Interlink.  Doesn't matter to me what @NotHereToPlayGames thinks (he always seems to have an angry disposition for some reason).  Anyway, I went elsewhere and got what I wanted.  So the topic is done; after all it only came up again when Mark-XP asked why I switched to Epyrus.

[user57]

53 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I basically asked the same thing many many months ago.

Bottom line, it isn't, and even Roytam agrees that it isn't.

But some people think that since their computer is x64, then "everything" on it should also be x64.

"To each their own", of course.

that might be interesting most cpu´s had 64 bit support while everybody used up 32 bit

the speed maybe ? hmm no mainly because 2 reasons

first normal opcodes are not that fast (you lose vs 32 bit even on x64 bit if you use MMX-AVX (we talked about fast cpu and compatible cpus recently))

then also you have more then 32 bits on that MMX or AVX registers (in 32 bit mode)

then the next question kicks in 

high languages are rather made for making the things simple - but they are not fast

c++ found a good compromise however it still lose to a assembly implementation

so if somebody say i want to use 64 bits because that is faster 

then i must say no rather changing your programming language would speed up your code a lot (and also significant lower the file size)

there is a big downside to assembly and maybe c++

but lets talk about assembly first, you need to know like a lot more of math and logical reason to do this
also you need to write the entire code yourself (not like for (x=1,x<3x++)) you have to write this code
this make it a lot more work ... - definatly a downside

a other problem are engines, engines are useally simplier to program 
but also they not very fast (so that have to leave to if you ask for speed question)

i dont want to talk to much off topic now but we had a such discussion recently
(LAV engine) - but that is not true so directly
it already are 2 engines (that LAV engine + the d3d9 engine) (and thats only the ones we certainly know of - maybe there are more)

(now we have 2 engines it goes through before it even reach anything ... while we figured out that we dont even need that engine nor a engine to do so )

 

a other discussion is the memory limit

and no the thing can be a little harder here 

i wrote about that already so i try to make it short this time

in the past segments was a word (in like 8 bit and 16 bit (65kb) or 20 bit (1mb))
so the idea was to have a segment that points to 16 bit memory (65 kb)
that * 4 bits (256 * 65 = ~ 1 mb) (i think some should have heared about that 1 mb thing somehow or seen somewhat)

(here one for later to have one from wiki)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_memory_segmentation

a segment is like a arrow ->
segment -> 0 = 0-65 kb
segment -> 1 = 65-131 kb

so if one arrow points to a house and that arrow can aim for a different house you understand segmenting 

to call out this part, 32 bit has segment registers - but it would be rather a long story more into detail (rather talking about 4 kb or 4 mb pages (long mode) ect.)

the most applications dont need 4 gb either, for sumatra pdf this is the case - you can set the compiler to x64 (chrome for example start up a an next application (always called chrome.exe) and having always new address room)
but except that the file is more and that it dont start on 32 bits nothing is diffrent for sumatra pdf, and guess what you can run that 32 bit sumatra pdf on x64 too 

to me that raise questions why i would even compile a x64 version 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

  

7 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

angry disposition

Not true.  But read/interpret what you want.

 

7 hours ago, user57 said:

to me that raise questions why i would even compile a x64 version 

That is basically what Roytam said.  I wonder if it came across as an "angry disposition"?

 

7 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

I went elsewhere and got what I wanted.

[Tomcat76]

I'm in the same boat as BAW30s, using Outlook Express to access my Hotmail account. I'm also using it for my Gmail account for which I had to enable 2FA so I could use app passwords (which took over 6 months to set up because of my insistance to use authentication over a land line so I could use my mobile number for another Gmail account). I already had to switch to webmail for my ISP-provided accounts and those associated with my websites in 2022/2023 as they offered neither app passwords nor an alternative incoming mail server after they disabled basic authentication.

I got MS-blocked almost 2 weeks ago, contrary to some here. It wasn't until yesterday, though, that I finally found out what's going on as I didn't receive the notification I was supposed to get.

Somebody (can't remember who or where) suggested that, next to the alternate incoming mail server we already had to use (pop-legacy.office365.com), we should also use an app password. So I enabled 2FA and created an app password, but it still wouldn't connect. Another app password didn't do the trick either, nor did changing the incoming mail server to pop.office365.com or the new default outlook.office365.com.

Why can't MS support app passwords used in Outlook Express when Gmail can?

The most frustrating part is that I changed all my online subscriptions to Hotmail. Maybe I should've used a Gmail account instead, but I don't like how its spam engine works or that they don't fancy mailing lists too much (it's easy to get blacklisted by them).

Like BAW30s, I had my eyes set on OE Classic a long time ago already as it looks like OE and supports identities (the paid version does), but the shortcomings outlined in this thread make me hesitate. I will look into the other ones mentioned here.

[user57]

 

 

i have made a nice visual for the PSE (Page Size Extension) - the memory limit in the right part of the picture is from a older list of memory limits - that may or may not also include the other method (PAE Physical Address Extension) or both PSE and PAE combined

the calculators show the related bits in 1010 binary format and in DEC for both 36 bit or 40 bit (since amd athlon maybe ? but somewhere around 1999 that started - now we have 2024)

as you can guess PSE is 1 of the methods to reach more then 4 GB ram the other is PAE, a third way would be a second/3/4/ect. application (that then can address or point to different physical memory)

interesting i find that intel lacked behind with 36 bits (64 GB) while amd already had 40 bit (1024 GB)

also we can see that windows 2000 can have more then 4 GB ram, in that list it has 32 GB of ram (that also fits to the release dates of the cpu´s)

[Dave-H]

@user57

This '64 bit' conversation is completely off-topic for this thread.
Please start a new thread with an appropriate title, and I will move the relevant posts into it.
Thank you.