🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:49:10 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:12:43 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:41:47 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:57:10 -0700, Evan Platt
>>> <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:26:16 +0100, "john east" <etsept@mail.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Someone suggested i download 'outlook 2003' for my emails in preference to 
>>>>>windows live mail, and that i could also get my newsgroups from eternal 
>>>>>september. Would you think that is a good idea?
>>>> 
>>>> I wouldn't think using Outlook - any version - for newsgroups is a
>>>> good idea.
>>> 
>>> As I pointed out in an earlier message in this thread, it's not a
>>> question of a good idea or not. It's simply not possible.
>> 
>> Sort of.
>> 
>> As I understand it, Outlook can (or could in earlier versions) be
>> configured to use Outlook Express as a plug-in-like app to read
>> newsgroups.
> 
> No, it wasn't anything at all like a plug-in app. It simply linked to
> Outlook Express (and the link could easily be changed to any other
> program you want). There was simply a button called something like
> "newsgroups" that, when clicked, started Outlook Express. 

Not sure why this isn't like a plug-in...

>> Strictly speaking, of course, it wasn't Outlook that was reading the
>> newsgroups, but to the user (especially a naive one) that might not be
>> obvious.
> 
> That's very much correct. There were *many* people (perhaps including
> Evan Platt) who mistakenly thought Outlook Express did newsgroups.
> 
>  
>> It might have been nice if MS could have allowed other newsreaders to be
>> used that way as well.
> 
> They did and it was easy to change (although I no longer remember how
> I did it).

Your explanation above (correcting my *analogy*), where you mentioned
changing the link from OE to another app, sounds to me like a clue, but
I never used Outlook for mail or OE for news, so I have nothing that
could be called knowledge.

-- 
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)