Outlook versus eMClient vulnerabilities

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by djg05, Oct 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,504
    My current email client is The Bat but its shortcomings are a lack of calendar. I need that for when I am sent appointments from my company.

    I do have Outlook 2003 but have also come across eMClient
    http://www.emclient.com/features

    and wonder if it has as many vulnerabilities as Outlook.

    Any other suggestions welcome that combine a calendar function.
     
  2. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    I used eMClient in the past extensively and came from The Bat. That being said I switched to Thunderbird for plugin capabilities and just the pure feature setup. I then ran into issues with Thunderbird and switched to Outlook 2013. Ive been happy with Outlook 2013 and using my Gmail calendar/email account via IMAP with it.
     
  3. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    localhost
    Which vulnerabilities you are referring to? I am not aware of any not been patched. Or you refer to old unsupported Outlook versions?
    Outlook 2013 here on IMAP... works flawlessly...
     
  4. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,504
    Thanks for the replies.

    I was really thinking of malware attacks. The Bat is fairly secure from that point of view but Outlook is always a target and so wondered if eMClient was any different.
     
  5. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    If your that worried about it pick a security solution that offers SSL scanning and Outlook traffic with IMAP and POP3 ports that you can define for scanning.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.