6 ms·

Mozilla is trying to backtrack on Firefox's controversial data privacy update

60 points by HelloUsername 2y ago

anotherhue 2y ago
"Sorry we were caught"
- db48x 2y ago
  No, because they expected some people to read the ToS. You don’t put something you are hiding into your ToS. It’s just that they didn’t expect people to freak out since other browsers already have similar language in their ToS.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    "Everyone else is doing it" is not a defense. Firefox users are often using it because they didn't have that in their terms. Now they do. People are upset about the rug pull.
    - db48x 2y ago
      I know it’s not a defense for bad behavior; I didn’t say that it was. 99% of Chrome users have never read its ToS, and the same is true for Firefox users. They are not using Firefox because the ToS is better; they are using Firefox mostly for nostalgia at this point. But I agree that people are upset, and that they think that Mozilla is taking something away from them. The reality is that we have always implicitly been giving Mozilla permission to do these things, because they are necessary for the operation of the browser. In order to comment on HN you must type some text into a form and then tell the browser to submit it. The browser saves a copy of that text for you so that it isn’t lost if the power goes out or the browser crashes or the website is offline. Here in the United States that text automatically has a copyright, you own that copyright, and you and you alone have the exclusive right to publish that text. You have to give Mozilla, or Firefox, permission to act on your behalf. Mozilla’s lawyers have apparently decided that this requires you to _explicitly_ grant them permission to do these things for you. I think that’s stupid, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Mozilla isn’t stealing anything here. We always give the software we use implicit permission to act on our behalf. I also think it is also very stupid that Mozilla’s leadership couldn’t predict this outcome in advance. It points to incompetence on their part. At the very least they should have kicked this back to be rewritten to be more explicit about what “operating Firefox” means, including specific examples. In fact they should have just enumerated all of the ways that Firefox stores data about you and what part of operating the browser that data is used for. History, bookmarks, form data, everything.
  - f33d5173 2y ago
    Which other browser demand a license to whatever content you input into them?
kats 2y ago
> a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This is super bog-standard nothing-special stuff.
janci 2y ago
> We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. Like - what basic functionality? Does not sound like "browsing" is that functionality and I am not interested in any other functionality. I do not want you (Mozilla organization) to use any of that information. Moreover, what if I do not have the right to sublicense the content I enter to FF? Am I legally not allowed to use Firefox?
- db48x 2y ago
  They literally just mean things like filling out forms. Implicitly or explicitly you have to give Firefox permission to store and reproduce the text you type in this very textarea so that it can submit the form for you. But I agree with you that this should not require specific legal language. However, I point out that most other browsers have already added that same language, or something similar, to their own ToS. As have programs such as Microsoft Office. If you cannot use Firefox then you cannot use any of them either.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    > Implicitly or explicitly you have to give Firefox permission to store and reproduce the text you type in this very textarea so that it can submit the form for you. You don't have to give Mozilla permission to store and reproduce what you type into a textarea on a non-Mozilla web site.
    - db48x 2y ago
      But under current law you cannot grant a _program_ a license to something, only a person or an organization of people.
      - wtallis 2y ago
        You cannot grant a program a copyright license because a program doesn't need a license. It's running on your computer at your behest, so there's no third-party involved, just you the user, and eventually the site you send that POST to.
Cyclone_ 2y ago
It's been about 15 years since I've used Firefox as my main browser but I'm not sure what their value proposition is at this point. They're not faster than the best browsers, and if they're not going to be better on things like privacy I don't see where they are going to position themselves. I mostly use brave now and some chrome when the occasional site doesn't work in brave.
- thinkingtoilet 2y ago
  The value is it has ublock origin.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    As compared to Brave, that isn't much value since the built-in ad blocking in Brave works great.
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      Its other value is the engine not being owned by Google. Those were 2 strong value propositions for many people.
- db48x 2y ago
  Firefox is actually faster in practice than Chrome. It also uses less memory, often far less, to accomplish the same tasks.
  - mvdtnz 2y ago
    It absolutely is not faster. It just isn't. I have no doubt you can find some bollocks benchmark which proves your point but in real world usage it's just not. Memory is there to be used. Have at it.
    - capitainenemo 2y ago
      At least on our ram limited work VMs I literally can't launch Chrome without it crashing on launch. Firefox runs with no issues dozens of tabs, although occasionally I do get a tab OOM crash, which restarting Firefox resolves.. And yes, this is even if I completely quit Firefox to ensure Chrome gets as much RAM as possible. If I've just restarted the machine, sometimes I can launch Chrome. Chrome print preview never renders about 90% of the time when I am able to launch it. Firefox, no issues. On a large complex page, when Chrome does manage to launch and print preview does load, it takes tens of seconds to render. Firefox, no issues. I pretty much just use Chrome when I absolutely have to do a cross-browser test these days. BTW, a Chrome-tangential annoyance is that the code process in VSCode which is basically an embedded browser sometimes runs wild sucking up gigabytes of RAM on another VM dedicated pretty much just to VSCode (and a couple of other minor tools on a lightweight desktop). The irritating thing there is that due to, apparently, a limitation of the blink embed they are using, you can't restrict the RAM available to VSCode to any number (even 100% of system ram) so you basically have to wait for the oomkiller to kill it, or run a parallel monitor to kill it once it sucks up too much ram.
wrs 2y ago
This “nonexclusive worldwide license for the purpose of doing what you asked us to do” thing has bitten so many companies over the years, I can’t believe anyone would obliviously put it in there at this point. I understand your IP attorney thinks you need this license to operate, but the users will definitely freak out unless you express extremely clearly what the restrictions are, and probably write a blog post explaining what it’s there for. In the current climate it will be read with the worst possible interpretation.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Yea, I actually happen to think that Mozilla doesn't have ill intent here, and that this whole drama is what happens when you hand the product over to lawyers. Lawyers will always push for broad, sweeping legalese that claim everything under the sun. Lawyers don't even get out of bed before they recite the holy "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" prayer three times and throw salt over their shoulder. It's just second nature to them, part of their core being, to write words that give themselves everything. When you're a company and have legal counsel, you need to understand that they are just advising you, and they will always be conservative and risk-adverse. You don't have to do everything they advise.
  - perlgeek 2y ago
    > Yea, I actually happen to think that Mozilla doesn't have ill intent here I could understand that if it was just the Terms of Use thingy. But if you look at the whole picture, I cannot really come to the conclusion. Why did they remove the "we won't ever sell your data" promise? Why the statements about Mozilla being/becoming an AI company?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - wrs 2y ago
      If they offer an AI feature, it will probably rely on a third party model API, so they will need a license to forward your inputs to that third party for the purpose of implementing that feature. The selling your data thing is disturbing but not necessarily related to this.
xvilka 2y ago
Slipped once cannot be trusted anymore.
- philjohn 2y ago
  "Slipped" by non legalese versed users reading "scary" looking legal boilerplate and totally misunderstanding it.
  - dietr1ch 2y ago
    Legalese heavily errs on asking too much, and maybe the possibility without bad intentions triggered users, maybe, but honestly, there's a bunch of flaws we've seen over time and this was more like the not so little drop that spilled the glass. Instead of privacy, users have been force-fed unwanted "features" that so happen to need external services instead of others like a UI revamp that made Sidebery and Containerise unnecessary. The only recent good feature I recall is the offline translation, prior to that it's gotta be the sync server that you could host yourself, and the reading mode that helps reading the web in its increasingly bloated downfall.
  - crabique 2y ago
    It does not matter, the intent is obvious no matter how they try to spin it, the damage has been done. I am uninstalling Firefox after 16 years of sustained everyday use in dual-browser split setup alongside Safari. I will also make sure everyone I know still using FF gets the note. I am going back to Chromium-based browsers that are openly "sell-your-data" from day 1 and I am willing to accept the Google monopoly if it means that dung beetles like Firefox are not able to prey on loyal supporters by bait-and-switching the ToS whenever they feel like. Hopefully their telemetry shows them a good picture of how their decisions affect their market share. Hell, my 2011 issue about wrong handling of ::first-letter pseudoclass on bugzilla hasn't got a single meaningful update since, but I was willing to sacrifice the standards compliance for the promise of "privacy". There is no more privacy.
    - johnea 2y ago
      Your logic is completely incomprehensible. Since Mozilla _may_ sell your data, your going to abandon it for Goggle? Who will _definitely_ sell your data? This is irrational. There is LibreWolf, Brave, Palemoon, just to name a few browsers that have not made the terms of use statements that the Mozilla foundation has just made, and that the goggle corps has made all along. Supporting the "Google monopoly" is not good for user rights. People who don't understand these issues run it because they don't know any better. People who do know better shouldn't use it, at all.
righthand 2y ago
Too late I’ve installed Librewolf. I’m going to either find a tool this weekend or write one tonight that will keep my bookmarks in sync with ios and that will be it for them from me. The value is wayyyyyy too low to embrace folding. And perhaps these negative reactions are extreme but are a bit more telling. Clearly nearly almost everyone wants Firefox out of the hands of Mozilla. They have low market share from being Google’s get out if jail free card. Now the 2.x% that remain are flocking away as well. This exit out is an attempt to “fork” Firefox in some manner. There is an opportunity to swoop in and pick up the helm. Mozilla perhaps doesn’t see the story everyone else does: - developed privacy stance over a decade - updates their policy to state “actually well we’ve been selling data about you” At this point you might as well have said, “Haha we’ve been lying this whole time about privacy.” Regardless of truth and nuance of it all, the damage is done. The privacy promise was the only thing holding the rest of the complaints back.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] There's so much discussion on this ongoing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909
- HelloUsername 2y ago
  Yes, a lot more discussions today: "Mozilla flamed by Firefox fans after reneging on promises to not sell their data" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229668 182 comments "Trust in Firefox and Mozilla Is Gone – Let's Talk Alternatives" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229378 189 comments "What, if anything, should I do about using Mozilla's Firefox" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229267 129 comments
MaxBarraclough 2y ago
> Mozilla released a "Terms of Use" document for Firefox, a first for the open-source browser. That might sound like business as usual, but [...] That's not business as usual, that's a contradiction! Open Source software doesn't impose terms of use. Criterion 6 of the OSI's Open Source Definition document: No discrimination against fields of endeavor. [0] The FSF's Four Freedoms, analogous to the OSI's Open Source Definition, has a similar requirement: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). [1][2] It's true that Mozilla's terms of use nonsense was limited to the Firefox executable binary, and did not apply to the source-code, but still, there's a reason the community sees this as a betrayal. We shouldn't have to work around this kind of thing in the first place. It's not 'confusion', Mozilla. The backlash from your community is because you're betraying your professed values, not because your community is stupid. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456
ludicrousdispla 2y ago
From the outside, in my opinion, this reads as a strong signal that the rank and file Mozilla staffers are generally disempowered. I like to assume that if this was floated at an all-hands that it would have resulted in some strongly voiced objections. Until the leadership at Mozilla changes there remains a reason to distrust Mozilla.
anonymousiam 2y ago
Seeing all of the negative articles about Mozilla and Firefox has not influenced my decision to use Firefox as my primary browser. Firefox is the only mainstream browser that still permits add-ons to block advertising and scripts. Privacy in Edge and Chrome are a joke compared with privacy in Firefox. Safari is a joke altogether, and would die if Apple did not force it on users. I like Firefox and I like Thunderbird, and I will continue to use both of them.

60 points by HelloUsername 2y ago

anotherhue 2y ago

"Sorry we were caught"

db48x 2y ago
No, because they expected some people to read the ToS. You don’t put something you are hiding into your ToS. It’s just that they didn’t expect people to freak out since other browsers already have similar language in their ToS.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  "Everyone else is doing it" is not a defense. Firefox users are often using it because they didn't have that in their terms. Now they do. People are upset about the rug pull.
  - db48x 2y ago
    I know it’s not a defense for bad behavior; I didn’t say that it was. 99% of Chrome users have never read its ToS, and the same is true for Firefox users. They are not using Firefox because the ToS is better; they are using Firefox mostly for nostalgia at this point. But I agree that people are upset, and that they think that Mozilla is taking something away from them. The reality is that we have always implicitly been giving Mozilla permission to do these things, because they are necessary for the operation of the browser. In order to comment on HN you must type some text into a form and then tell the browser to submit it. The browser saves a copy of that text for you so that it isn’t lost if the power goes out or the browser crashes or the website is offline. Here in the United States that text automatically has a copyright, you own that copyright, and you and you alone have the exclusive right to publish that text. You have to give Mozilla, or Firefox, permission to act on your behalf. Mozilla’s lawyers have apparently decided that this requires you to _explicitly_ grant them permission to do these things for you. I think that’s stupid, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Mozilla isn’t stealing anything here. We always give the software we use implicit permission to act on our behalf. I also think it is also very stupid that Mozilla’s leadership couldn’t predict this outcome in advance. It points to incompetence on their part. At the very least they should have kicked this back to be rewritten to be more explicit about what “operating Firefox” means, including specific examples. In fact they should have just enumerated all of the ways that Firefox stores data about you and what part of operating the browser that data is used for. History, bookmarks, form data, everything.
- f33d5173 2y ago
  Which other browser demand a license to whatever content you input into them?

kats 2y ago

> a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This is super bog-standard nothing-special stuff.

janci 2y ago

> We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. Like - what basic functionality? Does not sound like "browsing" is that functionality and I am not interested in any other functionality. I do not want you (Mozilla organization) to use any of that information. Moreover, what if I do not have the right to sublicense the content I enter to FF? Am I legally not allowed to use Firefox?

db48x 2y ago
They literally just mean things like filling out forms. Implicitly or explicitly you have to give Firefox permission to store and reproduce the text you type in this very textarea so that it can submit the form for you. But I agree with you that this should not require specific legal language. However, I point out that most other browsers have already added that same language, or something similar, to their own ToS. As have programs such as Microsoft Office. If you cannot use Firefox then you cannot use any of them either.
- wtallis 2y ago
  > Implicitly or explicitly you have to give Firefox permission to store and reproduce the text you type in this very textarea so that it can submit the form for you. You don't have to give Mozilla permission to store and reproduce what you type into a textarea on a non-Mozilla web site.
  - db48x 2y ago
    But under current law you cannot grant a _program_ a license to something, only a person or an organization of people.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      You cannot grant a program a copyright license because a program doesn't need a license. It's running on your computer at your behest, so there's no third-party involved, just you the user, and eventually the site you send that POST to.

Cyclone_ 2y ago

It's been about 15 years since I've used Firefox as my main browser but I'm not sure what their value proposition is at this point. They're not faster than the best browsers, and if they're not going to be better on things like privacy I don't see where they are going to position themselves. I mostly use brave now and some chrome when the occasional site doesn't work in brave.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago
The value is it has ublock origin.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  As compared to Brave, that isn't much value since the built-in ad blocking in Brave works great.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Its other value is the engine not being owned by Google. Those were 2 strong value propositions for many people.
db48x 2y ago
Firefox is actually faster in practice than Chrome. It also uses less memory, often far less, to accomplish the same tasks.
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  It absolutely is not faster. It just isn't. I have no doubt you can find some bollocks benchmark which proves your point but in real world usage it's just not. Memory is there to be used. Have at it.
  - capitainenemo 2y ago
    At least on our ram limited work VMs I literally can't launch Chrome without it crashing on launch. Firefox runs with no issues dozens of tabs, although occasionally I do get a tab OOM crash, which restarting Firefox resolves.. And yes, this is even if I completely quit Firefox to ensure Chrome gets as much RAM as possible. If I've just restarted the machine, sometimes I can launch Chrome. Chrome print preview never renders about 90% of the time when I am able to launch it. Firefox, no issues. On a large complex page, when Chrome does manage to launch and print preview does load, it takes tens of seconds to render. Firefox, no issues. I pretty much just use Chrome when I absolutely have to do a cross-browser test these days. BTW, a Chrome-tangential annoyance is that the code process in VSCode which is basically an embedded browser sometimes runs wild sucking up gigabytes of RAM on another VM dedicated pretty much just to VSCode (and a couple of other minor tools on a lightweight desktop). The irritating thing there is that due to, apparently, a limitation of the blink embed they are using, you can't restrict the RAM available to VSCode to any number (even 100% of system ram) so you basically have to wait for the oomkiller to kill it, or run a parallel monitor to kill it once it sucks up too much ram.

wrs 2y ago

This “nonexclusive worldwide license for the purpose of doing what you asked us to do” thing has bitten so many companies over the years, I can’t believe anyone would obliviously put it in there at this point. I understand your IP attorney thinks you need this license to operate, but the users will definitely freak out unless you express extremely clearly what the restrictions are, and probably write a blog post explaining what it’s there for. In the current climate it will be read with the worst possible interpretation.

ryandrake 2y ago
Yea, I actually happen to think that Mozilla doesn't have ill intent here, and that this whole drama is what happens when you hand the product over to lawyers. Lawyers will always push for broad, sweeping legalese that claim everything under the sun. Lawyers don't even get out of bed before they recite the holy "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" prayer three times and throw salt over their shoulder. It's just second nature to them, part of their core being, to write words that give themselves everything. When you're a company and have legal counsel, you need to understand that they are just advising you, and they will always be conservative and risk-adverse. You don't have to do everything they advise.
- perlgeek 2y ago
  > Yea, I actually happen to think that Mozilla doesn't have ill intent here I could understand that if it was just the Terms of Use thingy. But if you look at the whole picture, I cannot really come to the conclusion. Why did they remove the "we won't ever sell your data" promise? Why the statements about Mozilla being/becoming an AI company?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - wrs 2y ago
    If they offer an AI feature, it will probably rely on a third party model API, so they will need a license to forward your inputs to that third party for the purpose of implementing that feature. The selling your data thing is disturbing but not necessarily related to this.

xvilka 2y ago

Slipped once cannot be trusted anymore.

philjohn 2y ago
"Slipped" by non legalese versed users reading "scary" looking legal boilerplate and totally misunderstanding it.
- dietr1ch 2y ago
  Legalese heavily errs on asking too much, and maybe the possibility without bad intentions triggered users, maybe, but honestly, there's a bunch of flaws we've seen over time and this was more like the not so little drop that spilled the glass. Instead of privacy, users have been force-fed unwanted "features" that so happen to need external services instead of others like a UI revamp that made Sidebery and Containerise unnecessary. The only recent good feature I recall is the offline translation, prior to that it's gotta be the sync server that you could host yourself, and the reading mode that helps reading the web in its increasingly bloated downfall.
- crabique 2y ago
  It does not matter, the intent is obvious no matter how they try to spin it, the damage has been done. I am uninstalling Firefox after 16 years of sustained everyday use in dual-browser split setup alongside Safari. I will also make sure everyone I know still using FF gets the note. I am going back to Chromium-based browsers that are openly "sell-your-data" from day 1 and I am willing to accept the Google monopoly if it means that dung beetles like Firefox are not able to prey on loyal supporters by bait-and-switching the ToS whenever they feel like. Hopefully their telemetry shows them a good picture of how their decisions affect their market share. Hell, my 2011 issue about wrong handling of ::first-letter pseudoclass on bugzilla hasn't got a single meaningful update since, but I was willing to sacrifice the standards compliance for the promise of "privacy". There is no more privacy.
  - johnea 2y ago
    Your logic is completely incomprehensible. Since Mozilla _may_ sell your data, your going to abandon it for Goggle? Who will _definitely_ sell your data? This is irrational. There is LibreWolf, Brave, Palemoon, just to name a few browsers that have not made the terms of use statements that the Mozilla foundation has just made, and that the goggle corps has made all along. Supporting the "Google monopoly" is not good for user rights. People who don't understand these issues run it because they don't know any better. People who do know better shouldn't use it, at all.

righthand 2y ago

Too late I’ve installed Librewolf. I’m going to either find a tool this weekend or write one tonight that will keep my bookmarks in sync with ios and that will be it for them from me. The value is wayyyyyy too low to embrace folding. And perhaps these negative reactions are extreme but are a bit more telling. Clearly nearly almost everyone wants Firefox out of the hands of Mozilla. They have low market share from being Google’s get out if jail free card. Now the 2.x% that remain are flocking away as well. This exit out is an attempt to “fork” Firefox in some manner. There is an opportunity to swoop in and pick up the helm. Mozilla perhaps doesn’t see the story everyone else does: - developed privacy stance over a decade - updates their policy to state “actually well we’ve been selling data about you” At this point you might as well have said, “Haha we’ve been lying this whole time about privacy.” Regardless of truth and nuance of it all, the damage is done. The privacy promise was the only thing holding the rest of the complaints back.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] There's so much discussion on this ongoing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909

HelloUsername 2y ago
Yes, a lot more discussions today: "Mozilla flamed by Firefox fans after reneging on promises to not sell their data" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229668 182 comments "Trust in Firefox and Mozilla Is Gone – Let's Talk Alternatives" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229378 189 comments "What, if anything, should I do about using Mozilla's Firefox" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43229267 129 comments

MaxBarraclough 2y ago

> Mozilla released a "Terms of Use" document for Firefox, a first for the open-source browser. That might sound like business as usual, but [...] That's not business as usual, that's a contradiction! Open Source software doesn't impose terms of use. Criterion 6 of the OSI's Open Source Definition document: No discrimination against fields of endeavor. [0] The FSF's Four Freedoms, analogous to the OSI's Open Source Definition, has a similar requirement: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). [1][2] It's true that Mozilla's terms of use nonsense was limited to the Firefox executable binary, and did not apply to the source-code, but still, there's a reason the community sees this as a betrayal. We shouldn't have to work around this kind of thing in the first place. It's not 'confusion', Mozilla. The backlash from your community is because you're betraying your professed values, not because your community is stupid. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456

ludicrousdispla 2y ago

From the outside, in my opinion, this reads as a strong signal that the rank and file Mozilla staffers are generally disempowered. I like to assume that if this was floated at an all-hands that it would have resulted in some strongly voiced objections. Until the leadership at Mozilla changes there remains a reason to distrust Mozilla.

anonymousiam 2y ago

Seeing all of the negative articles about Mozilla and Firefox has not influenced my decision to use Firefox as my primary browser. Firefox is the only mainstream browser that still permits add-ons to block advertising and scripts. Privacy in Edge and Chrome are a joke compared with privacy in Firefox. Safari is a joke altogether, and would die if Apple did not force it on users. I like Firefox and I like Thunderbird, and I will continue to use both of them.