Send Email-init mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Email-init digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Rules as a foundation. (Jack Shedd)
2. Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid (Brock Batsell)
3. Re: Rules as a foundation. (Darby Lines)
4. Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid (Scott Morrison)
5. Re: Can we solve the gmail problem with provider-specific
plugins? (Thomas Worrall)
6. Re: Rules as a foundation. (Jack Shedd)
7. Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid (John C. Welch)
8. Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid (John C. Welch)
9. Re: Who is the user? (Kevin Conner)
10. Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid (River Brandon)
11. Re: Rules as a foundation. (John C. Welch)
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:32:59 -0600
From: Jack Shedd <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rules as a foundation.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On Jan 26, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Darby Lines wrote:
A) Having a proper correspondence between the directory structure
on the server and the client in no way ?sucks.?
It doesn't suck, but it's not the only way to go about doing things,
and cases can be made for either behavior.
I think the larger point is that behavior should be chosen based on
what makes the most sense for the application itself, and not based
on historical, or industry-standard, behaviors.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:33:34 -0600
From: Brock Batsell <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:20 PM, John C. Welch <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree. Multiple windows, (NOT SHEETS) are quite handy for
searching for
that very reason
How about default to in-window, but option+enter opens a new window
with the search and restores the original window (with exact
navigation, scrolling view saved)?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM, John C. Welch <[email protected]>
wrote:
For internet email, the latter is quite literally impossible.
Though can be somewhat approximated if we institute a queued-send
option as has been discussed.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:36:28 -0700
From: Darby Lines <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rules as a foundation.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On Jan 26, 2010, at 20:32 , Jack Shedd wrote:
I think the larger point is that behavior should be chosen based on
what makes the most sense for the application itself, and not based
on historical, or industry-standard, behaviors.
And, as John has pointed out ad nauseum, an email client that doesn?
t play friendly with any extant email servers will be about as
useful as tits on a boar.
--
Darby C. Lines
<[email protected]>
www.theangrydrunk.com
"We are all members of this society. Join it or leave it."
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:36:38 -0500
From: Scott Morrison <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Yes -- I know :)
But it would be nice. Besides with the dream team may be it may
be possible.
Actually a delayed send may have mitigated this issue.
Scott
On 2010-01-26, at 10:13 PM, John C. Welch wrote:
On 1/26/10 9:26 PM, "Scott Morrison" <[email protected]> wrote:
please ignore.
Make an email client where this is impossible or at least a undo
on the send
feature is a possibility.
For internet email, the latter is quite literally impossible.
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:38:24 +0000
From: Thomas Worrall <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Can we solve the gmail problem with provider-specific
plugins?
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:14 PM, LuKreme <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25-Jan-10 10:10, Thomas Worrall wrote:
To assign labels, I propose that Letters has a standard labels UI.
On
a normal IMAP server we do something (assign a custom header?
Dunno)
to apply the label. On Gmail, our plugin intercepts the Apply
Label
action and sends the IMAP command to move it to the appropriate
folder.
I think you lost the thread there. TO assign a label on gmail, you
simoply
assign it and it then shows up in the right smart mailbox
automatically. If
you *drag* a message to a gmail mailbox, it doesn't move the
message, it
simply applies that label (and you can move the same message to
multiple
smart mailboxes on gmail because you can apply multiple labels).
I think I wasn't clear. I know that Gmail exposes its labels as
mailboxes when connecting over IMAP. I'm proposing that we don't
show
those mailboxes in our sidebar, but instead have a separate UI for
labels, for example a popup menu by each message. (Yes, a popup menu
probably isn't the best idea, but it's an example.)
When the user is using Gmail, and they choose a label from this
menu,
Letters does an IMAP move-to-folder action to tell Gmail what the
user
means.
When the user is using another service and they choose a label,
Letters does some form of add-metadata action to tell the server
what
the user means.
Advantage: same UI to do the same conceptual action, even though
it's
actually implemented differently in terms of the tech.
I agree that all of gmail should be a plugin, but a plugin that
ships with
the application, and hopefully shows off most of what a plugin can
do (which
is going to be just about anything, right?)
I disagree with "just about anything": we can't just have a plugin
interface that's open ended enough for that, it's not really
possible.
I think we have loads of very specific plugin hooks. For example, to
facilitate the Gmail plugin I just described, we need Letters to
_already have_ a Label assigning interface, and a plugin hook that
lets plugin code intercept an Assign Label action.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:42:42 -0600
From: Jack Shedd <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rules as a foundation.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Darby Lines wrote:
And, as John has pointed out ad nauseum, an email client that
doesn?
t play friendly with any extant email servers will be about as
useful as tits on a boar.
"Playing friendly with existing email servers" is not the same thing
as "how we display collections of messages in the interface" or any
other UI design decision.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:43:21 -0500
From: "John C. Welch" <[email protected]>
To: Letters <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid
Message-ID: <c7852089.e8c8c%[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 1/26/10 10:33 PM, "Brock Batsell" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:20 PM, John C. Welch <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree. Multiple windows, (NOT SHEETS) are quite handy for
searching for
that very reason
How about default to in-window, but option+enter opens a new window
with the search and restores the original window (with exact
navigation, scrolling view saved)?
Oh that would be nice.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM, John C. Welch <[email protected]>
wrote:
For internet email, the latter is quite literally impossible.
Though can be somewhat approximated if we institute a queued-send
option as has been discussed.
That's not undoing send, that's not actually sending. Once you send
it, you
have thrown it over the fence. It is gone. It has left the building.
No
takebacks. For realz.
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
[email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:45:03 -0500
From: "John C. Welch" <[email protected]>
To: Letters <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid
Message-ID: <c78520ef.e8c8d%[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 1/26/10 10:36 PM, "Scott Morrison" <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes -- I know :)
But it would be nice. Besides with the dream team may be it
may be
possible.
Not unless they replace SMTP. And if you think IMAP is crazy...
Actually a delayed send may have mitigated this issue.
That's not a send. That's allllmost sent. Sent, in the SMTP world is
sent.
You have thrown your rock over the fence, where it lands, or even if
it
lands, you'll never know. Until you hear the thud. Or the screaming.
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
[email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:55:24 -0500
From: Kevin Conner <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Who is the user?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Jan 26, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Jonathan J. Davis wrote:
I thought we, or originaly, Brent Simmons, was the end user.
My understanding was this wasn't an email client for the masses,
but a client specifically created for the needs a group of people
(mostly us, as we are the ones expressing this want) who aren't
happy with other existing clients.
Yes, we are the users. But "we" is vague. What are "we" looking
for? What I'm suggesting is just as an experiment to try to figure
that out better. The goal is of course to produce something that we
will all love.
I suggest fictional characters is because, as cartoons, they
resemble more than just one of us. So if I'm like Paula, and you're
like Paula, then great, we both support Paula's perspective. Or
half Paula, half Bob. But if you and I personally voiced our views,
we'd be more likely to disagree over small things than if we just
said, "I'm like Paula, I want that kind of application." In other
words this approach might help us move the design forward in broad
strokes.
I'm also not suggesting that we stop talking about our individual
views. We can never do without those.
-kev
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:57:45 -0500
From: River Brandon <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Another Mail.app-ism to avoid
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Jan 26, 2010, at 10:43 PM, John C. Welch wrote:
On 1/26/10 10:33 PM, "Brock Batsell" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:20 PM, John C. Welch <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree. Multiple windows, (NOT SHEETS) are quite handy for
searching for
that very reason
How about default to in-window, but option+enter opens a new
window
with the search and restores the original window (with exact
navigation, scrolling view saved)?
Oh that would be nice.
+1. yes, a way to pop it open in another window would be great. i
can see the utility.
i put this together. it's rough, but you get the idea: http://grab.by/200O
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM, John C. Welch <[email protected]>
wrote:
For internet email, the latter is quite literally impossible.
Though can be somewhat approximated if we institute a queued-send
option as has been discussed.
That's not undoing send, that's not actually sending. Once you send
it, you
have thrown it over the fence. It is gone. It has left the
building. No
takebacks. For realz.
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:57:47 -0500
From: "John C. Welch" <[email protected]>
To: Letters <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rules as a foundation.
Message-ID: <c78523eb.e8ca4%[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
On 1/26/10 10:42 PM, "Jack Shedd" <[email protected]> wrote:
And, as John has pointed out ad nauseum, an email client that
doesn?t play
friendly with any extant email servers will be about as useful as
tits on a
boar.
"Playing friendly with existing email servers" is n
