I agree about losing the header data. It still is in the forward, but not readable by PowerMail's headings.
The one feature I'd really like is to be able to annotate the Subject line for those emails where the subject does not match the content. I use Forward for this, but as you point out, it has its drawbacks. - Winston >Winston, > >The hypothetical "strip html/styled text" feature would indeed be nice, >but just to give you an idea: I have somewhere in the vicinity of 100+ >nested mail folders, and well into the 100,000's of emails. Most of the >emails I get are plain text already (though that's changing), so >stripping the html would not be a magic bullet by any means. > >Which is not to say I wouldn't like the feature ;-) > >About forwarding to myself: that would change the sender data, as well >as the time and mail header data: I would lose a tremendous amount of >information and gain a lot that is useless. > >To me, the email is a snapshot in time; me forwarding to myself defeats >that purpose. > >But thanks for the ideas! > >Steve > > >On 1/30/07 at 2:59 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > >>I am not aware of a flag that strips html, but that would be nice. >>Feature request for ctm? >>I would guess that would shrink your message database substantially. 1.5 >>GB of plan text is a lot of text. >> >>You could re-save messages as plain text. Forward creates plain text >>files and preserves attachments. However, it loses links to any web >>images and url links, which could be a problem. >> >>>Winston, >>> >>>Mail, not attachments. Most mail gateways block anything over 10 megs >>>anyway, so that's not really an issue. And the Attachments folder >>>(AFAIK) can get as big as it gets. >>> >>>If you Save as Text, that saves a file externally of PowerMail, doesn't >>>it? The point is to have everything in one place. >>> >>>But, if I could set a flag to strip HTML off of messages as they come >>>in, or something like that, that'd be great. I read all my mail in >>>ASCII, and I prefer it that way. >>> >>>Steve >>> >>> >>> >>>On 1/30/07 at 2:15 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >>> >>>>Is the 2 GB problem with the message database or with attachments? Could >>>>attachments be handled with some kind of alias system? >>>> >>>>What about saving html mail as text to save room? >>>> >>>>>On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >>>>> >>>>>>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start >>>>>>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail >>>>>>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past >>>>>>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution. >>>>>> >>>>>>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database >>>>>>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2 >>>>>>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database. >>>>> >>>>>I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could >>>>>easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have >>>>>to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open >>>>>simultaneously. >>>>> >>>>>I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2 >>>>>gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good >>>>>enough anymore. >>>>> >>>>>Guys? Throw us a bone here? > > >Steve Abrahamson >Ascending Technologies >FileMaker 7 Certified Developer > http://www.asctech.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
