powermail-discuss Digest #2841 - Sunday, June 15, 2008 Re: Review of Power Mail by "Kjell Olausson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: typing speed (was: Importing from Entourage 2004?) by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: typing speed (was: Importing from Entourage 2004?) by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Forwarding and html mails (late response) by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: typing speed (was: Importing from Entourage 2004?) by "Jefferis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "Bill Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "Kjell Olausson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: Review of Power Mail by "Peter Baral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Kjell Olausson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:51:40 +0200 Bill Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sorry to say, I also switched from PowerMail to Thunderbird last year, >because of the lack of support in PowerMail for imap (slow and >crash-prone) and html (extra keystrokes to read an ever-increasing >amount of mail). Thunderbird also seems to respond more promptly to >Applescript shortcuts, but that could be a subjective judgment. Could you explain "extra keystrokes to read an ever-increasing amount of mail"? I don't understand that part of your mail. -- Regards, Kjell Olausson <http://www.kio.nu> Kållered, Sweden iMac G5|1,8 GHz|OS 10.5.3|1 GB RAM|PM 5.6.5|3 Pane View PowerMail AppleScripts <http://www.ctmdev.com/tools/> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:05:35 +0200 Michael Lewis told: >It means that no email client can be all things to all people. Have anyone ever asked for that in an email application, I wonder. Being reasonably flexible and useful does not mean being "all things to all people" and as reasonably flexible is a quite attainable objective, I see no problem in it. Actually, I support the developers using those principles in their software when I can. When I took up using PowerMail in 2003 or so, I felt it was one of those apps. > There >will always be some things a client won't do for some people, and all >those things might be different, and trying to implement them all could >drive a developer out of business or insane or both. That is true. The developer has to make the choices, but with time in order to be informed it can of course be wise to fully understand how the different individuals in the target markets actually want to use the app and what unimplemented areas they couldn't live without. Something that is not easy to do as a small developer. I like it when the developer thinks ahead instead of only second guessing the user base wants and needs. But it takes really well working imagination to do that without user input. As I have seen several incremental features I've mentioned on this list and in other communications appearing in different updates, I feel I either think a bit like CTM or that they do listen to their users in the fashion they feel is appropriate. That said, I really feel PowerMail could evolve into the promise its current design suggests. What I mean by that is that overall I think some of the approach CTM chose to take with PowerMail works really really well and have stood the test of time, but that the design and the functions somehow creates some reasonable and perhaps also some unreasonable expectations on how PowerMail will evolve. What I'd like to see myself is a continuing focus on keeping it simple and with the messages and their contents in focus, while taking some bold, yet modest and highly useful moves in advancing how people relate to and use messaging. I'm afraid the from time to time vocal user base on this list on our own is not enough purely business-wise to warrant some of the bug fixes, developments and features I think many people currently not using the app would need to actually become users. Something I think we all should humbly take into this particular equation from time to time. We could all benefit, as a user community, of more often regarding the differing needs of both the subscribers to this list, the complete user base as well as potential new customers. I have yet to find any organization that could use Powermail for their purposes. Believe me, I have tried to "sell it" many times. I'm not going to break down the responses I have got now, but except some minor interface issues the functionality these representatives I met found lacking are not of the type that should freak out the current user base. On another note, for me personally, the benefits of using PowerMail outweighs the drawbacks. However, the gap have been closing for a long time. Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: typing speed (was: Importing from Entourage 2004?) From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:06:14 +0200 Ken Pope said: >typing, sending, downloading, and >searching (not surprising given the FoxTrot engine) seemed faster. I'd say that, on slower hardware, Powermail is slower except for searching. Especially so with several email connections at the same time, but also overall. Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: typing speed (was: Importing from Entourage 2004?) From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:06:31 +0200 Jefferis Peterson said: >However, there is a very noticeable delay when typing in a new email while >PM is downloading new email Actually, I thought that bug was gone. I haven't noticed it lately, but it's possible I just have gotten used to it. Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:07:39 +0200 Jeremy Hughes said: >Apart from the inconvenience of having to compact the database regularly >(it takes about 30 minutes to do this on my 2GHz iMac), another problem >with the monolithic file format is that incremental backups (Retrospect, >Time Machine, whatever) have to back up the entire database each time it >changes. With Apple Mail, all that gets backed up are the changed mailboxes. That's an invalid argument as far as I'm concerned as you're not using a truly modern backup application. Checkout Qrecall <www.qrecall.com> at only $30 introductory offer. I'm buying it. Qrecall only backup the parts of the file that are different. This is great if you work with 24bit/96Khz Audiofiles or Raw DV-video as I do. Compared with those the PM DB is very very small. Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Forwarding and html mails (late response) From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:09:17 +0200 Ulrik Larsen - Utopian. sa såhär: >Could there be a point in the preferences where this can be adjusted, >whether or not the user wants to forward text or original message? Powermail doesn't author HTML-messages. As the (external) HTML-display engine is not the same in 3.x and 5.x I think the same behaviour is not to be expected. If you want to preserve the content of the message, AS IT IS, you can DIVERT the message instead. This will keep the HTML content intact. >Also, when replying a letter, you can edit the insertion text at the >preferences menu, but this is not possible with a forwarded message? No, but you can replace that text with a clipping or type it. It could also be scripted I'm pretty sure. Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: typing speed (was: Importing from Entourage 2004?) From: "Jefferis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:59:51 -0400 On 6/15/08 7:06 AM, "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> However, there is a very noticeable delay when typing in a new email while >> PM is downloading new email > > Actually, I thought that bug was gone. I haven't noticed it lately, but > it's possible I just have gotten used to it. Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Machine Model: PowerMac7,3 CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (3.0) Number Of CPUs: 2 CPU Speed: 2.5 GHz L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB Memory: 5.5 GB Bus Speed: 1.25 GHz Boot ROM Version: 5.1.8f8 ATI Radeon 9600 XT: Chipset Model: ATY,RV360 VRAM (Total): 128 MB Revision ID: 0x0000 ROM Revision: 113-A13602-121 System Software Overview: System Version: Mac OS X 10.5.3 (9D34) Kernel Version: Darwin 9.3.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jefferis Peterson, Pres. Web Design and Marketing http://www.PetersonSales.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Bill Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:02:10 -0400 More and more e-mail is in html format. Hardcore PowerMail users say they don't want to be bothered with this mail, that most of it is spam anyway, but that's not true in my community. When html mail arrives, PowerMail wants you to make a choice... open your web browser to read it, download the images, or read it as plain text (which sometimes turns out to be a blank screen). Other mail programs assume you want to read it, unless it's spam. What's more, the procedure for forwarding an html message is even more complicated than simply reading it, as others have been discussing on this list. A few extra keystrokes for each and every bit of html mail adds up to a big waste of time for users who don't want to try to stem the tide of html mail by ignoring it. BILL. On 6/13/08 Kjell Olausson wrote: > Could you explain "extra keystrokes to read an ever-increasing amount of mail"? I don't understand that part of your mail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:20:46 +0200 Bill Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > When html mail arrives, > PowerMail wants you to make a choice... open your web browser to read > it, download the images, or read it as plain text (which sometimes turns > out to be a blank screen). Other mail programs assume you want to read > it, unless it's spam. Isn't that just a matter of setting PowerMail's preferences? I have set it to prefer the plain text part of the mail, if it exists, and not to load the images in advance. If I want to see the HTML part including the images, I have to switch to HTML using the pop-up menu. But that is just my choice, and I could have told it to favour HTML mail and load embedded images, if I wanted to. - Michael Michael J. Hußmann E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Kjell Olausson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:03:55 +0200 Bill Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >More and more e-mail is in html format. Hardcore PowerMail users say >they don't want to be bothered with this mail, that most of it is spam >anyway, but that's not true in my community. When html mail arrives, >PowerMail wants you to make a choice... open your web browser to read >it, download the images, or read it as plain text (which sometimes turns >out to be a blank screen). Other mail programs assume you want to read >it, unless it's spam. What's more, the procedure for forwarding an html >message is even more complicated than simply reading it, as others have >been discussing on this list. A few extra keystrokes for each and every >bit of html mail adds up to a big waste of time for users who don't want >to try to stem the tide of html mail by ignoring it. Well, I read html mail in PM without any keystrokes. It's just a setting in the preferences. -- Regards, Kjell Olausson <http://www.kio.nu> Kållered, Sweden Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:49:48 -0400 On Sunday, June 15, 2008, Kjell Olausson sent forth: >Bill Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>More and more e-mail is in html format. Hardcore PowerMail users say >>they don't want to be bothered with this mail, that most of it is spam >>anyway, but that's not true in my community. When html mail arrives, >>PowerMail wants you to make a choice... open your web browser to read >>it, download the images, or read it as plain text (which sometimes turns >>out to be a blank screen). Other mail programs assume you want to read >>it, unless it's spam. What's more, the procedure for forwarding an html >>message is even more complicated than simply reading it, as others have >>been discussing on this list. A few extra keystrokes for each and every >>bit of html mail adds up to a big waste of time for users who don't want >>to try to stem the tide of html mail by ignoring it. > >Well, I read html mail in PM without any keystrokes. It's just a setting >in the preferences. > >-- While I too prefer plain text e-mail I agree that more and more "legitimate" e-mail is now in HTML format. Unfortunately, PM doesn't really know what to do with it. Such e-mail might be readable in plain text but it also might result in a blank page. Extra steps are required to view this message by then having to invoke your browser. I am no longer sure I view this as a positive. Links and other actionable items in e-mail are another issue. Sometimes you have to double click to get the links to work in HTML e-mail. Other times you can CMD-click or CTRL-click (I forget which). Still other times the links aren't functional at all. In short, HTML e-mail is still a problem which is treated inconsistently. Version 6 will have to reconcile HTML e-mail once and for all, I think. -- Tim Lapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel iMac OS 10.4.11 PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:11:48 +0200 Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > While I too prefer plain text e-mail I agree that more and more > "legitimate" e-mail is now in HTML format. Unfortunately, PM doesn't > really know what to do with it. Such e-mail might be readable in plain > text but it also might result in a blank page. If the mail is HTML-only, PM displays HTML. If it contains just plain text, it displays plain text. If there are both HTML and plain text parts, PM displays whatever you've selected as your preference, and when you want to see the other part of the mail, there is a pop-up menu allowing you to select that. What else could PM possibly do, I wonder? (There are some mails I particularly despise, namely those that have both an HTML and a text part, but where the plain text only tells me to look for the real content in the HTML part. PM doesn't realize that the plain text part doesn't include any real content, but I cannot blame it for that.) - Michael Michael J. Hußmann E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail From: "Peter Baral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:29:17 +0200 The last time I looked at it, you couldn't just mix in your replies to parts of a the received HTML mail. I'm no big fan of HTML mails either, but there ARE occasions where it's nice to have the formatting preserved. Am 15.06.2008 um 17:11 schrieb Michael J. Hußmann: > Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> While I too prefer plain text e-mail I agree that more and more >> "legitimate" e-mail is now in HTML format. Unfortunately, PM doesn't >> really know what to do with it. Such e-mail might be readable in >> plain >> text but it also might result in a blank page. > > If the mail is HTML-only, PM displays HTML. If it contains just plain > text, it displays plain text. If there are both HTML and plain text > parts, PM displays whatever you've selected as your preference, and > when > you want to see the other part of the mail, there is a pop-up menu > allowing you to select that. What else could PM possibly do, I wonder? > - Michael -- Peter Baral Medienwerkstatt Muehlacker Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H. +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: <http://www.medienwerkstatt-online.de> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of powermail-discuss Digest