Re[3]: TB v4 outlook....

2007-09-15 Thread Paul Van Noord
9/15/2007  8:01 AM

Hi Gleason,

On 9/15/2007 Gleason Pace wrote:

GP I think that graphic support is becoming necessary for programs that
GP handle email because email so often includes graphics these days.

Embedded graphics are supported. Do you trust all of those who do not
embed? Not me! If the message has merit it can be opened in the
browser which makes it my choice rather than the sender's choice.

GP But these are needs that can be filled many other ways, and are not
GP really part of doing email well.  They don't really add value to an
GP email client as some others have found.  Instead they add unnecessary
GP complexity, and opportunity for program error.  What happens as the
GP old timers become ornate and enlarged, is that newcommers pop up
GP saying, hey look at us, we are simple, easy and quick.  Those
GP attributes, along with design excellence are the real virtues.

Well said.

-- 
Take Care,
Paul

Voyager v.3.99.4 on Win2k SP4-Rollup1 5.0.2195
No IMAP  OTFE



 Current beta is 3.99.24 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re[3]: TB v4 outlook....

2007-09-15 Thread Martin Schneider
Hello Paul,

Saturday, September 15, 2007, 1:51:57 PM, you wrote:

 You can have this right now by creating an archival account. If you
 want annual separations create sub-folders.

 I bought TB in 1998 because I wanted a focused email client that
 securely did most of the work for me. I have not been disappointed. I
 hope it doesn't become contaminated with non email functions,
 especially if it compromises TB's security. There are plenty of those
 kinds of choices out there already.

Not so easy. I have many subfolders. I want them automatically
archived. And I focussed on an e-mail-client that offers most
flexibility. As Netscape-Mail was not flexible enough I was using That
Bat - and I am still happy about that. However other clients got more
and more features that nowadays are wanted by many people.

So, my suggestion for your very native e-mail-client is that Ritlabs
is doing the standard and professional style (like now) by having only
the e-mail functions implemented in the standard version. Everything
else is additionally put to the pro version.

-- 
Best regards,
 Martinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



 Current beta is 3.99.24 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html


Re[3]: TB v4 outlook....

2007-09-15 Thread Martin Schneider
Hello Gleason,

Saturday, September 15, 2007, 1:56:10 PM, you wrote:

 - RSS support

 But these are needs that can be filled many other ways, and are not
 really part of doing email well.  They don't really add value to an
 email client as some others have found.  Instead they add unnecessary
 complexity, and opportunity for program error.  What happens as the
 old timers become ornate and enlarged, is that newcommers pop up
 saying, hey look at us, we are simple, easy and quick.  Those
 attributes, along with design excellence are the real virtues.

I agree with you that it is not necessarily a function of an e-mail
program. But why do you think many e-mail clients are not successfull
anymore? I guess because the people see that integrated functions
offer more values.

I use a separate news client. When I want to send mails it always is a
little bit messy - and more when you have to use more than one
e-mail-client on a computer. So I manually have to copy paste to send
a mail from news. What happens when there is an attachment. Okay, I
have to save it and add it. Not very nice.

The same for RSS feeds. I use Great News which is working fine for
me. However I can't store it in the same place like mails. When doing
some search you can file articles in special folders like mails you
got for the search... So, basically I think that this functionality
should come closer together.

I think the vision must be to have one program for similar data.


From security point of view there is no problem in my eyes. Ritlabs
need not to write an own browser or whatever. Simply use the existing
ones. (And please - don't use IE for showing webpages.)

 - Archiving Functionality (files with a special age are archived to
 one or more new datastore files). However it should be possible to
 have a view avaialble where you can see archived and non-archived
 mails. For me it also would make sense to split archives for special
 values (e.g. that you have one archive file per year or so).
 But ultimately, Rit isn't offering a list, and isn't asking for
 suggestions.

That's true. However the success of Rit is when they have satisfied
users. And I think it is correct to ask the users (existing ones and
new ones) what they want and what they need. What I don't want to see
is that The Bat also gets open source or even closed because the
selling isn't enough...

And there is another point: when they put more new functions - I think
the (IMHO) stupid discussion of a free upgrade is gone.

-- 
Best regards,
 Martinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



 Current beta is 3.99.24 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html