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
