Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't use Priority as a basis for a filing system because the
> > Priority has nothing to do with the contents of the message. Most
> > people don't file information based on Priority (except in very specific
> > cases). You file it based on content or who wrote said content. For
> > instance, I have a folder for each of the mailing lists I subscribe to,
> > a folder for bugzilla mail, and a folder for any system generated email
> > I get, but I don't have a single folder for high, medium or low priority
> > items.
>
> So, what are you saying? You want all your bugmail to be in your bugmail
> folder _and_ coloured green? If you are using folders as a filing
> system, why do you need any facility like Labels or Priority at all?
Nope. I would like to have PGP bugs green, whitespace bugs yellow,
etc... That's just an example, of course, but it's a valid one. Oh,
and the reason I don't have multiple folders/subfolders is because if I
separated things out the way they deserve to be, I'd spend most of my
trying to find the folder I wanted when looking for a specific email.
> > > Most) IMAP users don't expect to sit down at home and see the same
> > > setup as they have at their work computer unless they've specifically
> > > set things up that way.
>
> No, but it would be a pleasant surprise if it did :-) But what he means
> about portability is that it would be visible in other email clients.
And I was just pointing out that making things look the same for people
that don't expect things to look the same seems a bit weird to me. It's
a subjective and perspective based judgement that you can feel free to
ignore if you so choose. :-)
> >>>That's fine, but labels are strictly a recipient option. They have
> >>>nothing to do with the sender.
> >>>
> >>Yes, that's exactly the problem.
> >
> > How is that a problem? If I'm going to create a filing system, I don't
> > want just anyone throwing stuff in random drawers (so to speak).
>
> I'm not sure you follow how this would work. You would not filter on
> incoming Priority (throwing stuff in random drawers). Your messages
> would come in and you would then set the Priority on them in order to
> classify them in some way that you liked.
>
> 1) Currently, some messages arrive with a Priority field set
> 2) What other people think my priorities are is of no concern to me. Why
> do you think some spam arrives High Priority? Sender priority is dead in
> the water as a useful tool.
> 3) However, all mail clients allow UI for Priority. So, if we implement
> client-side priority setting, we can have a classification system for
> messages (within a given folder - that's important) which is generic and
> cross-platform.
> 4) This is not a filing system, or intended as a replacement for folders.
>
> Seems good to me.
It seems good *if* (most) everyone agrees that Priority is a dead
system. Spam isn't a valid case. Spam is a non-issue because spam
doesn't have a priority, it's just deleted. However, I use Priority in
my work environment. In this environment, changing Priority is data
loss.
I feel like I'm on a door painted on a brick wall here, so, unless you
can think of something new to add to this discussion, I'm going to
consider it ended. I think we've all got better things to do. :-)
Justin H.
--
"If it's in stock, we've got it!"
-slogan for a tire store
