Gervase Markham wrote:
> So you want labels to make up for the fact that your IMAP server/email
> program doesn't support folders within folders?
He didn't say that.
Gerv, you didn't answer to some of the arguments provided.
For example the "second dimension" I mentioned. It means that I can use
Labels for sorting msgs after criteria that appear in *all* (or most)
folders. You could create folders for each of them, but then you'd have
the same folder structure in almost all folders. Also, you'd lose the
time-relation of the messages.
Constructing an example: In a company, I could have a folder hierarchy
for branches, projects, subprojects etc.. I use one label for marking
internal communication, one label for communication with my contact at
the customer and one label for the boss of the customer / contract
issues. I can easily pre-filter the msgs, giving them appropriate labels
and manually adjust the labels were necessary. Then, I have one folder
per (sub)project, where I can sort all the messages in a chronologic
order, but still quickly find a certain type of message. I can even see
the progress visually.
If you sort internal and external communication in different folders,
you have to constantly switch between folders to read about a certain
topic. If you use neither folders nor labels, you need much more time
finding a discussion you had with the customer, because you have to wade
through all the internal discussion. (Or you have to use the search
feature, which also takes time, because you have to enter search
criteria with the keyboard, assuming you can reliably search at all.)
What about the argument that abusing Priority for local storage is data
loss? Sender-Priority might not have been proven useful for *you*, but
Justin says, it were important info for him. (And he is not the only one
- I agree.) So, using Priority is out.
Ben
