Steve Abrahamson said: >This is the one I'm going to disagree with. I generally leave drafts >around for a while, and it's useful for me to know when there's real >outgoing mail in my Out Tray. If it bolded whenever there were drafts, >mine would be bolded 100% of the time, and that ceases to be useful >information. > >However, maybe a Drafts tray...
I'd prefer that the current outgoing message would be filtered at first save. Also I'd like an optional Sent Mail Tray for the messages that doesn't get filtered. If they have been sent, what are they doing in the Out Tray? Does outgoing letters in physical trays stay there after they have been sent? I wouldn't think so. So why should they be kept in the Out Tray with email? It's not consistent with the metaphor as far I'm concerned. I have a sent mail *folder* now, but optional tray status would be nice as it needs a space in the name to stay at top of the folder list after the Out Tray. Perhaps at first creation of a "Sent" folder or something. >>When I am reading a message in a folder I am able to advance to the next >>message in the list. With that message open for reading, If I click on a >>different folder I am no longer allowed to advance to the next/previous >>message as the list has been "lost". I feel that each folder should be >>it's own sequence list, and once a message is opened that regardless of >>what the mail browser shows, that I should still be allowed to read the >>"next" message in that message's folder. To take this further, if I have >>3 messages open, from 3 different folders, I should be allowed to >>progress to the "next" message in the folder for any/all 3 of these >>messages and their folders. > >Personally, I'd find that very confusing. I would think that a Next/ >Previous button would operate on what's currently visible; I don't want >to have to remember what folder this is *filed* in to know what Next is >going to do. Seriously, I don't understand you can expect that one open message should advance to the next message in another folder. It works this way in preview, because then PowerMail removes the message from the view. I agree with Dave that open messages should remember as well as update their parent folder so that they should only move within their parent folder. Actually, they do this already, as long as the folder in question is open somewhere. >CTM, like >everyone else, has limited resources (like time) to devote to features >between releases, and of all the things we'd all like to see in PM, an >entire scripting interface is a huge undertaking for minimal benefit. That's no valid reason not to discuss it. Don't speculate on CTM resources like this as it becomes a feeble attempt tp persuade others to censor their thoughts. That's a very stupid attitude. In the end, CTM decides. That's all there's to it. Also, a scripting interface could be done by a third party, perhaps via a plugin to a scripting environment. Personally, I'd like if message source was made editable and that scripting is built upon, perhaps with occasional user/developer input. At the moment, PowerMail scripting is lagging a bit, but I'm sure it's not at a standstill. PM 5.2.3 Swedish | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400Mhz | 1GB RAM | 30GB HD
