powermail-discuss Digest #2630 - Thursday, May 10, 2007
Re: Not Re: PowerMail and IMAP
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail and IMAP
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Not Re: PowerMail and IMAP
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail and IMAP
by "Lane Roathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail and IMAP
by "Sean McBride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail and IMAP
by "Sean McBride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail 2GB Limit
by "Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail 2GB Limit
by "Tim Lapin (sympatico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PowerMail 2GB Limit
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Not Re: PowerMail and IMAP
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 20:46:41 +0200
Michael Lewis exploded:
>Geez, louise, you're rude. Can you tone it down a bit, please? It's
>really getting tiresome when you jump all over a person's case for
>stating a personal preference as if it is some personal attack on you or
>something. I didn't see anything in Lane's post that said "you" need to
>do this or "everyone" needs to do that -- he wrote "I" throughout it.
So what?
>The next time you want to comment on someone's personal preferences or
>blast them for offering up a way they work around a particular issue or
>bug while we wait for CTM to change or fix it --- don't.
I didn't "comment on a personal preference", but on the attitude shared
by a few individuals on this list that _their_ preferences should be the
norm. I really feel, on the contrary, that many users differing
preferences could and can coexist in PowerMail.
If you feel different, that's your prerogative. But I also have the
right to differ in opinion.
>Hit the close
>window and "Don't Save" buttons. Then, instead, if it is still
>important, write it from your point of view. I could care less if you
>think we're all idiots and treat us as such by figuratively rolling up
>your eyes, calling us childish, and telling us to join other cults.
I called the attitude childish, not the person. There's a significant
difference.
And there's no need to make yourself a spokeperson for everyone else. Us?
I do not think people on this list are idiots. I think all of "us" must
have some greatness about themselves as we have choosen the same great
email app.
But the attitude that PowerMail shouldn't be usable for mere mortals or
we're getting another client, is what is _really_ tiresome. My point is
that email is changing. As long as the "no-HTML-please-we're-british"
crowd is catered for, then I don't see the danger of supporting the
needs of other groups as well.
Though I don't see HTML-composing in the future of PowerMail any tie soon.
And, yes I can "tone it down" nevertheless. There's no need for making
people angry for the sake of it. My apologies.
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail and IMAP
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 20:51:10 +0200
Barbara Needham told:
>I manage to do this with pop mail, by not deleting from server. However,
>this works only for INCOMING. For outgoing, it does not. There IMAP does
>have the advantage if you keep a SENT mail folder on the server.
>
>On the other hand, I turn on IMAP in PowerMail when I need it [for .mac
>mail]; in the meantime I download it all as pop. Thunderbird emptied all
>my folders on the server once.. that scared me off of using it for a while.
I'd be satisfied with the IMAP support of now if there was some
automated way of moving messages to a local folder. Any suggestions?
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Not Re: PowerMail and IMAP
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:10:07 -0400
Mikael Byström sez:
>And, yes I can "tone it down" nevertheless. There's no need for making
>people angry for the sake of it. My apologies.
See how easy that was, and how unnecessary the rest was?
Thanks!
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail and IMAP
From: "Lane Roathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:36:04 -0500
on Wed, May 9, 2007 "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> may
have said:
>It's like if I said if PM ever switches to an _optional_ OS X metal
>interface, I'd switch. Like I couldn't keep using the old look (rolling
>up my eyes).
I thought I'd addressed that by saying I'm not against improving IMAP or
HTML as long as it
doesn't interfere with the primary reasons for using PM in the first place.
Anyway, I agree that if the switch is optional and doesn't take away
from why I use PM then great. Of course there are several items I'd
prefer to see addressed before IMAP or HTML.
What the heck, might as well put them forward once again :) Here goes:
#1 issue for me: Double-Click is supposed to select words, and
does...unless the text is a URL when PM changes behavior and launches
the URL. Now, I realize that this is a good feature to some people, and
that's great. Still, for those of us that do lots of copying (especially
when we're copying URLs) this is quite annoying and a real time
waster...so, adding an option in the preferences to turn this off would
make my life SO much easier! (ie, double click should always select
words, and cmd-click would continue to launch URL's)
#2 issue for me: Select 400 or so emails. Click on the "redirect" (or
forward) toolbar icon or press Cmd-R. Instead of a window asking me who
I want to redirect/forward all these emails to PM opens up every single
one. With a smaller screen only ~10 are visible, the reset are off the
screen and unreachable. Only option is to quit (since close and close
all didn't appear to work), and since it takes a few seconds per window
to quit the machine is down for several minutes. [why this is #2 for me
is that cmd-r is right next to cmd{-shift}-t which I use all the time on
dozens to hundreds of emails, so pressing the wrong key can be a real
time waster.]
Other nice to haves:
- 2GB DB size limit; be nice to get at least 4GB, that would hold me for
a few more years until we can get the limit removed all together.
- PowerMail has the wonderful ability to file outgoing messages, but the
REALLY annoying problem of having to have both from/to columns if you
want to know the correct information. See Claris eMailer or v1.5.1 of
MailSmith for (imho) the "correct" implementation (which is "smart" from
listing, which shows "to" instead of "from" if mail is from myself. That
you sent the email is shown in the ? (checkmark) column, so it makes
much more sense to show who you sent the email to.
- Why can I change the account used to send an already sent email, but
I can't file it to a different folder? To me this makes no sense; you
shouldn't be able to change which account sent an email but you should
be able to move it to another folder. (yea, you can close the window,
select the containing folder, find the email, and then move it .. but
the current UI does not seem correct.)
The best part? My list used to be 29 items long! That's a great
improvement, esp. to only have two "urgent" items. (although not so
urgent that I've even been tempted to switch over the past several
years). And my main reason for using PM, very fast searches, keeps
getting better.
By the way, I attempted it myself, and rolling up your eyes gives you a
major headache! Not sure why you're into that after experiencing that
pain... :D
Lane Roathe
President Ideas From the Deep <http://www.ifd.com>
___________________________________________________________________
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my father...
not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail and IMAP
From: "Sean McBride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:34:51 -0400
Lane Roathe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2007-05-09 16:36 said:
>- 2GB DB size limit; be nice to get at least 4GB, that would hold me for
>a few more years until we can get the limit removed all together.
Alas, CTM has said that they won't be upping this limit. :(
I've managed to survive at 1.8 or so, compacting every few months, and
deleting some messages, but it's a real shame.
--
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to
pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail and IMAP
From: "Sean McBride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:37:37 -0400
Barbara Needham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2007-05-09 12:31 said:
>>For most, the biggest thing is being able to keep your mail at work,
>>home, and laptop all in sync.
>
>I manage to do this with pop mail, by not deleting from server. However,
>this works only for INCOMING.
But it doesn't really _work_. Can you sync the 'read' status, the
'replied to' status, the folder the message is in, etc.?
--
"do not fear death, but rather the unlived life"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail 2GB Limit
From: "Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:09:50 +0100
Sean McBride (10/5/07, 05:34) said:
>Lane Roathe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2007-05-09 16:36 said:
>
>>- 2GB DB size limit; be nice to get at least 4GB, that would hold me for
>>a few more years until we can get the limit removed all together.
>
>Alas, CTM has said that they won't be upping this limit. :(
>
>I've managed to survive at 1.8 or so, compacting every few months, and
>deleting some messages, but it's a real shame.
If the limit isn't removed, or changed to be a limit on individual
mailboxes (folders), then PowerMail's days are numbered as far as I am
concerned. I think it's a shame too.
Jeremy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail 2GB Limit
From: "Tim Lapin (sympatico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:57:25 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 5/10/2007 6:09 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
> ... or changed to be a limit on individual
> mailboxes (folders), then PowerMail's days are numbered as far as I am
> concerned. I think it's a shame too.
>
> Jeremy
>
That is the approach of Thunderbird. Each *main* or parent folder has a
limit of 4 GB. I don't know if that applies only to the parent account
folder or each separate folder *outside* the Inbox but either way it's
an improvement over a 2 GB limit for the whole database. I like it so
much that I use T-Bird for most of my work email, leaving my Exchange
server account strictly for calendar - Blackberry synchronization stuff
and other related uses.
Yes, it would be a shame. I've stuck with PowerMail on my Mac since the
early days of version 3.x. As much as I like T-Bird on my PC, I've
grown used to the PM interface and am loathe to switch unless presented
with no alternative.
BTW, I do agree that IMAP will continue to gain converts with its
ability to maintain not only sent email but the very structure of one's
email environment. The ability to look at one's email in precisely the
same fashion regardless of where you are and which computer you are
using is quite useful. The only problem is server space management.
I don't say the above lightly as I have been and continue to be a big
POP3 user.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGQzLVuprXnyzF8jkRAn1GAKClnLHioD9U/kNc7peTK4RKp4FidQCff/s6
vlH0jhLVDj5VeUK9eoPgs/s=
=yjhj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PowerMail 2GB Limit
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:34:33 -0500
Just to chime in, I concur that the 2 gig "at once" limit is a big
concern for me. As it stands now, I have to compress my mail database
every month (and if you have a mail database that's big enough to need
compression, it's big enough to take a very long time to compress, which
is a big pain...).
I understand that CTM likely have some engineering hurdle at the 2 gig
mark that they don't want to tackle right now, but it's still a brick
wall for anyone who needs a great mail client (and if "good" were
enough, I'd be able to use Mail, right?). Excellent idea to work around
the problem by allowing multiple 2 gig databases simultaneously. I've
been hearing the "split your database" recommendation for a long time,
but I want access to all my mail, all the time - I don't want to have to
choose what I have access to.
CTM? Is there no hope on the horizon for those of us approaching 2 gigs?
On 5/10/07 at 10:57 AM, Tim Lapin (sympatico) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>That is the approach of Thunderbird. Each *main* or parent folder has a
>limit of 4 GB. I don't know if that applies only to the parent account
>folder or each separate folder *outside* the Inbox but either way it's
>an improvement over a 2 GB limit for the whole database. I like it so
>much that I use T-Bird for most of my work email, leaving my Exchange
>server account strictly for calendar - Blackberry synchronization stuff
>and other related uses.
>
>Yes, it would be a shame. I've stuck with PowerMail on my Mac since the
>early days of version 3.x. As much as I like T-Bird on my PC, I've
>grown used to the PM interface and am loathe to switch unless presented
>with no alternative.
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of powermail-discuss Digest
