Re: Review of Power Mail

[Richard Hart]

Paul wrote:

>Could I PLEASE BE REMOVED from this list???

Please stop shouting.

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Paul Schatzkin]

Could I PLEASE BE REMOVED from this list???

Thanks

--PS

Sent from my iPhone, which is why it's so short.

On Jun 18, 2008, at 6:55 PM, MB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


A-NO-NE Music said:


I think OM uses aliases, so I wouldn't think the name throws it off
unless the alias in question is broken.


Not too sure about this, because sometimes it opens correct  
attachment

after reboot, but not after restarting PM.  It seems as if PM caches
with wrong pointer.


it may be some kind of bug, but I don't think I have experienced it.
Though I may not have been verifying a majority of posted attachments.


Mikael

Technoids:
PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook
G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB

Re: Review of Power Mail

[MB]

A-NO-NE Music said:

>>I think OM uses aliases, so I wouldn't think the name throws it off
>>unless the alias in question is broken.
>
>Not too sure about this, because sometimes it opens correct attachment
>after reboot, but not after restarting PM.  It seems as if PM caches
>with wrong pointer.

it may be some kind of bug, but I don't think I have experienced it.
Though I may not have been verifying a majority of posted attachments.


Mikael

Technoids:
PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook
G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB

Re: Review of Power Mail

[A-NO-NE Music]

MB / 08.6.18 / 8:02 AM wrote:

>I think OM uses aliases, so I wouldn't think the name throws it off
>unless the alias in question is broken.

Not too sure about this, because sometimes it opens correct attachment
after reboot, but not after restarting PM.  It seems as if PM caches
with wrong pointer.

--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 

Re: Review of Power Mail

[MB]

A-NO-NE Music said:

> PM is picking up wrong
>files.  When I open the attachment, PM is so confused and showing me
>totally wrong images probably because the file name is generic screen
>capture appended by long numbers.

I think OM uses aliases, so I wouldn't think the name throws it off
unless the alias in question is broken.


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

SpamSieve issues (was "Re: Review of Power Mail")

[MB]

Bill Lane imagined:

>with PowerMail, I 
>remember having to reconfigure it every time I upgraded either program.  
Nope.
>And it seemed to want to dump its "corpus" every once in a while.  
Nope.

SpamSieve just works. It is 99.6 % correct with my PowerMail messages.
Since years.


Mikael

Technoids:
PM 5.6.3 build 4504 sv / SpamSieve 2.6.6 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook
G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB

Re: Review of Power Mail

[A-NO-NE Music]

I belong to quite a few software beta groups.  Almost all of them posts
bug reports with embedded images from Apple Mail, and PM won't handle
them since they don't come as HTML mail.

When someone embeds series of images with its name being generic, I have
to guess the sequences.  Lately it got worse.  PM is picking up wrong
files.  When I open the attachment, PM is so confused and showing me
totally wrong images probably because the file name is generic screen
capture appended by long numbers.

These days I feel I am cornered to switch to Apple Mail.  Is there any
solution to this?  By the way, First Aid didn't work to remedy this
problem.  I have a feeling PM can't handle 13,000 files in the
attachment folder.

--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Michael Lewis]

Bill Lane sez:

> And jpg attachments never seemed to turn up correctly 'in 
>line'.

This is precisely one more point for why mail programs can't be
everything to everyone. I don't want my attachments shown inline. I want
them at the end of the mail where I can click on them if I wish to view
them. And, if I do not want to view them, I want to simply send them to
the trash by deleting the mail (as Powermail does) or by selecting
individual attachments and trashing them (as Powermail allows). I don't
care about the mail with one thousand cute kitten photos next to little
cute sayings. If I get photos I like, I can view them in Preview by just
clicking on them or drag them over to iPhoto to save.

Of course, other people's mileage will vary. If PowerMail does allow
this great inline viewing at some point, I hope they give me a
preference to turn it off and show the names of the pics or other
attachments old-style. Mail.app does not allow this. HTML is either on
or off, and I get a button to load images if it's off. Not what I want,
even if people think it is what I need. :)

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: Review of Power Mail

[C. A. Niemiec]

>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?

Ability to select text in HTML view and scrub it to the visual/text-
appearing part as a plain text quote when hitting reply.

Because some HTML+text messages are easy to read in the HTML part, but
the plain text formatting is very poor to unreadable (e.g. no line
feeds). I usually request plain text version for lists, but sometimes
you can't win. Given it is very unlikely I will ever be able to change
this properly at the source (be it corporate infrastructure or well-
meaning-but-clueless relatives), this would bridge the gap.

They get to use HTML and I get to reply in plain text. No detour to a
web browser required. Everyone wins.

In this way, HTML on/images off would work well as a default.

Bonus ability: pull out/expand hyperlinks in the selected text in an
acceptable plain text way, e.g.:

> The company's new website is now at Example.com 

Such ability would make PowerMail more palatable to people who must work
with HTML mail on a daily basis, but still grasp the value of using
plain text. Having to go to a browser just to copy something right back
into the e-mail client makes the cost of entry too high.

Chris
--

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Bill Lane]

Hey, Michael -- if it works for you, that's fine -- it's good that 
you're happy with it!  But all I can say is that it didn't work so 
reliably for me.  Even after trying all three different preference 
settings, I seemed to be constantly second-guessing the format of 
incoming mail, and devising workarounds for things like forwarding 
messages.  And jpg attachments never seemed to turn up correctly 'in 
line'.  It can be a lot of fun to try to outsmart the program, but it 
also takes a lot of time.


BILL.

On 6/15/08 Michael J. Hußmann wrote:
 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?

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Michael Lewis]

Tim Lapin sez:

>In short, HTML e-mail is still a problem which is treated inconsistently.

I get HTML mail that Mail.app can't handle. It's the sending that is
inconsistent.

I'm going to be a curmudgeonly anti-HTML-email luddite to the end. I
have it all turned off in Powermail and simply choose to view it in the
web browser if I decide to bother with it. I have as much as I can
turned off in Mail.app, too, for those things I get via that. Congrats
to all of you who get real mail via HTML mail; my HTML mail if 99% crap
and spam. (SpamSieve gets rid of most of the spam. Now I have to deal
with relatives forwarding jokes and kitten pictures and political lies
to me -- all in crappy HTML that screams and blinks and colorfully tells
me how funny and/or patriotic it is. UGH!) When and if Powermail stops
being made and stops working, I'll be turning HTML off in any other
program I use, if I can. If I can't, I'm going to be really angry for a
long time. :)

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Jeremy Hughes]

MB (15/6/08, 12:07) said:

>>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.
>
>Qrecall only backup the parts of the file that are different.

This doesn't look like it could replace Retrospect for client/server
network backups. It might be OK as a personal backup system.

I think it's a problem that PowerMail doesn't work well with standard
backup systems - but this is a minor inconvenience compared with the 2
GB limit.

Jeremy

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Bill Lane]

In fact, SpamSieve works better with Thunderbird -- with PowerMail, I 
remember having to reconfigure it every time I upgraded either program.  
And it seemed to want to dump its "corpus" every once in a while.  
However, I'm grateful to the folks at CTM for introducing me to 
SpamSieve -- it was bundled with PowerMail when I originally bought it.


BILL.


On 6/15/08 Sean McBride wrote:
 What spam filter!? PowerMail doesn't have one. You mean SpamSieve is 
second to none (I agree), but SpamSieve can be used with pretty much any 
mail client, so it's no argument in favour of PowerMail.

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Richard Hart]

Jeremy Hughes wrote:

>incremental backups (Retrospect, Time Machine, whatever)
>have to back up the entire database each time it changes.

I'm sure you did not mean to include the word "whatever".
The word "whatever" implies that ALL backup programs suffer this defficiency.

Richard Hart

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Sean McBride]

Cotty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2008-6-12 12:16 PM said:

>Well if it's any consolation, I am extremely happy with Powermail - been
>using it for years (Claris Emailer before that) and I find it is stable,
>does exactly what I need from an email application, without any
>distractions and fancy footwork, and the spam filter is second to none.

What spam filter!?  PowerMail doesn't have one.  You mean SpamSieve is
second to none (I agree), but SpamSieve can be used with pretty much any
mail client, so it's no argument in favour of PowerMail.

As for me, I've used PowerMail since the OS 9 days, but I think I'll be
switching unless 6.0 is a major change.  But for the moment, 6.0 looks
like vapourware to me.  CTM has told us nothing, no feature list, no
betas, no date, nada.

Why switch?  Because PowerMail seems dead.  There have been no
significant features in ages.  It's still a Carbon app, can't do more
than 2 GB of mail, can't even spell check in the subject field, poor
Unicode support, poor HTML support, etc.  FoxTrot on the other hand is
being updated often.

The OS comes with a mail client, and there are open source mail
clients.  I don't blame CTM for letting PowerMail die.  But it is a
shame, it could be real nice if it had kept up.

My 2¢.

Sean

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Peter Baral]

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:

Re: Review of Power Mail

[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?

(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

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Tim Lapin]

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 iMacOS 10.4.11PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Kjell Olausson]

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

Kållered, Sweden

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Michael J . Hußmann]

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

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Bill Lane]

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.

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[MB]

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  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

Re: Review of Power Mail

[MB]

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

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Kjell Olausson]

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

Kållered, Sweden

iMac G5|1,8 GHz|OS 10.5.3|1 GB RAM|PM 5.6.5|3 Pane View
PowerMail AppleScripts 

Re: Review of Power Mail

[barbarajfn]

>I have dozens of folders, so there's really no need for flags and such.
>The folder name lets me know what the status is. You can do this by
>adding characters or words to the beginning or end of the folder's name.
>Simple words like "IP" for in progress. When the status changes, I move
>it to the same folder name without the "IP". I know that different
>methods work well for some, not so well for others. This works for me.

I guess the "new" up to date way is to archive all your old e-mail in one
archive folder [empty in-box theory-- article in this months MacWorld]. I
don't like it, I like the folder method such as you have.

I'd like to have saved searches in Power Mail otherwise I'm happy with it.
MacWorld doesn't like my other favorite programs either [Moneydance and
Readerware, both Java and cross-platform]. I finally quite my MUG because they
never liked my ideas of software.

-- 
Barbara Needham

Re: Review of Power Mail

[cheshirekat]

On Thu, Jun 12, 200812:48 PM, the following words from Don Zahniser
[EMAIL PROTECTED], emerged from a plethora of SPAM ...

>
>On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Tim Hodgson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm -0400, Bill Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to say, I also switched from PowerMail to Thunderbird last  
>>> year,
>>
>> I don't think I've come across a mailing list before where so many of
>> its members are no longer using the app under discussion. Should  
>> CTM be
>> disheartened by the loss of users or encouraged by their lingering
>> interest? :-)
>>
>
>Right now I am using Apple Mail in preference to PowerMail, but I do  
>keep the latter installed.  The main thing that drove me out of  
>PowerMail was the inflexible (to me) message access options.  I like  
>to keep an empty Inbox, and also like to have my messages filed in  
>ways that make sense to me.  It is also very important to me to be  
>able to flag messages as needing action.  I _don't_ want to have to  
>constantly refile messages in and out of a 'todo' mailbox.  Apple  
>Mail's Flag function with a smart folder serves me admirably.  With  
>PowerMail, I can label messages and then Search them, but it is  
>clunky, awkward and too many steps.  If I could save 'Search'  
>criteria for instant access (instead of having to re-input), or if  
>the Search function were scriptable, allowing me to save searches as  
>Applescripts, I would probably go right back to PowerMail.
>
>I did try Thunderbird, and found that (at least on my hardware) the  
>interface felt unfinished and inconsistent (e.g. - why should I have  
>to double-click a 'reveal triangle' when the folder is highlighted,  
>but only single-click when it is not?). I was also very frustrated by  
>the lack of Services.
>
>I don't care about the idea of PowerMail's interface being 'old- 
>fashioned', if I understood the criticism correctly.  I moved to  
>PowerMail from Claris Emailer (which my wife still uses on her Quadra  
>650), and still like the way it is laid out.
>
>At worst, we'll continue to use PowerMail here, when I manage to drag  
>Lady Technophobe kicking and screaming from System 7 to OS X. Her  
>video card appears to be giving out, and I have a nice G3 iMac  
>waiting for her.  :^)
>
>  - Don
>
>
>
>Don Zahniser
>PowerBook G3 (Pismo), 768 MB RAM, OS X 10.4.11
>
>
I keep my Inbox empty with filters. The very last filter is:

Condition- always
Action- move message into folder  Mail trash

Because I assume that anything that wasn't caught by other filters is
probably spam. There are some messages that end up in the trash that are
legit. But it is such a low priority for me to read it that I don't
assign a filter to put it elsewhere. If I put it in a folder, the folder
would fill up very quickly. This way, if I don't have time or don't care
to read the latest message from the unimportant source, it gets deleted
when I delete the trash. Usually for people that don't seem to know how
to communicate so all I get from them is forwarded jokes, virus
warnings, scam alerts, etc. on a daily basis, sometimes several times a
day. Also where messages from people on "temporary watch" go since they
just recently got my email address and I consider all attachments
suspect until I deem them safe enough to create a filter.

I have dozens of folders, so there's really no need for flags and such.
The folder name lets me know what the status is. You can do this by
adding characters or words to the beginning or end of the folder's name.
Simple words like "IP" for in progress. When the status changes, I move
it to the same folder name without the "IP". I know that different
methods work well for some, not so well for others. This works for me.

-- 
"Let us be grateful to people who make us happy; they are the charming
gardeners who make our souls blossom." -Marcel Proust 

* Mac Pro 2 GHz Quad Xeon * OS X 10.4.10 * 5 GB RAM *

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Charles Watts-Jones]

Jeremy Hughes said:

> 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.

I'm not sure that this is always so. I've been using QRecall  for some time now and haven't noticed this difficulty.

-- Charles

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Michael Lewis]

Dave N sez:

>What does that mean?!  

It means that no email client can be all things to all people. 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.

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Michael Lewis]

Bill Lane sez:

>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).

Oddly enough major selling points to me for Powermail were that it did
do IMAP and did not do HTML. I've had a lot less call for IMAP in the
last couple of years due to it being less of an option by providers
(Apple and some corporate nets use it; a few others). But I still have
little use for HTML mail since 99% of it is spam for me.

I haven't reached the 2GB limitation, but I can see where that can be a
problem for some folks and find that to be much more of an issue than
IMAP and HTML -- specifically HTML.

I haven't left any messages at MacWorld because I'm not registered there
and don't want to. I've got enough registrations to worry about. I've
reached my personal 2GB limit on what I want to register to read or post
to. If I can use BugMeNot.Com to read and sometimes post, I do that.

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
240-271-9889
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Dave N]

Well the Claris Emailer Talk list is/was like that too! :-)
What does that mean?!

Dave N

in reply to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Tim Hodgson's message of 6:52 AM, 6/12/08

>I don't think I've come across a mailing list before where so many of
>its members are no longer using the app under discussion.

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Chris]

On 12/6/08 Peter Baral wrote:

>- drag-and-drop of all mail folders to the Mac desktop (format: Mac OS  
>X Mail). This results in mbox files on the desktop.

Thanks Peter, I didn't realise that you could create mbox files that way.

Chris


>Am 12.06.2008 um 17:12 schrieb Chris:
>
>> On 12/6/08 Peter Baral wrote:
>>
>>> ..made me switch to Apple Mail about a year ago.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, how did you get your PM mail into Apple Mail?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>-- 
>   Peter Baral Medienwerkstatt Muehlacker
>   Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H.
>   +-+-+-+-+-+
>   E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Web:
>

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Don Zahniser]

On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Tim Hodgson wrote:


On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm -0400, Bill Lane wrote:

Sorry to say, I also switched from PowerMail to Thunderbird last  
year,


I don't think I've come across a mailing list before where so many of
its members are no longer using the app under discussion. Should  
CTM be

disheartened by the loss of users or encouraged by their lingering
interest? :-)



Right now I am using Apple Mail in preference to PowerMail, but I do  
keep the latter installed.  The main thing that drove me out of  
PowerMail was the inflexible (to me) message access options.  I like  
to keep an empty Inbox, and also like to have my messages filed in  
ways that make sense to me.  It is also very important to me to be  
able to flag messages as needing action.  I _don't_ want to have to  
constantly refile messages in and out of a 'todo' mailbox.  Apple  
Mail's Flag function with a smart folder serves me admirably.  With  
PowerMail, I can label messages and then Search them, but it is  
clunky, awkward and too many steps.  If I could save 'Search'  
criteria for instant access (instead of having to re-input), or if  
the Search function were scriptable, allowing me to save searches as  
Applescripts, I would probably go right back to PowerMail.


I did try Thunderbird, and found that (at least on my hardware) the  
interface felt unfinished and inconsistent (e.g. - why should I have  
to double-click a 'reveal triangle' when the folder is highlighted,  
but only single-click when it is not?). I was also very frustrated by  
the lack of Services.


I don't care about the idea of PowerMail's interface being 'old- 
fashioned', if I understood the criticism correctly.  I moved to  
PowerMail from Claris Emailer (which my wife still uses on her Quadra  
650), and still like the way it is laid out.


At worst, we'll continue to use PowerMail here, when I manage to drag  
Lady Technophobe kicking and screaming from System 7 to OS X. Her  
video card appears to be giving out, and I have a nice G3 iMac  
waiting for her.  :^)


 - Don



Don Zahniser
PowerBook G3 (Pismo), 768 MB RAM, OS X 10.4.11

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Cotty]

Well if it's any consolation, I am extremely happy with Powermail - been
using it for years (Claris Emailer before that) and I find it is stable,
does exactly what I need from an email application, without any
distractions and fancy footwork, and the spam filter is second to none.

Rock on Powermail!  :)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Peter Baral]

That's what I did (IIRC):

- drag-and-drop of all mail folders to the Mac desktop (format: Mac OS  
X Mail). This results in mbox files on the desktop

- imported into Mail using Mail's Import command.

Peter


Am 12.06.2008 um 17:12 schrieb Chris:


On 12/6/08 Peter Baral wrote:


..made me switch to Apple Mail about a year ago.


Out of curiosity, how did you get your PM mail into Apple Mail?

cheers,

Chris






--
  Peter Baral Medienwerkstatt Muehlacker
  Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H.
  +-+-+-+-+-+
  E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Web:

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Chris]

On 12/6/08 Peter Baral wrote:
 
>..made me switch to Apple Mail about a year ago.

Out of curiosity, how did you get your PM mail into Apple Mail?

cheers,

Chris

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Jim Pistrang]

Hi Tim,

>I don't think I've come across a mailing list before where so many of
>its members are no longer using the app under discussion. Should CTM be
>disheartened by the loss of users or encouraged by their lingering
>interest? :-)

I would think (& hope) encouraged.  I think that many of the former
users left reluctantly due to a missing feature or capability.  CTM
can't do everything for everybody, but hopefully they're addressing the
critical needs.  (Note to CTM - it would be nice to know what's on the list)

Jim

--
Jim Pistrang
JP Computer Resources
Certified Member, Apple Consultants Network
413-256-4569

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Bill Lane]

My wife still uses PowerMail, which is my reasonable excuse.  But I must 
confess, I'm also fascinated by the fierce loyalty of the listmembers, 
and curious to see whether this developer can turn things around...


BILL.



Tim Hodgson wrote:

I don't think I've come across a mailing list before where so many of
its members are no longer using the app under discussion. Should CTM be
disheartened by the loss of users or encouraged by their lingering
interest? :-)
  

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Tim Hodgson]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm -0400, Bill Lane wrote:

>Sorry to say, I also switched from PowerMail to Thunderbird last year, 

I don't think I've come across a mailing list before where so many of
its members are no longer using the app under discussion. Should CTM be
disheartened by the loss of users or encouraged by their lingering
interest? :-)
-- 
TimH

PowerMail 5.6.2 (build 4501) | OS X 10.4.11 | PowerBook G4/1.25GHz | 2 GB RAM

Re: Review of Power Mail

[Bill Lane]

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.


BILL.

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Peter Baral]

I can second Jeremy's opinion. The monolithic database together with  
the 2 GB limit made me switch to Apple Mail about a year ago. Better  
rich-text integration and support for new OS technologies and better  
IMAP support have been the other reasons. Apple Mail's support for  
iCal event scheduling und To-Do lists, while far away from prefect,  
let's me use my mail client as sort of a PIM.


But, nevertheless, I sympathize very much with PowerMail and CTM dev  
and I hope that version 6 will be a big jump towards a modern and  
robust Mail client.


Peter

Am 12.06.2008 um 13:36 schrieb Jeremy Hughes:


... PowerMail has other weaknesses, besides those
mentioned in the review, but the 2 GB limit is its most serious  
weakness

for me personally.

Jeremy

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Jeremy Hughes]

Dave N (10/6/08, 23:22) said:

>Review of PowerMail in new July 2008 MacWorld magazine
>
>And PowerMail didn't do well. It got only 2.5 Mice out of 5

My main problem with PowerMail is that it uses a monolithic database
format that can't be larger than 2 GB. Currently, I have to compact the
database at least once a week to avoid corruption :(

I don't know if any of its competitors have this problem - Apple Mail
certainly doesn't.

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.

This wasn't mentioned in the review. If it had been, I think it would
have justified a 2-mouse rating.

If CTM can fix this problem, I would be happy to continue using and
recommending PowerMail over other clients. Searching and filtering are
much better than Apple Mail. PowerMail is great at handling a large
email corpus (I have over 300,000 emails) - so long as you don't get
anywhere near the 2 GB limit.

I haven't contributed to the discussion on the MacWorld web page,
because I'm hopeful that CTM will reconsider their previous decision to
leave this problem unfixed, and I don't want to leave negative comments
in a public forum. PowerMail has other weaknesses, besides those
mentioned in the review, but the 2 GB limit is its most serious weakness
for me personally.

Jeremy

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[cheshirekat]

Well, I learned a long time ago that MacWorld reviews are worthless.
It's not a place I consider when I'm looking for reviews. However,
PowerMail is a solid program and the review did not give it justice -
even worse, the rating was way off the mark and an insult. That low of a
rating gives the impression that people using PowerMail will be pulling
their hair out with frustration. We all know that isn't so.

I responded to the review a little while ago. I hope that those reading
that many people disagree with the review might not take MacWorld
reviews so seriously and give PowerMail a hands-on review themselves. I
sure don't see their reviews as anything but noise. I don't even read
their reviews unless something specific is brought to my attention.
Maybe the noise will work in PowerMail's favor as it buries the useless
review.


On Wed, Jun 11, 20085:03 PM, the following words from Marlyse Comte
[EMAIL PROTECTED], emerged from a plethora of SPAM ...

>I just saw that and thought the same.
>
>Of course I do understand that they "have to" stand behind their review
>- on the other hand, I guess they did get a bit embarrassed to see ONLY
>comments of opposite viewpoint and none of their own... hopefully it
>makes them realize that maybe, just maybe, their reviewer didn't do the
>best job this time around.
>
>
>---marlyse
>
>
> former message(s) quotes: -
>
>
>>Well, all of the comments left below the MacWorld "review" got their
>>attention.
>>The publication has posted (and mailed to commentors) as special response.
>>Very defensive. And unusual.
>>
>>Richard Hart
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
"Let us be grateful to people who make us happy; they are the charming
gardeners who make our souls blossom." -Marcel Proust 

* Mac Pro 2 GHz Quad Xeon * OS X 10.4.10 * 5 GB RAM *

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Marlyse Comte]

I just saw that and thought the same.

Of course I do understand that they "have to" stand behind their review
- on the other hand, I guess they did get a bit embarrassed to see ONLY
comments of opposite viewpoint and none of their own... hopefully it
makes them realize that maybe, just maybe, their reviewer didn't do the
best job this time around.


---marlyse


 former message(s) quotes: -


>Well, all of the comments left below the MacWorld "review" got their
>attention.
>The publication has posted (and mailed to commentors) as special response.
>Very defensive. And unusual.
>
>Richard Hart
>
>

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Richard Hart]

Well, all of the comments left below the MacWorld "review" got their
attention.
The publication has posted (and mailed to commentors) as special response.
Very defensive. And unusual.

Richard Hart

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Marlyse Comte]

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct Ira with your points - maybe
more so a reason why I thought it important to leave my comment, because
a lopsided review ALWAYS hurts a company, but especially in such a situation.

---marlyse


 former message(s) quotes: -


>>
>>Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine
>>From: "Marlyse Comte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:12:21 -0500
>>
>>yeah, I have left my opinion already there a while ago - under the
>>comments as "mStudios" - it is a lopsided and not very well informed
>>review, which is too bad.
>>
>>---marlyse
>
>I too read the review and was disappointed with it, BUT it should serve
>as a wake up call to CTM Developers.  All of us who actually use
>PowerMail know how good it is--even if the interface is old fashioned
>and you have to use SpamSieve (or some other product) for effective spam
>filtering (criticisms in the article).  We know it can do things the way
>we want them to be done (most of the time!), not the way the developer
>wants it to be done.
>
>I don't know how software companies survive in today's market, but I
>imagine it requires NEW users, not just a static, satisfied user base.
>A review like the one in MacWorld does not generate new users.
>
>--Ira
>
>

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Ira Lansing]

>
>Subject: Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine
>From: "Marlyse Comte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:12:21 -0500
>
>yeah, I have left my opinion already there a while ago - under the
>comments as "mStudios" - it is a lopsided and not very well informed
>review, which is too bad.
>
>---marlyse

I too read the review and was disappointed with it, BUT it should serve
as a wake up call to CTM Developers.  All of us who actually use
PowerMail know how good it is--even if the interface is old fashioned
and you have to use SpamSieve (or some other product) for effective spam
filtering (criticisms in the article).  We know it can do things the way
we want them to be done (most of the time!), not the way the developer
wants it to be done.

I don't know how software companies survive in today's market, but I
imagine it requires NEW users, not just a static, satisfied user base.
A review like the one in MacWorld does not generate new users.

--Ira

Re: Review of Power Mail in new MacWorld magazine

[Marlyse Comte]

yeah, I have left my opinion already there a while ago - under the
comments as "mStudios" - it is a lopsided and not very well informed
review, which is too bad.

---marlyse


 former message(s) quotes: -

>