powermail-discuss Digest #2619 - Thursday, April 26, 2007
Re: Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Database corrupt
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: bug or feature ?
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: bug or feature ?
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Re(2): Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
by "Wayne Brissette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Rick Lecoat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
by "Rick Lecoat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
by "Wayne Brissette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Tim Lapin (sympatico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
by "Rick Lecoat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:54:00 +0200
Rick Lecoat said it something like this:
>Moving the script filter to the top of the filter list won't work,
>because any other filters in the list that are set to move attachments
>to specific folders -- even if they are WAAAY down the filter list --
>will cause it to fail. I don't know whether this is because the script
>is still running when the attachment gets moved, or whether it's because
>the script is postponed until all non-script filters have done their
>work
I would very much like to see some input here from CTM. What is actually
going on when scripts run inside PowerMail?
Meanwhile, are there any development tools that allow you to see the
status of scripts running in PowerMails memory space? I usually use
Script Debugger, but I need a better tool I think. What scripting tools
do you other script developers use?
I have time after time come up against limitations in PowerMail's
implementation of Applescript that prevents at least myself from
developing scripts addressing needs like: incremental message by message
backup, changes of the settings of the search dialog and automatic de-
htmlification of HTML based messages for example. That's sad, really.
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Database corrupt
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:11:50 +0200
Urs Gruetzner sa såhär:
>Powermail crashed and then I had a kernel panic.
>
>After reboot PM announces a corrupted database.
>
>I restarted with modifier key to rebuild the database. PM begins the
>process but shortly PM crashes again and again.
>
>
>What else can I do to get back my database?
Remove the addressbook and see if that helps. It may be corrupt and the
mail DB not. There is also PowerMail Salvage as a last resort. No backups?
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: bug or feature ?
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:39:26 +0200
Michael Lewis said it like this:
>Again, I never said that. If you can go back through my messages and
>show specifically where I said the issue was not real instead of
>speaking to my own experience and how I worked around that, then feel
>free to do so. I don't think you can.
I didn't specifically hint at your messages at that paragrapgh. Sorry if
that was unclear. However, You did forget to acknowledge the valid
nature of the problem.
>And I disagree that when someone mentions a problem or a bug that we
>should not mention workarounds they can use until CTM decides if it is
>an issue that has priority or not.
Did anyone actually suggest this?
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: bug or feature ?
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:42:57 +0200
Wayne Brissette said:
>I don't think I was speculating and where do you suppose they or any
>other company determine what gets priority? From it's user base.
The user base is not only this list. If CTM solely is basing decisions
on it, that's a very bad stance. I don't think that's the full story though.
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:45:32 +0200
Rick Lecoat said:
>However, in the absence of
>direct input from every single PM user out there, can we not, for the
>purposes of discussion and friendly debate, assume that this list
>represents something approaching a representative cross section of the
>user base and proceed on that basis?
No we can't if we mean us and CTM to be accurate of what the user base wishes.
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:44:07 -0400
While I am not an AppleScript expert by any means, I have a couple of
thoughts.
1. AppleScript runs as a program in OS X (or as part of OS X). It is not
part of PowerMail. So once PM activates a script, PM and the script run
independently, and at the same time. PowerMail would run faster on
itself than the script can. So the script would always be behind what
PowerMail is doing - i.e. behind further filters.
2. If the above is correct, then the solution would seem to be to have a
way to pause PM's filters while the script completes. I don't know if
this can be done in PM filters, or if AppleScript could do it. If
AppleScript can do it, the problem then is having AppleScript act
quickly enough to pause PM before further filters engage. Maybe putting
a time consuming filter, which effectively does not do anything, after
the script would allow the script time to pause PowerMail.
I wonder if using filter commands "Display alert", or "Speak" would work?
- Winston
Mikael Byström wrote:
>Rick Lecoat said it something like this:
>
>>Moving the script filter to the top of the filter list won't work,
>>because any other filters in the list that are set to move attachments
>>to specific folders -- even if they are WAAAY down the filter list --
>>will cause it to fail. I don't know whether this is because the script
>>is still running when the attachment gets moved, or whether it's because
>>the script is postponed until all non-script filters have done their
>>work
>
>I would very much like to see some input here from CTM. What is actually
>going on when scripts run inside PowerMail?
>
> Meanwhile, are there any development tools that allow you to see the
>status of scripts running in PowerMails memory space? I usually use
>Script Debugger, but I need a better tool I think. What scripting tools
>do you other script developers use?
>
>I have time after time come up against limitations in PowerMail's
>implementation of Applescript that prevents at least myself from
>developing scripts addressing needs like: incremental message by message
>backup, changes of the settings of the search dialog and automatic de-
>htmlification of HTML based messages for example. That's sad, really.
>
>Mikael
>
>Tech facts:
>PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:52:35 -0400
This is a mailing list which broadcasts to all members, whether the
topic is of interest or not. The list discourages some people from
joining simply to avoid one more thing clogging their in box. I joined
for a time last year, then abandoned the list for that reason. I may
leave it again for the same reason.
A user forum does not have that problem, but of course does not "push"
questions out to users. A forum also keeps a more readily available
history, and provides a place for evolving "FAQ" answers. I have
wondered why CTM used a list as it seems less flexible than a user forum.
- Winston
Mikael Byström wrote:
>Rick Lecoat said:
>
>>However, in the absence of
>>direct input from every single PM user out there, can we not, for the
>>purposes of discussion and friendly debate, assume that this list
>>represents something approaching a representative cross section of the
>>user base and proceed on that basis?
>
>
>No we can't if we mean us and CTM to be accurate of what the user base
wishes.
>
>
>Mikael
>
>Tech facts:
>PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re(2): Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
From: "Wayne Brissette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
>1. AppleScript runs as a program in OS X (or as part of OS X). It is not
>part of PowerMail. So once PM activates a script, PM and the script run
>independently, and at the same time. PowerMail would run faster on
>itself than the script can. So the script would always be behind what
>PowerMail is doing - i.e. behind further filters.
While the premise of this sounds good, it is not the case. Once PM starts an
AppleScript, it waits for the result of the script (or for it to fail) before
moving on. This is the expected and proper behavior of scripts.
Wayne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Rick Lecoat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:14:58 +0100
Well, if you want 100 percent accuracy then you have to poll every
single user of Powermail on every single question that comes up for
discussion. That is clearly near-impossible, and certainly ludicrously
impractical. If even a single PM user's opinions are omitted from the
statistical data then the data is less than 100 percent precise.
Which means that we are talking about statistical approximations here,
just as most marketing decisions are, and, that being the case, I repeat
my notion that this list can serve as a practical cross section of the
user base. Is it completely accurate? Of course not. But I never
suggested that it was.
Rick
--
G5 2GHz x2 :: 2GB RAM :: 10.4.7 :: PM 5.5.2 :: 3 pane mode
--
Original message:
Received from Mikael Byström on 25/4/07 at 20:45
>Rick Lecoat said:
>
>>However, in the absence of
>>direct input from every single PM user out there, can we not, for the
>>purposes of discussion and friendly debate, assume that this list
>>represents something approaching a representative cross section of the
>>user base and proceed on that basis?
>
>
>No we can't if we mean us and CTM to be accurate of what the user base
wishes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
From: "Rick Lecoat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:23:31 +0100
Wayne;
Thanks for the illumination. Can you then hazard a guess as to why my
Tagging script (well, not 'mine' but used by me) fails if filters
further down the filter list are set to move the attachment?
If PM waited for the script to finish its job, as you say, then the
later filters should not interfere with it at all, surely?
Rick
--
G5 2GHz x2 :: 2GB RAM :: 10.4.7 :: PM 5.5.2 :: 3 pane mode
--
Original message:
Received from Wayne Brissette on 25/4/07 at 23:09
>While the premise of this sounds good, it is not the case. Once PM
>starts an AppleScript, it waits for the result of the script (or for it
>to fail) before moving on. This is the expected and proper behavior of
>scripts.
>
>Wayne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
From: "Wayne Brissette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:07:25 -0500
>Wayne;
>
>Thanks for the illumination. Can you then hazard a guess as to why my
>Tagging script (well, not 'mine' but used by me) fails if filters
>further down the filter list are set to move the attachment?
>
>If PM waited for the script to finish its job, as you say, then the
>later filters should not interfere with it at all, surely?
>
>Rick
>
That's interesting, that's not how it's suppose to work. I'll have to do
some playing around to see what I can uncover.
Wayne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:58:04 +0900
Am/On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:52:35 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>A user forum does not have that problem, but of course does not "push"
>questions out to users. A forum also keeps a more readily available
>history, and provides a place for evolving "FAQ" answers. I have
>wondered why CTM used a list as it seems less flexible than a user forum.
Forums are slow and have all that blinky pinky stuff.
It is inconvenient it just s*cks.
I definitely prefer a mailing list.
But we have also an achive:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/powermail-discuss%40ctmdev.com/>
Thanks and all the best
Matthias
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Applescript not triggering, WAS Attachment link failing
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:13:50 -0400
Wayne -
That's why I wondered if AppleScript and PowerMail were operating
independently.
- Winston
Wayne Brissette wrote:
>>Wayne;
>>
>>Thanks for the illumination. Can you then hazard a guess as to why my
>>Tagging script (well, not 'mine' but used by me) fails if filters
>>further down the filter list are set to move the attachment?
>>
>>If PM waited for the script to finish its job, as you say, then the
>>later filters should not interfere with it at all, surely?
>>
>>Rick
>>
>
>That's interesting, that's not how it's suppose to work. I'll have to do
>some playing around to see what I can uncover.
>
>Wayne
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Winston Weinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:26:41 -0400
Not necessarily. See the Dealmac forum:
<http://forums.dealmac.com/list.php?4>
- Winston
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
>Forums are slow and have all that blinky pinky stuff.
>It is inconvenient it just s*cks.
>I definitely prefer a mailing list.
>But we have also an achive:
><http://www.mail-archive.com/powermail-discuss%40ctmdev.com/>
>
>Thanks and all the best
>
>Matthias
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:42:52 +0200
Rick Lecoat said:
>Well, if you want 100 percent accuracy then you have to poll every
>single user of Powermail on every single question that comes up for
>discussion. That is clearly near-impossible, and certainly ludicrously
>impractical. If even a single PM user's opinions are omitted from the
>statistical data then the data is less than 100 percent precise.
That's just being irrational.
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Mikael Byström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:08:02 +0200
Rick Lecoat suggested:
>Which means that we are talking about statistical approximations here,
>just as most marketing decisions are, and, that being the case, I repeat
>my notion that this list can serve as a practical cross section of the
>user base. Is it completely accurate? Of course not. But I never
>suggested that it was.
I'd settle for "inaccurate impractical cross-section of the user base".
Mikael
Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Tim Lapin (sympatico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:25:03 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 4/25/2007 10:58 PM, Matthias Schmidt wrote:
> Am/On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:52:35 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>
>> A user forum does not have that problem, but of course does not "push"
>> questions out to users. A forum also keeps a more readily available
>> history, and provides a place for evolving "FAQ" answers. I have
>> wondered why CTM used a list as it seems less flexible than a user forum.
>
> Forums are slow and have all that blinky pinky stuff.
> It is inconvenient it just s*cks.
> I definitely prefer a mailing list.
> But we have also an achive:
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/powermail-discuss%40ctmdev.com/>
>
> Thanks and all the best
>
> Matthias
>
It is true that a web based forum will never be as fast or as clean in
the interface as a text based mailing list but...
Forums are only as slow as the load originating from them and the speed
of the receiving computer.
I'm not sure what you mean by "blinky pinky stuff" (emoticons, ads,
something else, all three?) but there are some very clean ones. I find
the Mozilla forums to be relatively clean and quick.
Forums can be easier to follow because of a richer interface. The
sorted threads (by larger topic first, then individual threads second)
allow for a user to find what he or she is seeking quite quickly. A
sound choice of board or forum names plus thread topics will of course help.
FAQs can be built up quickly by the community and maintained by a
central authority with not too much effort.
Forums are self documenting in that the forum *is* the archive.
Forum software is now almost an off-the-shelf affair. Most forum
packages come with decent search tools included.
In conclusion, while I find the current mailing list technology fine for
a topic as focused as PowerMail, it is wrong to brand all forums with a
broad brush. It is also bad debating form to dismiss something because
"it just sucks".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGMKgvuprXnyzF8jkRAqmdAJ0SH6NTtPFqwFaDJ5cKSFedOo4kWgCgnwn3
8vsRlHCyDInBhd05oMd6DbQ=
=V2ZN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the list vs the user base (was"Re: bug or feature ?")
From: "Rick Lecoat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:56:01 +0100
That's your answer?
Oh, Mikael.
Or should I call you 'Mr Spock'?
; -)
Rick
--
G5 2GHz x2 :: 2GB RAM :: 10.4.7 :: PM 5.5.2 :: 3 pane mode
--
Original message:
Received from Mikael Byström on 26/4/07 at 13:42
>Rick Lecoat said:
>
>>Well, if you want 100 percent accuracy then you have to poll every
>>single user of Powermail on every single question that comes up for
>>discussion. That is clearly near-impossible, and certainly ludicrously
>>impractical. If even a single PM user's opinions are omitted from the
>>statistical data then the data is less than 100 percent precise.
> That's just being irrational.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of powermail-discuss Digest
