Alexander Yudenitsch wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote, on 11 Oct 16 00:35:

In the same way, I do want SM to move junk messages to the Junk
folder, which then lights up in bold to remind me to check them. In
most cases, I can take one look at the subject line and agree that
it's junk -- if I've just inherited $23 million from some Nigerian
prince, or gained the opportunity to improve my size and
performance, I don't have to open it.

Once more, I think our intents are the same, but we go about them in
different ways: The "one look" you described is the same I take to
decide if something should be (there is no "is", here, just a "should
be", IMHO) classified as junk/spam, bank/personal/etc. and so on --
only I prefer to do that, several times a day, in the Inbox (which,
with this procedure, never has more than 20 items in it at any given
time), and you let SM place the messages in folders, and then look at
them there (we both use the 'bold=unread' feature, too.

If I were only getting 20 messages a day, I might try your way. As it happens, I routinely get over a hundred, sometimes 200, so filtering to appropriate folders is a great time saver. If messages 3, 28, 47, and 96 relate to the same topic, it's much easier to see all four in the same folder and read them together than to try to keep several dozen threads in my head all at the same time as I work through an unsorted inbox.

I also get client requests referring to old jobs, some of them a year or two old, and I have to be able to find the old correspondence quickly and easily. I probably have a hundred thousand old messages going back to the late 90s, and the only way I can cope is with a good filing system.

War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
Paul B. Gallagher
support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to