Friday, January 07, 2000, 2:34:30 PM, Douglas wrote:
SL>> If you consider it a shortcoming then that is clearly a perception
SL>> issue and *IS* a problem between chair and keyboard.
> On whose end?
Theirs since many here have expressed that they do not consider it a
shortcoming.
SL>> Bully for you, use another product, don't mangle this one for
SL>> everyone else who doesn't work like you do.
> Where does this "use another product" come from?
If they want personalities, there are plenty of products that offer it.
> Who is directing traffic to and away from TB?
Lemme put it this way, TB! works quite nicely the way it is now. If
personalities were added chances are it would not work in a manner that is
worth a damn. At which point I would leave for another product.
Ever hear of the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." TB! ain't
broke when it comes to how it handles multiple accounts, do not fix it!
> This is just one issue we're dealing with here, having an optional accounts
> column is not going to "mangle" TB and NO one here has the truth by the
> tail.
The truth is that people should not be advocating a fundamental change in
the product to mirror other products when the end result is losing customers
for the authors.
Having an "optional" accounts column serves no purpose other than bloat.
> Answering would send from the receiving account but the complement to
> that would be a small popup box in the compose screen with the current
> account shown, and all other accounts selectable behind it. That's all
> it takes, so what's the beef? Excess code? How much? Incompatible? I
> doubt it.
I don't. Have you thought it through? How is mail going to get into the
other accounts to require such a column in the first place. You already said
that filters weren't the option. That leaves merging the mail stream which is
not something I want to EVER see in TB!.
> It's pretty hard to type with paws and I didn't know that future TB's
> design decisions had to be cleared with Steve first, or would I have
> checked with him long ago.
No, they don't. But you had better believe I will raise holy hell when
design goes in an asinine way or suggestions are made to take it that way.
> turned around), maybe we are looking and his and hers (or different
> lines of) TB's - red and blue, for me and you.
Or, different products. If they want personalities, they can always have
Pegasus, Eudora, Lookout! and virtually every other email client out there.
Only *two* exist that I know of that handle multiple accounts completely
separate in a sane manner. PMMail and TB!.
Personally, I'd rather RITLABS not waste time on the flawed personalities
paradigm at all, not even for multiple versions. When they spend time tuning
it they spend time away from tuning the core of the client which still needs a
lot of work.
SL>> You also have the right to move to another client.
> All of us do, including you.
However, one should not have to move because of a change made in the
client forcing them to move. I came *TO* TB! because of how it works. Why
should I then leave because they changed how it works? If people don't like
how TB! works there are many other options available to them.
> Have you ever evaluated Calypso? It's a candy ass mailer from an
> unreliable company that never-the-less has some good features. If you
> haven't and want to mess with it, www.mcsdallas.com will get you to
> where you can download it.
It is an IMAP client and nothing else if memory serves. I had a lousy
interface, poor filtering and was, like most other email clients, an MDI
application. It lasted all of maybe 15 minutes on my machine before I
considered it completely subpar to my needs and nuked it.
> Cid, you are making 2 mistakes. First of all, you are failing to take
> into account the fact that you are dealing with "your priest and
> shrink, your main connection to the switchboard of soul" and should
> show more respect.
Feh, just go see Strange Days. Respect will come when people understand
that, despite my rough manner I do know my stuff.
SL>> Do *YOU* see a PIM in TB! like there is in Lookout!?
> Outlook. (OK, maybe that was intentional, in which case it's funny). I
> use Ecco myself and have never bought an MS product.
It is intentional. Every time I get a message from a Lookout! user that
is what I do because I know it will break as many standards as possible to try
to get me to convert. "Lookout!, mail from John!"
SL>> I don't. I don't bash all new ideas, I bash the bad ones or ones
SL>> that would go down the path of excessive bloat.
> A real Babe Ruth. May there never be silence in Mudville.
Hey, lemme ask this, honestly. How many people saw me say that having the
option to apply filters to all accounts would be a good thing? I bet not
many.
It only takes silence or a few words to agree. It takes a few paragraphs
to disagree. Because of that a person who is vocal, especially on forums like
this, is going to tend to be regarded as negative because most of what they
say will be negative.
Personally, I do think global filters would be a good thing. There are
several ways I've thought of implementing them. The main problem to them is
ordering. The easiest way to get around that which might work for all would
be to have a global filter dialog that lets you make those filters and then
specify where the local filters will apply in them. They would need macros,
of course, but once you get down to it TB! would really be nice if it shipped
with 4 global filters from the start, 1 of which would be disabled.
4 global filters would match the 4 most common ways that mailing lists
identify themselves. They use regex, place the mailing list name into the
first regex register and would filter into "[account]/Mailing Lists/\1". This
means that any time people joined a new list they would automatically be
filtered for them.
The other two filters would be spam filters that they would have to turn
on after reading an explanation of how it works and is based on the
spam-filtering I've recommended here before that Allie just recently
recounted. The first filter would use a macro to see if the local account
address is in the to or cc and stops filtering. The last filter just moves
everything into a Potential Spam folder.
Finally, they would be ordered in the global dialog like this:
4 mailing list filters
<local filters>
2 spam filters.
So the 4 mailing list filters would run, then local filters, then spam
filters after the local filters. This setup would most likely cover ~95% of
the filters that the majority of the people would ever set up.
Now, to contrast this back to some of the ideas that I bash. A reminder
for subject being blank. Yay, limited use and something the person can
confirm for themselves. Switching TB! around to use personalities. Use
another product. Etc, etc, etc...
Usually the items that I bash I do so because they are of limited use to
the vast majority of people and are also of limited power. Regex most people
won't use, but those that do, trust me, appreciate it greatly. IMAP may not
be in use by as many people as POP, but if it were done right those who use it
would push it to the limits. Those are power features that attract and keep
power users. Most of the features I bash are fluff, pure and simple.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
