Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4380 > unrolled thread

Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-15 02:51 +0000
    Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-18 15:08 +0000
      Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-08-18 20:09 +0000
        Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-18 21:03 +0000
          Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-18 22:18 +0100
          Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-08-18 22:21 +0100
            Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-18 21:57 +0000
            Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2014-08-19 14:12 +0200
              Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-19 13:15 +0100
              Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-19 12:32 +0000
                Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-08-19 18:59 +0100
                  Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-19 20:46 +0000
                    Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-08-19 21:58 +0100
                      Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-19 21:10 +0000
                        Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-08-19 22:20 +0100
            Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-08-20 08:40 +0000
              Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-08-20 20:56 +0100
          Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-08-18 15:34 -0600
          Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-08-20 19:50 +0000
    Re: Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-08-22 07:34 -0700

#4380 — Email Is Still the Best Thing on the Internet

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/why-email-will-never-die/375973/?single_page=true

   All these people are trying to kill email. 

   "E-mail is dead, or at least that\u2019s what Silicon Valley is
   banking on," wrote Businessweek tech reporter Ashlee Vance.

   There's the co-founder of Asana, the work software startup. Email
   has "become a counter-productivity tool,\u201d Justin Rosenstein
   likes to say.

   Slack, the superhot work chat tool, likes to brag that they've
   "saved the world from over 70,000,000 emails" (if you assume that
   every five Slack messages prevent one email from getting its wings).

   And it's not just entrepreneurs with cloud software to sell. There
   are the young people, too, especially whatever we call the
   younger-than-Millennials.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4467

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 02:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/why-email-will-never-die/375973/?single_page=true
> 
>    All these people are trying to kill email. 
> 
>    "E-mail is dead, or at least that\u2019s what Silicon Valley is
>    banking on," wrote Businessweek tech reporter Ashlee Vance.


Yes, well, sort of.  Agree that mail is super-useful, but it sure as
hell can get abused too, and corporations that aren't clever about
building other systems for collaboration or communication find
themselves awash in email.  I love email when I can have my own tools -
IMAP or POP+Procmail with Mutt and emacs or vim, but I hate it at work
where it's Microsoft Outlook and Word.  But I was desperately grateful
for the day they put in place a system for jointly editing documents,
as it did away with the many emails I got with attachments with names
like:

Document_3 +BS +JSE +Amzi edits(2) 3rd draft-final edits with new
header.docx

Email has its place, but should be kept in that place.  Coworkers that
treat email as a common filing system, or a cover-your-ass strategy
drive me nuts.

Furthermore, most attempts to kill email have been hampered by the fact
they're driven by a profit model, where the new tool/protocol is owned
by a company (like Twitter).  Email did so well partly because it was
an open protocol.  Usenet, too.  Imagine if this had originally been
the sole product of UsenetInc.com?  The platform would likely have gone
nowhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4470

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 02:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/why-email-will-never-die/375973/?single_page=true
>> 
>>    All these people are trying to kill email. 
>> 
>>    "E-mail is dead, or at least that\u2019s what Silicon Valley is
>>    banking on," wrote Businessweek tech reporter Ashlee Vance.
> 
> 
> Yes, well, sort of.  Agree that mail is super-useful, but it sure as
> hell can get abused too, and corporations that aren't clever about
> building other systems for collaboration or communication find
> themselves awash in email.  I love email when I can have my own tools -
> IMAP or POP+Procmail with Mutt and emacs or vim, but I hate it at work
> where it's Microsoft Outlook and Word.  But I was desperately grateful
> for the day they put in place a system for jointly editing documents,
> as it did away with the many emails I got with attachments with names
> like:
> 
> Document_3 +BS +JSE +Amzi edits(2) 3rd draft-final edits with new
> header.docx

Or the 1 or 2 page memos sent as Word attachments.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4471

On 2014-08-18, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 02:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> But I was desperately grateful for the day they put in place a system
>> for jointly editing documents, as it did away with the many emails I
>> got with attachments with names like:
>> 
>> Document_3 +BS +JSE +Amzi edits(2) 3rd draft-final edits with new
>> header.docx
>
> Or the 1 or 2 page memos sent as Word attachments.


Or the *tables* formatted as Word attachments.  :)  This is a hole in
which you can dig without ever reaching the bottom, unfortunately.  How
about the three word email ("thanks for that") formatted in HTML using a
Microsoft template that winds up being over a 100KB in images?  I've
seen it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4472

In article <c5f81jFksmaU1@mid.individual.net>, RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

> On 2014-08-18, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> > RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 02:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
> >> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> But I was desperately grateful for the day they put in place a system
> >> for jointly editing documents, as it did away with the many emails I
> >> got with attachments with names like:
> >> 
> >> Document_3 +BS +JSE +Amzi edits(2) 3rd draft-final edits with new
> >> header.docx
> >
> > Or the 1 or 2 page memos sent as Word attachments.
> 
> Or the *tables* formatted as Word attachments.  :)  This is a hole in
> which you can dig without ever reaching the bottom, unfortunately.  How
> about the three word email ("thanks for that") formatted in HTML using a
> Microsoft template that winds up being over a 100KB in images?  I've
> seen it.

Thass because no one ever tells them off about it. Or shows them how to
send plain text emails (assuming that's even possible using MS shite).

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4473

On 18/08/2014 22:03, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-08-18, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 02:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
>>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> But I was desperately grateful for the day they put in place a system
>>> for jointly editing documents, as it did away with the many emails I
>>> got with attachments with names like:
>>>
>>> Document_3 +BS +JSE +Amzi edits(2) 3rd draft-final edits with new
>>> header.docx
>>
>> Or the 1 or 2 page memos sent as Word attachments.
>
>
> Or the *tables* formatted as Word attachments.  :)  This is a hole in
> which you can dig without ever reaching the bottom, unfortunately.  How
> about the three word email ("thanks for that") formatted in HTML using a
> Microsoft template that winds up being over a 100KB in images?  I've
> seen it.
>
And these attachments then remain in the various .ost and .pst files as 
they grow into multi-gigabyte behemoths.

The look of wonderment on users' faces when a new PC takes hours to 
resynchronise email is something to behold. As is the other look which 
fleets when you suggest that using a file-sharing mechanism (whether 
Dropbox, OneDrive or any of the many other options) could be so much 
more sensible than sending everything as email attaments.

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4476

polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> ... As is the other look which fleets when you suggest that using a
> file-sharing mechanism (whether Dropbox, OneDrive or any of the many
> other options) could be so much more sensible than sending everything
> as email attaments.

When all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like
nails.

Part of the problem with email in this context is its quite general
purpose flexibility.  It is a communications medium, but it can also be
a filesharing medium, and an IM, and a collaborative editing system
(loose definition of collaborate), and who knows what else.

So for those places that fail to impliment better ways to do things
like share files or perform collaborative editing of documents, it
(email) becomes that "hammer" and all the different needs it supports
become those "nails".

Which also likely is a large part of the reason for its continued
success.  It can serve multiple roles, so it can be that "hammer" that
is the only tool one has.  It may be way less than perfect at many of
the "nails" it is being asked to drive, but it can get the job done in
the end.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4479

polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:

> resynchronise email

This must be a Windows thing, because I've never heard of it.

-- 
Dario Niedermann.              Also on the Internet at:

gopher://retro-net.org/1/dnied/ , http://devio.us/~ndr/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4480

In article <slrnlv6foj.3fr.dnied@dnied-at-tiscali.it>, Dario Niedermann
<dnied@tiscali.it> wrote:

> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > resynchronise email
> 
> This must be a Windows thing, because I've never heard of it.

Most things you hear of in many ng's are Windows things that the rest
of us have never heard of. You know, like defragging the disk,
re-installing the OS, running anti-virus software, the list is endless.

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4481

Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> wrote:
> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:

> > resynchronise email

> This must be a Windows thing, because I've never heard of it.

It's an outlook thing (so yes, Windows).  Outlook attempts to "pretend"
to be a local mta and mua, while simultaneously being just a mua as far
as the exchange server is concerned.

So, the first time you connect via outlook to exchange on any
workstation, it begins by downloading the entire contents of your
exchange folders to a local outlook mail database file.  If one has a
large size set of exchange folders (as in, lots of bytes) this process
can take some time.  Esp. over a slow net' connection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4491

On 19/08/2014 13:32, Rich wrote:
> Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> wrote:
>> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> resynchronise email
>
>> This must be a Windows thing, because I've never heard of it.
>
> It's an outlook thing (so yes, Windows).  Outlook attempts to "pretend"
> to be a local mta and mua, while simultaneously being just a mua as far
> as the exchange server is concerned.
>
> So, the first time you connect via outlook to exchange on any
> workstation, it begins by downloading the entire contents of your
> exchange folders to a local outlook mail database file.  If one has a
> large size set of exchange folders (as in, lots of bytes) this process
> can take some time.  Esp. over a slow net' connection.
>
Whilst it might be more often encountered in a Windows environment, it 
happens in other circumstances. E.g. when connecting an Android phone to 
Gmail. You might decide only to synchronise 24 hours but it is possible 
to choose much further back.

Yes, it can take lots and lots of time. Even with a fast internet 
connection (e.g. two 80 mbps together).

What would make a lot of sense is for an email client to have an option 
to strip out large attachments and make them available by a link 
(whether to Dropbox, ftp, or whatever else).

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4493

polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/08/2014 13:32, Rich wrote:
> > Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> wrote:
> >> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> resynchronise email
> >
> >> This must be a Windows thing, because I've never heard of it.
> >
> > So, the first time you connect via outlook to exchange on any
> > workstation, it begins by downloading the entire contents of your
> > exchange folders to a local outlook mail database file.  If one has
> > a large size set of exchange folders (as in, lots of bytes) this
> > process can take some time.  Esp. over a slow net' connection.
> >

> What would make a lot of sense is for an email client to have an
> option to strip out large attachments and make them available by a
> link (whether to Dropbox, ftp, or whatever else).

While that would be possible, for at least internet SMTP email, the
attachments aren't "attached" to the email in the typical english
language meaning of "attach".  They "are" the email.  Any text, and the
"attachments" (having been converted into a text compatible format) are
simply made one big huge email body, and shipped off to the configured
SMTP server for delivery to the recipent.

The "attachments" are only seen as attachments when the MUA interprets
the big giant email body and recognizes that at spot X, there's a text
encoded "attached" file.  I.e., it is really all just in the
presentation.

So one could do such, but one now has to have the server side also
parsing the email bodys looking for the portions that are
"attachments", and modifying things for the purpose of transfer sync. 
That adds server load over simply "transmit this blob".  And it also
means the server has to pay attention to the body, whereas for SMTP,
the servers only need worry about the envelope and can ignore the
contents of the body (they treat it as an opaque collection of bytes).

So possible, but it is something that can't simply be implimented in
the client only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4495

On 19/08/2014 21:46, Rich wrote:
> So possible, but it is something that can't simply be implimented in
> the client only.

I really don't see why it couldn't be pure client.

The bit of the client that allows you to attach simply has to say "Would 
you like to post this file to Dropbox and insert a link into the email?" 
- maybe with "If the file you are trying to attach is > 100 kb".

What am I missing?

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4496

polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/08/2014 21:46, Rich wrote:
> > So possible, but it is something that can't simply be implimented in
> > the client only.

> I really don't see why it couldn't be pure client.

> The bit of the client that allows you to attach simply has to say "Would 
> you like to post this file to Dropbox and insert a link into the email?" 
> - maybe with "If the file you are trying to attach is > 100 kb".

> What am I missing?

Oh, you meant when sending the email initially.

The context of the rest of the thread was synchronizing an empty client with
an existing server, holding existing emails, that already have
attachments in the emails sitting on the server.

Yes, doing a "put it into dropbox, link in the email" at the client
side, for sending an email with an attachment, is easily doable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4497

On 19/08/2014 22:10, Rich wrote:
> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/08/2014 21:46, Rich wrote:
>>> So possible, but it is something that can't simply be implimented in
>>> the client only.
>
>> I really don't see why it couldn't be pure client.
>
>> The bit of the client that allows you to attach simply has to say "Would
>> you like to post this file to Dropbox and insert a link into the email?"
>> - maybe with "If the file you are trying to attach is > 100 kb".
>
>> What am I missing?
>
> Oh, you meant when sending the email initially.
>
> The context of the rest of the thread was synchronizing an empty client with
> an existing server, holding existing emails, that already have
> attachments in the emails sitting on the server.
>
> Yes, doing a "put it into dropbox, link in the email" at the client
> side, for sending an email with an attachment, is easily doable.
>
Ah you didn't mean that! :-)

I was thinking that reducing the volume of what appears to be email (but 
is actually attachment - however that is implemented) would end up 
reducing the sheer volume to be synchronised. Probably dramatically.

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4504

On 2014-08-18, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:

> As is the other look which 
> fleets when you suggest that using a file-sharing mechanism (whether 
> Dropbox, OneDrive or any of the many other options) could be so much 
> more sensible than sending everything as email attaments.

But if you don't use email, you may well be looking at <spit> Sharepoint.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 13th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3180
We are all living in Israel; it's just that some of you haven't realised yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4510

On 20/08/2014 09:40, Huge wrote:
> On 2014-08-18, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As is the other look which
>> fleets when you suggest that using a file-sharing mechanism (whether
>> Dropbox, OneDrive or any of the many other options) could be so much
>> more sensible than sending everything as email attaments.
>
> But if you don't use email, you may well be looking at <spit> Sharepoint.
>
>
Granted. :-) But everything can be screwed up by someone!

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4474

RS Wood wrote:

> Or the *tables* formatted as Word attachments.  :)  This is a hole in
> which you can dig without ever reaching the bottom, unfortunately.  How
> about the three word email ("thanks for that") formatted in HTML using a
> Microsoft template that winds up being over a 100KB in images?  I've
> seen it.
> 

That was one of the most attractive "features" of SMS messaging: 140 char 
limit!!!  Of course, it didn't take long to screw that up as well...

-- 
Will Honea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4509

In article <c5f81jFksmaU1@mid.individual.net>,
RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
>which you can dig without ever reaching the bottom, unfortunately.  How
>about the three word email ("thanks for that") formatted in HTML using a
>Microsoft template that winds up being over a 100KB in images?  I've
>seen it.

...and that three-word reply is top-posted above a shit-ton of earlier
emails, all formatted similarly.  Then these lusers wonder why they're
getting "your inbox is full" warnings...

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4522

Lots of people hate e-mails. I still love them.


On 8/14/2014 7:51 PM PT, Rich typed:

> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/why-email-will-never-die/375973/?single_page=true
>
>     All these people are trying to kill email.
>
>     "E-mail is dead, or at least that\u2019s what Silicon Valley is
>     banking on," wrote Businessweek tech reporter Ashlee Vance.
>
>     There's the co-founder of Asana, the work software startup. Email
>     has "become a counter-productivity tool,\u201d Justin Rosenstein
>     likes to say.
>
>     Slack, the superhot work chat tool, likes to brag that they've
>     "saved the world from over 70,000,000 emails" (if you assume that
>     every five Slack messages prevent one email from getting its wings).
>
>     And it's not just entrepreneurs with cloud software to sell. There
>     are the young people, too, especially whatever we call the
>     younger-than-Millennials.
>
>     ...
>


-- 
"When I was five years old, I saw an insect that had been eaten by ants 
and of which nothing remained except the shell. Through the holes in its 
anatomy one could see the sky. Every time I wish to attain purity I look 
at the sky through flesh." --Salvadore Dali
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web