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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #8458 > unrolled thread

Replying to your own message in Mail

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-15 23:53 -0400
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-16 17:20 +1100
      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 03:41 -0400
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-16 20:54 +1100
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) - 2012-03-16 11:13 +0100
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-16 21:55 +1100
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 12:46 -0400
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-16 17:08 +0000
                Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 13:13 -0400
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-16 13:02 +0000
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-03-16 20:34 +0000
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-17 08:47 +1100
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-03-17 21:26 +0000
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Richard H <Richard.H@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-19 17:03 +0000
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-16 13:02 +0000
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 11:49 -0600
      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 15:11 -0400
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 14:35 -0600
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 16:55 -0400
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> - 2012-03-16 15:06 -0500
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Sara <saramerriman@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-03-21 14:53 +0000
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-22 16:02 +1300
      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-21 23:19 -0400
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-22 16:23 +1300
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 00:02 -0400
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-22 19:52 +1300
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-22 11:11 +0000
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 10:09 -0400
                Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 11:28 -0400
                  Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-23 06:04 +1300
                    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 13:21 -0400
                      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-22 18:01 +0000
                        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 20:41 -0400
                      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-03-26 07:51 -0700
                        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-26 18:36 +0000
                        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-27 08:11 +1300
                          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-26 20:48 -0400
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-27 18:02 +1300
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-03-28 17:04 -0700
                          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-03-28 17:00 -0700
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-29 15:34 +1300
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-29 15:47 +1100
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-29 10:46 +0200
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-29 21:35 +0000
                              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-03-29 15:20 -0700
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 10:05 -0400
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-23 06:04 +1300
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 08:31 -0600

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8518

In article <barmar-60CA0E.23534015032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion. 
> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> 
> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> 
> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?

When you move to Lion, you'll find Mail does things the way you'd like.

-- 
Sara

Cats cats cats cats

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

#8534

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> 
> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> 
> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?

You need <http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#8535

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Barry Margolin<barmar@alum.mit.edu>  wrote:
>
>> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
>> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
>>
>> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
>> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
>> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
>> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
>> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
>>
>> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
>
> You need<http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
  In many cases for example (in SeaMonkey and Thunderbird) for Blind 
Carbon Copy (BCC:) to work you *must* send item to yourself.

example:

To: Your email Address
BCC: Group address.

For normal CC

To: First person in your list
CC: People you want to CC or Group.

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

#8536

PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Barry Margolin<barmar@alum.mit.edu>  wrote:
> >
> >> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
> >> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> >>
> >> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
> >> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
> >> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
> >> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
> >> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> >>
> >> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
> >
> > You need<http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
>   In many cases for example (in SeaMonkey and Thunderbird) for Blind 
> Carbon Copy (BCC:) to work you *must* send item to yourself.
> 
> example:
> 
> To: Your email Address
> BCC: Group address.
> 
> For normal CC
> 
> To: First person in your list
> CC: People you want to CC or Group.

Huh? My link above is for MailFollowUp.mailbundle which adds a FollowUp
command/button that replies using the original recipients, thus
addressing the OP's needs.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#8537

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
>
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> Barry Margolin<barmar@alum.mit.edu>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
>>>> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
>>>>
>>>> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
>>>> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
>>>> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
>>>> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
>>>> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
>>>>
>>>> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
>>>
>>> You need<http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
>>    In many cases for example (in SeaMonkey and Thunderbird) for Blind
>> Carbon Copy (BCC:) to work you *must* send item to yourself.
>>
>> example:
>>
>> To: Your email Address
>> BCC: Group address.
>>
>> For normal CC
>>
>> To: First person in your list
>> CC: People you want to CC or Group.
>
> Huh? My link above is for MailFollowUp.mailbundle which adds a FollowUp
> command/button that replies using the original recipients, thus
> addressing the OP's needs.

different mail Clients work differently.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:pjones1@kimbanet.com

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

#8541

Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> >>> Barry Margolin<barmar@alum.mit.edu>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
> >>>> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
> >>>> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
> >>>> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
> >>>> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
> >>>> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
> >>>
> >>> You need<http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
> >>    In many cases for example (in SeaMonkey and Thunderbird) for Blind
> >> Carbon Copy (BCC:) to work you *must* send item to yourself.
> >>
> >> example:
> >>
> >> To: Your email Address
> >> BCC: Group address.
> >>
> >> For normal CC
> >>
> >> To: First person in your list
> >> CC: People you want to CC or Group.
> >
> > Huh? My link above is for MailFollowUp.mailbundle which adds a FollowUp
> > command/button that replies using the original recipients, thus
> > addressing the OP's needs.
> 
> different mail Clients work differently.

Ah, well in Mail you don't need anything in the 'To:' field, though I
have encountered what you describe in previous clients, and found it
annoying. Aside from the lack of a native followup command, Mail's way
is easier IMO. I'm not sure why some clients insist on at least one
valid address in the 'To:' field - a holdover from old
standards/conventions?
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#8546

In article <1khdj1b.1sethhsa6nyv6N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > > PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > >>> Barry Margolin<barmar@alum.mit.edu>   wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in 
> > >>>> Lion.
> > >>>> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get 
> > >>>> right.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
> > >>>> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
> > >>>> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the 
> > >>>> same
> > >>>> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply 
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
> > >>>
> > >>> You need<http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
> > >>    In many cases for example (in SeaMonkey and Thunderbird) for Blind
> > >> Carbon Copy (BCC:) to work you *must* send item to yourself.
> > >>
> > >> example:
> > >>
> > >> To: Your email Address
> > >> BCC: Group address.
> > >>
> > >> For normal CC
> > >>
> > >> To: First person in your list
> > >> CC: People you want to CC or Group.
> > >
> > > Huh? My link above is for MailFollowUp.mailbundle which adds a FollowUp
> > > command/button that replies using the original recipients, thus
> > > addressing the OP's needs.
> > 
> > different mail Clients work differently.
> 
> Ah, well in Mail you don't need anything in the 'To:' field, though I
> have encountered what you describe in previous clients, and found it
> annoying. Aside from the lack of a native followup command, Mail's way
> is easier IMO. I'm not sure why some clients insist on at least one
> valid address in the 'To:' field - a holdover from old
> standards/conventions?

Yes, there's no real need to enforce that. Those headers just form part 
of the data, anyway.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

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

#8549

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Phillip Jones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
>
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>> Barry Margolin<barmar@alum.mit.edu>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
>>>>>> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
>>>>>> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
>>>>>> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
>>>>>> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
>>>>>> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
>>>>>
>>>>> You need<http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/MailFollowup/>
>>>>     In many cases for example (in SeaMonkey and Thunderbird) for Blind
>>>> Carbon Copy (BCC:) to work you *must* send item to yourself.
>>>>
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> To: Your email Address
>>>> BCC: Group address.
>>>>
>>>> For normal CC
>>>>
>>>> To: First person in your list
>>>> CC: People you want to CC or Group.
>>>
>>> Huh? My link above is for MailFollowUp.mailbundle which adds a FollowUp
>>> command/button that replies using the original recipients, thus
>>> addressing the OP's needs.
>>
>> different mail Clients work differently.
>
> Ah, well in Mail you don't need anything in the 'To:' field, though I
> have encountered what you describe in previous clients, and found it
> annoying. Aside from the lack of a native followup command, Mail's way
> is easier IMO. I'm not sure why some clients insist on at least one
> valid address in the 'To:' field - a holdover from old
> standards/conventions?
Followup is a convention of newsgroups.

You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such newgroup.

To: newsgroup1
Followup: to Group2

the last line you notify the group.

I am setting followup to Group 2

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

#8553

In article <jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
 PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
> 
> You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such newgroup.
> 
> To: newsgroup1
> Followup: to Group2
> 
> the last line you notify the group.
> 
> I am setting followup to Group 2

I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.
-- 

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

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

#8560

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
> > 
> > You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such newgroup.
> > 
> > To: newsgroup1
> > Followup: to Group2
> > 
> > the last line you notify the group.
> > 
> > I am setting followup to Group 2
> 
> I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.

I know I was _terribly_ concerned some poor person might confuse
followup in Usenet with the 'Follow' and 'Follow All' commands the
MailFollowUp.mailbundle adds to Apple Mail. Thank goodness Phil set us
straight. Who knows how many people failed to notice we were talking
about email and not usenet? Whew! Close shave there! Confusion averted!
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#8562

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Warren Oates<warren.oates@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> In article<jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>   PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
>>>
>>> You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such newgroup.
>>>
>>> To: newsgroup1
>>> Followup: to Group2
>>>
>>> the last line you notify the group.
>>>
>>> I am setting followup to Group 2
>>
>> I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.
>
> I know I was _terribly_ concerned some poor person might confuse
> followup in Usenet with the 'Follow' and 'Follow All' commands the
> MailFollowUp.mailbundle adds to Apple Mail. Thank goodness Phil set us
> straight. Who knows how many people failed to notice we were talking
> about email and not usenet? Whew! Close shave there! Confusion averted!

I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple Mail 
and I avoid using where possible Safari.  One thing Is Mail doesn't have 
a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a heart beat. How 
wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and another for 
Newsgroups.  That's three apps to open when you can use two or even one.
-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:pjones1@kimbanet.com

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

#8563

In article <jkfn32$ksl$1@dont-email.me>,
 Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple Mail 
> and I avoid using where possible Safari.  One thing Is Mail doesn't have 
> a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a heart beat. How 
> wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and another for 
> Newsgroups.  That's three apps to open when you can use two or even one.

What do you use instead then? I'd have thought they have different UI 
requirements.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

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

#8567

Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <jkfn32$ksl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>
>> I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple
>> Mail and I avoid using where possible Safari. One thing Is Mail
>> doesn't have a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a
>> heart beat. Who wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and
>> another for Newsgroups. That's three apps to open when you can use two
>> or even one.
>
> What do you use instead then? I'd have thought they have different UI
> requirements.
>
SeaMonkey (Mozilla all-in-one)
When I just need a Browser, FireFox

I have a Web site. So I have
SM  2.0.14 and 2.11.1 (SeaMonkey)
FF
Camino,
Opera Next
Opera
OmniWeb
Google Chrome
iCab
Safari
Aurora

To verify items I put on my Web site can be seen by multiple Browsers.

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

#8668

In article <jkfn32$ksl$1@dont-email.me>,
 Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Warren Oates<warren.oates@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> In article<jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >>   PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
> >>>
> >>> You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such 
> >>> newgroup.
> >>>
> >>> To: newsgroup1
> >>> Followup: to Group2
> >>>
> >>> the last line you notify the group.
> >>>
> >>> I am setting followup to Group 2
> >>
> >> I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.
> >
> > I know I was _terribly_ concerned some poor person might confuse
> > followup in Usenet with the 'Follow' and 'Follow All' commands the
> > MailFollowUp.mailbundle adds to Apple Mail. Thank goodness Phil set us
> > straight. Who knows how many people failed to notice we were talking
> > about email and not usenet? Whew! Close shave there! Confusion averted!
> 
> I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple Mail 
> and I avoid using where possible Safari.  One thing Is Mail doesn't have 
> a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a heart beat. How 
> wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and another for 
> Newsgroups.  That's three apps to open when you can use two or even one.

If your most important criteria for choosing a web browser, mail client, 
and Usenet client is the number of applications required, that's great 
for you. 

Personally, I care more about general ease of use, features, and 
robustness. Having separate applications for each function isn't a big 
concern.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

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

#8669

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
.
> 
> If your most important criteria for choosing a web browser, mail client, 
> and Usenet client is the number of applications required, that's great 
> for you. 
> 
> Personally, I care more about general ease of use, features, and 
> robustness. Having separate applications for each function isn't a big 
> concern.

In fact, I consider it an advantage.  It allows the user to pick and choose
instead of being forced to use a clump put together by someone else. 


-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#8670

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <jkfn32$ksl$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > > Warren Oates<warren.oates@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article<jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
> > >>   PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
> > >>>
> > >>> You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such
> > >>> newgroup.
> > >>>
> > >>> To: newsgroup1
> > >>> Followup: to Group2
> > >>>
> > >>> the last line you notify the group.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am setting followup to Group 2
> > >>
> > >> I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.
> > >
> > > I know I was _terribly_ concerned some poor person might confuse
> > > followup in Usenet with the 'Follow' and 'Follow All' commands the
> > > MailFollowUp.mailbundle adds to Apple Mail. Thank goodness Phil set us
> > > straight. Who knows how many people failed to notice we were talking
> > > about email and not usenet? Whew! Close shave there! Confusion averted!
> > 
> > I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple Mail
> > and I avoid using where possible Safari.  One thing Is Mail doesn't have
> > a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a heart beat. How
> > wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and another for 
> > Newsgroups.  That's three apps to open when you can use two or even one.
> 
> If your most important criteria for choosing a web browser, mail client,
> and Usenet client is the number of applications required, that's great
> for you. 
> 
> Personally, I care more about general ease of use, features, and 
> robustness. Having separate applications for each function isn't a big
> concern.

Aye. I've always preferred the best app for the job. Not a collection of
substandard ones bundled into one package. ClarisWorks would be the rare
exception to integrated app 'works-style packages not sucking, being
both well designed, without MS-type bloat, and integrated in a highly
useful fashion.

But why would I need my web browser and email client in the same app? Or
web browser and FTP? Or email and usenet? It's not like I'm building a
document that embeds parts of each. If my web browser is well designed
it can send FTP links to my preferred FTP client. Or Usenet sending web
links to my web browser. Or BitTorrent to my favourite BitTorrent app,
etc, etc. This has been the norm since Internet Config was released
first as shareware, then later as part of MacOS.

Not to mention having multiple clients in one app makes the usual
windows management methods far less useful for zeroing in on just my
browser windows, or email, etc.

About the only advantages I see with integrated app packages nowadays
are reduced support and training costs in the corporate or education
worlds. But on my own computers I'd far rather have the best solution
for each task.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#8675

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> In article<jkfn32$ksl$1@dont-email.me>,
>>   Phillip Jones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>> Warren Oates<warren.oates@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>    PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such
>>>>>> newgroup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To: newsgroup1
>>>>>> Followup: to Group2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the last line you notify the group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am setting followup to Group 2
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.
>>>>
>>>> I know I was _terribly_ concerned some poor person might confuse
>>>> followup in Usenet with the 'Follow' and 'Follow All' commands the
>>>> MailFollowUp.mailbundle adds to Apple Mail. Thank goodness Phil set us
>>>> straight. Who knows how many people failed to notice we were talking
>>>> about email and not usenet? Whew! Close shave there! Confusion averted!
>>>
>>> I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple Mail
>>> and I avoid using where possible Safari.  One thing Is Mail doesn't have
>>> a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a heart beat. How
>>> wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and another for
>>> Newsgroups.  That's three apps to open when you can use two or even one.
>>
>> If your most important criteria for choosing a web browser, mail client,
>> and Usenet client is the number of applications required, that's great
>> for you.
>>
>> Personally, I care more about general ease of use, features, and
>> robustness. Having separate applications for each function isn't a big
>> concern.
>
> Aye. I've always preferred the best app for the job. Not a collection of
> substandard ones bundled into one package. ClarisWorks would be the rare
> exception to integrated app 'works-style packages not sucking, being
> both well designed, without MS-type bloat, and integrated in a highly
> useful fashion.
>
> But why would I need my web browser and email client in the same app? Or
> web browser and FTP? Or email and usenet? It's not like I'm building a
> document that embeds parts of each. If my web browser is well designed
> it can send FTP links to my preferred FTP client. Or Usenet sending web
> links to my web browser. Or BitTorrent to my favourite BitTorrent app,
> etc, etc. This has been the norm since Internet Config was released
> first as shareware, then later as part of MacOS.
>
> Not to mention having multiple clients in one app makes the usual
> windows management methods far less useful for zeroing in on just my
> browser windows, or email, etc.
>
> About the only advantages I see with integrated app packages nowadays
> are reduced support and training costs in the corporate or education
> worlds. But on my own computers I'd far rather have the best solution
> for each task.
>
One advantage to an all-in-one. Is that I don't have to open or switch 
to another application for example  clicking on a URL in an email. Boom 
, it running.  If there is a Mailto in the web page. Boom, your 
immediately presented with a Proper email already addressed and ready to 
type subject and content.

with three applications  You open email and need to go to a link 
referred to then you need to open the desired web Browser. If your in 
the web browser and need to go to a Mailto and the mailto opens the 
email nothing is transferred ove it just opens an email window with not 
even the recipient address filled in (it should be).
As for News groups every newsgroup application  is either awful looking 
or you need a PhD in engineering to setup

In FireFox and Thunderbird use many of the same components library 
files. yet instead of sharing them and reducing the actual footprint of 
the applications. They duplicate opening those libraries, wasting 
memory, and not working smoothly together. For example clicking a Mailto 
opens a Blank web page first then switch to Thunderbird. That shouldn't 
happen it should instantly open TB and open the blank email with the 
recipient filled in. There is very little integration. which important 
to me I want everything to work seamlessly.

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

#8679

PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> In article<jkfn32$ksl$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>   Phillip Jones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> >>>> Warren Oates<warren.oates@gmail.com>   wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article<jkfbqc$ojv$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >>>>>    PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>   wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Followup is a convention of newsgroups.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You answer a Topic or note that you want to move to such and such
> >>>>>> newgroup.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To: newsgroup1
> >>>>>> Followup: to Group2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the last line you notify the group.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am setting followup to Group 2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm really glad you set us straight on that, Phil.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know I was _terribly_ concerned some poor person might confuse
> >>>> followup in Usenet with the 'Follow' and 'Follow All' commands the
> >>>> MailFollowUp.mailbundle adds to Apple Mail. Thank goodness Phil set us
> >>>> straight. Who knows how many people failed to notice we were talking
> >>>> about email and not usenet? Whew! Close shave there! Confusion averted!
> >>>
> >>> I just thought people should know the difference. I don't use Apple Mail
> >>> and I avoid using where possible Safari.  One thing Is Mail doesn't have
> >>> a newsreader built in. If it did I would use it in a heart beat. How
> >>> wants to use one app for Browsing, one for mail and another for
> >>> Newsgroups.  That's three apps to open when you can use two or even one.
> >>
> >> If your most important criteria for choosing a web browser, mail client,
> >> and Usenet client is the number of applications required, that's great
> >> for you.
> >>
> >> Personally, I care more about general ease of use, features, and
> >> robustness. Having separate applications for each function isn't a big
> >> concern.
> >
> > Aye. I've always preferred the best app for the job. Not a collection of
> > substandard ones bundled into one package. ClarisWorks would be the rare
> > exception to integrated app 'works-style packages not sucking, being
> > both well designed, without MS-type bloat, and integrated in a highly
> > useful fashion.
> >
> > But why would I need my web browser and email client in the same app? Or
> > web browser and FTP? Or email and usenet? It's not like I'm building a
> > document that embeds parts of each. If my web browser is well designed
> > it can send FTP links to my preferred FTP client. Or Usenet sending web
> > links to my web browser. Or BitTorrent to my favourite BitTorrent app,
> > etc, etc. This has been the norm since Internet Config was released
> > first as shareware, then later as part of MacOS.
> >
> > Not to mention having multiple clients in one app makes the usual
> > windows management methods far less useful for zeroing in on just my
> > browser windows, or email, etc.
> >
> > About the only advantages I see with integrated app packages nowadays
> > are reduced support and training costs in the corporate or education
> > worlds. But on my own computers I'd far rather have the best solution
> > for each task.
> >
> One advantage to an all-in-one. Is that I don't have to open or switch
> to another application for example  clicking on a URL in an email. Boom
> , it running.  If there is a Mailto in the web page. Boom, your 
> immediately presented with a Proper email already addressed and ready to
> type subject and content.
> 
> with three applications  You open email and need to go to a link 
> referred to then you need to open the desired web Browser. If your in
> the web browser and need to go to a Mailto and the mailto opens the 
> email nothing is transferred ove it just opens an email window with not
> even the recipient address filled in (it should be).
> As for News groups every newsgroup application  is either awful looking
> or you need a PhD in engineering to setup

I don't close apps unless they have some kind of performance issue left
running. Even my web browser with over a 100 saved tabs is CPU and disk
access light. Thus everything is switched to instantly.

As for Usenet apps being hard to use - MacSOUP for example is not
typical in the way it works, but five minutes RTFM solves that. Likewise
with MT-NW which is more tpical. MacSOUP in particular is easy to setup
requiring only a couple pref panes of info entered - again, just RTFM
:-) NW apps have always been a bit complicated setup-wise IME.

> In FireFox and Thunderbird use many of the same components library 
> files. yet instead of sharing them and reducing the actual footprint of
> the applications. They duplicate opening those libraries, wasting 
> memory, and not working smoothly together. For example clicking a Mailto
> opens a Blank web page first then switch to Thunderbird. That shouldn't
> happen it should instantly open TB and open the blank email with the 
> recipient filled in. There is very little integration. which important
> to me I want everything to work seamlessly.

I've TBs of storage and 4GB of RAM nowadays. Even with only 4GB RAM (I'd
like to get 6GB for playing games and running emulation and
virtualisation) I still don't have any issues having my web browser with
100+ tabs, Email, usenet, FTP and IRC clients open at once. If I click a
mailto link in Camino Mail comes to the front instantly and opens a new
email with the specified info filled in. Likewise a web link in IRC
switches to Camino instantly, opens a new tab and loads the page. Etc,
etc.

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#8728

On 2012-03-27 00:48:35 +0000, PhillipJones said:
> One advantage to an all-in-one. Is that I don't have to open or switch 
> to another application for example  clicking on a URL in an email. Boom 
> , it running.  If there is a Mailto in the web page. Boom, your 
> immediately presented with a Proper email already addressed and ready 
> to type subject and content.

Apple did that to iPhoto.  With the most recent release, unless you go 
and change the default, if you want to e-mail a photo, it brings up 
it's own half-asset little mail composition window.  Thankfully, 
there's a pref. checkbox which lets you instead revert to the previous 
behavior where your image is sent to your preferred mail client in the 
normal way.

I *want* to switch if the difference is having the use of my 
full-fledged mail client rather than a crippled one.
> 
> with three applications  You open email and need to go to a link 
> referred to then you need to open the desired web Browser. If your in 
> the web browser and need to go to a Mailto and the mailto opens the 
> email nothing is transferred ove it just opens an email window with not 
> even the recipient address filled in (it should be).

If done right, other apps can send a message to Mail app to open with a 
message composition window with Subject, Content, etc all filled in as 
expected.  If you are not seeing this, you are using broken apps.

> As for News groups every newsgroup application  is either awful looking 
> or you need a PhD in engineering to setup

Many do suck, that's for certain.

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

#8727

On 2012-03-26 19:11:56 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said:

> But why would I need my web browser and email client in the same app? Or
> web browser and FTP? Or email and usenet? It's not like I'm building a
> document that embeds parts of each.

There are a couple of pretty good arguments for e-mail/usenet to be one 
app.  Not the least of which is that you may be replying by e-mail to a 
usenet article, or cc'ing by e-mail while posting.  Moreover, in terms 
of processing/parsing/etc, there is a certain amount of overlap in 
things like how headers are managed.

That said, I can't think of a good combination e-mail/usenet client 
that I've used since the days I used something built into emacs.  
Thunderbird's usenet client was horrible and at this point, I like 
Apple's Mail.app a lot better than TBird, too (that wasn't always the 
case).

Why anyone wants his web browser to also be his e-mail client and/or 
FTP client, I do not know.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web