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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72032 > unrolled thread

New old behavior in mail.app

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

Contents

  New old behavior in mail.app Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-24 20:51 -0700
    Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 06:19 +0000
    Re: New old behavior in mail.app spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2015-03-25 12:14 +0100
      Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 12:10 +0000
        Re: New old behavior in mail.app Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 16:22 +0000
        Re: New old behavior in mail.app Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-25 17:20 +0000
          Re: New old behavior in mail.app Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 21:41 +0000
            Re: New old behavior in mail.app nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 17:53 -0400
              Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 22:35 +0000
                Re: New old behavior in mail.app nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 18:41 -0400
                  Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-26 03:50 +0000
                    Re: New old behavior in mail.app nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 23:59 -0400
                      Re: New old behavior in mail.app Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 12:44 +0000
                      Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-26 21:55 +0000
                        Re: New old behavior in mail.app "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-27 04:08 -0400
                        Re: New old behavior in mail.app Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-27 13:46 +0000
                          Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-27 22:35 +0000
                  Re: New old behavior in mail.app Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 12:41 +0000
              Re: New old behavior in mail.app jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-26 12:24 +1300
                Re: New old behavior in mail.app spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2015-03-26 08:52 +0100
                  Re: New old behavior in mail.app dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-26 23:07 +1300
                  Re: New old behavior in mail.app jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-27 02:50 +1300
                    Re: New old behavior in mail.app spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2015-03-26 18:35 +0100
                      Re: New old behavior in mail.app jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-27 07:36 +1300
                    Re: New old behavior in mail.app dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-27 11:42 +1300
              Re: New old behavior in mail.app Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-26 19:16 +0000
            Re: New old behavior in mail.app jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-26 12:24 +1300
          Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 21:56 +0000
      Re: New old behavior in mail.app Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-25 08:42 -0700
      Re: New old behavior in mail.app Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 16:22 +0000
        Re: New old behavior in mail.app Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 22:10 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#72032 — New old behavior in mail.app

Mac OS X 10.10.3 beta

Deleting a message while holding down the option key once again removes
the message without putting it in the trash.

Also, marking a message as junk while holding down the option key puts
it directly into the trash, but marked as junk.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#72038

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like:
> Mac OS X 10.10.3 beta

> Deleting a message while holding down the option key once again removes
> the message without putting it in the trash.

That's nice. I used to use that, but got out of the habit.

> Also, marking a message as junk while holding down the option key puts
> it directly into the trash, but marked as junk.

I use my Junk folder to train Spam Assassin, so that one is not useful
for me.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
On 30 Jul 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
>Think 100MHz Pentium, 33k6 analog modem. Even I have stopped using that.

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

#72043

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Deleting a message while holding down the option key once again removes
> the message without putting it in the trash.

I remember Claris Emailer...
Pressing the backspace key while holding down the option key not only
put the message into the trash, but also immediately showed the next
message in the same window without closing it.

That was _WAY_ more useful than either of current Mail.app behaviours.
There the window closes, then the message is put in the trash (or, as
you write, immediately deleted), and the selection moves to the next
message, so you can press return which will open the next message in a
new window.
Time from pressing backspace to being able to read the next message: >3
seconds.

Time for Claris Emailer: instantaneous, no window closing & reopening.
I _still_ miss it.

-- 
In a world without walls and fences,
   who needs windows and gates?

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

#72045

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Marc Stibane <spamfalle2@arcor.de> was all, like:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>> Deleting a message while holding down the option key once again removes
>> the message without putting it in the trash.

> I remember Claris Emailer...
> Pressing the backspace key while holding down the option key not only
> put the message into the trash, but also immediately showed the next
> message in the same window without closing it.

> That was _WAY_ more useful than either of current Mail.app behaviours.
> There the window closes, then the message is put in the trash (or, as
> you write, immediately deleted), and the selection moves to the next
> message, so you can press return which will open the next message in a
> new window.

Mail.app is simply not designed for opening messages in separate
windows. I know, I tried many times for years to make it work well
before giving up. At least int eh current version you have a narrow
column for the list of messages and a wide column for the actual
message, so no more of this shortening the message window to see more of
the message list.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
The Force can have a strong influence on a weak mind.

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

#72052

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Marc Stibane <spamfalle2@arcor.de> was all, like:
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Deleting a message while holding down the option key once again removes
>>> the message without putting it in the trash.
> 
>> I remember Claris Emailer...
>> Pressing the backspace key while holding down the option key not only
>> put the message into the trash, but also immediately showed the next
>> message in the same window without closing it.
> 
>> That was _WAY_ more useful than either of current Mail.app behaviours.
>> There the window closes, then the message is put in the trash (or, as
>> you write, immediately deleted), and the selection moves to the next
>> message, so you can press return which will open the next message in a
>> new window.
> 
> Mail.app is simply not designed for opening messages in separate
> windows. I know, I tried many times for years to make it work well
> before giving up. At least int eh current version you have a narrow
> column for the list of messages and a wide column for the actual
> message, so no more of this shortening the message window to see more of
> the message list.

Eudora was nive....

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#72054

On 2015-03-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> Mail.app is simply not designed for opening messages in separate
> windows. I know, I tried many times for years to make it work well
> before giving up. At least int eh current version you have a narrow
> column for the list of messages and a wide column for the actual
> message, so no more of this shortening the message window to see more of
> the message list.

Personally, I don't miss multiple windows for mail *at* *all*. I also
prefer a paned interface for things like news groups, and a tabbed
interface for web browsing.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#72065

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>> Mail.app is simply not designed for opening messages in separate
>> windows. I know, I tried many times for years to make it work well
>> before giving up. At least int eh current version you have a narrow
>> column for the list of messages and a wide column for the actual
>> message, so no more of this shortening the message window to see more of
>> the message list.
> 
> Personally, I don't miss multiple windows for mail *at* *all*. I also
> prefer a paned interface for things like news groups, and a tabbed
> interface for web browsing.

There were several things about Eudora I rather liked. I've become
accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means
8-)

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#72068

In article <meva2r$tm4$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> There were several things about Eudora I rather liked.

one being that it actually worked.

> I've become
> accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means

it's slow, buggy and downright awful.

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

#72075

Okay, so one time? In band camp? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> was all, like:
> In article <meva2r$tm4$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

>> There were several things about Eudora I rather liked.

> one being that it actually worked.

>> I've become
>> accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means

> it's slow, buggy and downright awful.

Mail.app handles my 750,000 emails very well, actually. And it is much
faster with Eudora which required me to be very careful about large
mailboxes because it used a single mbox file to store things.

I still have one mbox file that Eudora totally fucked up. I keep it
because it has some emails in it from the mid 90s to early 2000s from
old friends and I can just open the thing in a text editor and find most
the bits and pieces I care about, but it would take way too much effort
to try and fix that mbox file into separate emails.

And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
I'd like to move us right along to a Peter Gibbons. Now we had a chance to meet
this young man, and boy that's just a straight shooter with upper management
written all over him.

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

#72077

In article <slrnmh6e3g.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> I've become
> >> accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means
> 
> > it's slow, buggy and downright awful.
> 
> Mail.app handles my 750,000 emails very well, actually. And it is much
> faster with Eudora which required me to be very careful about large
> mailboxes because it used a single mbox file to store things.

it takes as much as 10 seconds to sync my mailboxes. filters do not
work for shit. 

> I still have one mbox file that Eudora totally fucked up. I keep it
> because it has some emails in it from the mid 90s to early 2000s from
> old friends and I can just open the thing in a text editor and find most
> the bits and pieces I care about, but it would take way too much effort
> to try and fix that mbox file into separate emails.

did you try one of the eudora utilities? 

> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.

imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
before there was imap.

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

#72089

Okay, so one time? In band camp? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> was all, like:
> In article <slrnmh6e3g.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> >> I've become
>> >> accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means
>> 
>> > it's slow, buggy and downright awful.
>> 
>> Mail.app handles my 750,000 emails very well, actually. And it is much
>> faster with Eudora which required me to be very careful about large
>> mailboxes because it used a single mbox file to store things.

> it takes as much as 10 seconds to sync my mailboxes. filters do not
> work for shit. 

>> I still have one mbox file that Eudora totally fucked up. I keep it
>> because it has some emails in it from the mid 90s to early 2000s from
>> old friends and I can just open the thing in a text editor and find most
>> the bits and pieces I care about, but it would take way too much effort
>> to try and fix that mbox file into separate emails.

> did you try one of the eudora utilities? 

>> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.

> imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
> before there was imap.

IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
If the #2 pencil is the most popular, why is it still #2?

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

#72090

In article <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
> >> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
> 
> > imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
> > before there was imap.
> 
> IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.

it may technically have existed, but pop was the de facto standard,
especially with dial-up accounts which were still widely used into the
early 2000s. 

not only that, but some major isps didn't even offer imap until very
recently, as in the past 5 years or so, so even if someone had dsl or
cable, they might not have been able to get imap even if they wanted
to.

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

#72109

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
><g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> >> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>> >> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
>> 
>> > imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
>> > before there was imap.
>> 
>> IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.
>
> it may technically have existed, but pop was the de facto standard,
> especially with dial-up accounts which were still widely used into the
> early 2000s. 
>
> not only that, but some major isps didn't even offer imap until very
> recently, as in the past 5 years or so, so even if someone had dsl or
> cable, they might not have been able to get imap even if they wanted
> to.

Yeah, I just have to wonder why you feel comfortable excusing Eudora for
not properly supporting IMAP during the twenty or so years IMAP and
Eudora co-existed, while at the same time refusing to make similar
concessions for Apple Mail's shortcomings. I wouldn't call Apple Mail a
horrible client. It's average. It gets the job done admirably, but could
be much better. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#72141

Okay, so one time? In band camp? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> was all, like:
> In article <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> >> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>> >> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
>> 
>> > imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
>> > before there was imap.
>> 
>> IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.

> it may technically have existed, but pop was the de facto standard,
> especially with dial-up accounts which were still widely used into the
> early 2000s. 

> not only that, but some major isps didn't even offer imap until very
> recently, as in the past 5 years or so, so even if someone had dsl or
> cable, they might not have been able to get imap even if they wanted
> to.

Large ISPs STILL do not offer IMAP (like Comcast which is, I believe,
the largest ISP). So what? IMAP predates Eudora and I had IMAP account
all through the 90s that I could not access with Eudora. And even when
Eudora added IMAP support it was, in a word, terrible.

I dropped Eudora when I figured out that it was permanently and
irrevocably (without a LOT of work) munging messages by removing the
attachments. Then I switched all my accounts to IMAP. Shortly after
that, I removed POP3 access from my server entirely and added
Squirrelmail for those who didn't have an IMAP client.

All the accounts on my servers are IMAP and restricted to sending mail on
the submission port with SSL. SSL is also required to check mail. Anyone
who can't do that can use one of two webmail systems.


-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
"Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable
disease." "That depends, Sir," said Disraeli, "whether I embrace your
policies or your mistress."

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

#72155

On 3/26/15 5:55 PM, Lewis wrote:
> "Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable
> disease." "That depends, Sir," said Disraeli, "whether I embrace your
> policies or your mistress."

Sort of an interesting correction of content and attribution on this 
page - http://better-management.org/when-insults-had-class/

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

#72165

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> was all, like:
>> In article <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
>>>>> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>>>>> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
>>> 
>>>> imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
>>>> before there was imap.
>>> 
>>> IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.
> 
>> it may technically have existed, but pop was the de facto standard,
>> especially with dial-up accounts which were still widely used into the
>> early 2000s. 
> 
>> not only that, but some major isps didn't even offer imap until very
>> recently, as in the past 5 years or so, so even if someone had dsl or
>> cable, they might not have been able to get imap even if they wanted
>> to.
> 
> Large ISPs STILL do not offer IMAP (like Comcast which is, I believe,
> the largest ISP). So what? IMAP predates Eudora and I had IMAP account
> all through the 90s that I could not access with Eudora. And even when
> Eudora added IMAP support it was, in a word, terrible.
> 
> I dropped Eudora when I figured out that it was permanently and
> irrevocably (without a LOT of work) munging messages by removing the
> attachments. Then I switched all my accounts to IMAP. Shortly after
> that, I removed POP3 access from my server entirely and added
> Squirrelmail for those who didn't have an IMAP client.
> 
> All the accounts on my servers are IMAP and restricted to sending mail on
> the submission port with SSL. SSL is also required to check mail. Anyone
> who can't do that can use one of two webmail systems.
> 

I can't remember whether my ISP was using POP  ack when I had dial-up, but
I know it's been IMAP since I sped up 8-). And it's a lot smaller than
Charter, even though not tiny.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#72178

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> was all, like:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> was all, like:
>>> In article <slrnmh70ie.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>>>>>> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
>>>> 
>>>>> imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
>>>>> before there was imap.
>>>> 
>>>> IMAP dates from 1986, Eudora was frist written in 1988. So no, it does not.
>> 
>>> it may technically have existed, but pop was the de facto standard,
>>> especially with dial-up accounts which were still widely used into the
>>> early 2000s. 
>> 
>>> not only that, but some major isps didn't even offer imap until very
>>> recently, as in the past 5 years or so, so even if someone had dsl or
>>> cable, they might not have been able to get imap even if they wanted
>>> to.
>> 
>> Large ISPs STILL do not offer IMAP (like Comcast which is, I believe,
>> the largest ISP). So what? IMAP predates Eudora and I had IMAP account
>> all through the 90s that I could not access with Eudora. And even when
>> Eudora added IMAP support it was, in a word, terrible.
>> 
>> I dropped Eudora when I figured out that it was permanently and
>> irrevocably (without a LOT of work) munging messages by removing the
>> attachments. Then I switched all my accounts to IMAP. Shortly after
>> that, I removed POP3 access from my server entirely and added
>> Squirrelmail for those who didn't have an IMAP client.
>> 
>> All the accounts on my servers are IMAP and restricted to sending mail on
>> the submission port with SSL. SSL is also required to check mail. Anyone
>> who can't do that can use one of two webmail systems.
>> 

> I can't remember whether my ISP was using POP  ack when I had dial-up, but
> I know it's been IMAP since I sped up 8-). And it's a lot smaller than
> Charter, even though not tiny.

It seems that the larger the ISP, the crappier the email.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Try to realize it's all within yourself/No one else can make you change

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

#72108

On 2015-03-25, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnmh6e3g.9nl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis
><g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> >> I've become
>> >> accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means
>> 
>> > it's slow, buggy and downright awful.

I'd say it's decent, but has some quirks and problems, like any
software. Apple does update it from time to time. I wouldn't call it
awful. It does work well most of the time, and has some nice features I
expect from a mail client. 
 
>> Mail.app handles my 750,000 emails very well, actually. And it is much
>> faster with Eudora which required me to be very careful about large
>> mailboxes because it used a single mbox file to store things.
>
> it takes as much as 10 seconds to sync my mailboxes. filters do not
> work for shit. 

That's not my experience at all. I have 140,000+ emails in my Mail
database, and seven accounts with different providers including my own
email server, iCloud, GMail, and Hotmail. Checking for new mail takes 3
to 6 seconds, iCloud usually taking the longest. I have 19 rules, and
all of them work just fine.

>> I still have one mbox file that Eudora totally fucked up. I keep it
>> because it has some emails in it from the mid 90s to early 2000s from
>> old friends and I can just open the thing in a text editor and find most
>> the bits and pieces I care about, but it would take way too much effort
>> to try and fix that mbox file into separate emails.
>
> did you try one of the eudora utilities? 

Not the point. The point is that Eudora had its own share of problems;
and he's right about that.

>> And Eudora always was piss-poor at IMAP. In fact, I'd go so far as to
>> say that for IMAP, it never actually worked.
>
> imap was not eudora's strength, but that's because eudora goes back to
> before there was imap.

Considering Eudora was in development until 2006, and IMAP was around
back in 1986, that's really not much of an excuse. I wonder if
Thunderbird handles IMAP any better, or just the same.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#72082

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <meva2r$tm4$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
> > There were several things about Eudora I rather liked.
> 
> one being that it actually worked.
> 
> > I've become
> > accustomed to Mail, but that doesn't mean I think it's ideal, by any means
> 
> it's slow, buggy and downright awful.

What kills me is MacSOUP's (Mac offline Usenet client) afterthought of a
bare bones plain text email client that hasn't changed in two decades,
is better at mailing lists (due to it's excellent threading and
graphical thread tree), filtering, and clean simple yet powerful UI,
than Apple Mail is. If I were on the Apple Mail dev team I'd be
embarrassed by that.

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

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

#72104

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> What kills me is MacSOUP's (Mac offline Usenet client) 

BTW - there's a newer version available... (*)


> afterthought of a bare bones plain text email client that hasn't changed
> in two decades, is better at mailing lists (due to it's excellent
> threading and graphical thread tree), filtering, and clean simple yet
> powerful UI, than Apple Mail is.

Too bad MacSOUP is a Carbon app - and the author is not motivated in
porting it to Cocoa, because of the dwindling usenet usage.


(*) as you can see in my User-Agent header
-- 
In a world without walls and fences,
   who needs windows and gates?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web