Daved Daly wrote:
>> Nope because the problem stems from the very core of how they are
>>doing things.
> I'm still not sure, I really understand exactly what you mean there...
The whole archives instead of delete and lack of folders in combination.
> Again, I dont exactly get what you mean by that "it's a mess", at
> least I don't quite see it that way.
There is no ability to sort on anything other than having each thread
(damn their "conversations" notion, we need no new terms here!) show up based
solely on which has had a reply last. Contrast that to my client (be it
thunderbird, mutt or squirrelmail, I use all three) which shows all old mail
then all new mail with definite groupings alphabetically first then by date.
> I use it for 19 different low to medium traffic lists. With the
> filters I've setup, everything's fairly neatly organized and easily
> accessible.
Only if you like it their way. "They can have any color they want as long
as it's black." -- Henry Ford
>>There's no clear deliniation between new and old mail.
> Using Labels to separate things out without a Filter to automaticaly
> assign labels would be a pain...
That's not the issue. The problem is that twofold.
1: Archive instead of delete.
2: Labels show old *AND* new mail. I cannot get just a display of "new mail
in Debian".
> Google seems to market GMail with the "Search not Sort" idea, which
> I've written to them that I think is a mistake.
Quite so.
> When I sign up for a new mailinglist, I immediately create a Label for it.
> Then I create a filter.
So did I on just two lists and found it was a pain.
> Clicking the label link I have a nice threaded view of all mail sent
> to the list with New topics or replies displayed in Bold.
With no idea really of whom has written the new messages nor any means of
displaying it except one way.
> Threads with the most recent activity will always show up at the top.
...in the order of "last sent to" instead of a general "new threads" and
some other way of looking at it.
> Selectively deleting a message out of a thread I don't find that
> particularly hard. Click "More options" on the message you want to
> trash, then "Trash this message".
No, that isn't a problem until you realize that if you want message 61 out
of a 200 message thread you need to delete, one-at-a-time, 199 messages to
preserve that one. I'm not sure if they're linking threads by
references/in-reply-to or just by subject but I doubt it is by just
references/in-reply-to alone. So what happens to that message you wanted
saved the next time that subject comes up and you delete the thread? Chances
are it would be deleted, too.
> There's some things that I don't like about it... A lot of the time I
> just want to see new threads, and immediately mark them all as read.
> Doing this takes a couple extra clicks then I'd prefer... but it's not
> too horrible, and I'd bet it will continue to evolve and change.
Quite so. This is the main problem with the "don't delete anything" way
of thinking. With deleting of all save a select few messages things work
better. In GMail the labels are meaningless because I have to archive it and
then mark it as read to keep the messages from showing up over and over again.
I could delete but I've explained the general problem with that and it still
is more convoluted than need be. Open thread, expand message, select menu,
select delete. No thanks. :/
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature