In the words of the first UCLA email:
LO
AMP for email is a terrible idea
71–80 of 483 posts
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
For sure, it'll finally provide me the impetus to move to a service like Fastmail/ProtonMail/etc.
I would contribute to a campaign to help FastMail support multiple labels on messages. It’s the only thing keeping me tied to Gmail.
The challenge is those labels aren't standards-based. Gmail has all sorts of weird issues when you interact with it over IMAP. Even Google's own Takeout will end up making multiple copies of your messages, one per label, as it converts to folders. For a while I still had Gmail but used platforms Google didn't support with first-party apps, and I had a lot of pain points. (Gmail also likes to "archive" items [or remove that particular label] that you tell Gmail to "delete" via IMAP. It's annoying.)
FastMail does an excellent job hanging on real standards, and so supporting these Gmail-specific features requires that the standards themselves, support such things.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#73Thank goodness that a bunch of clever kids are going to replace boring old SMTP n MTAs n MUAs and stuff with this bollocks: https://www.ampproject.org/ 8) email works and doesn't need fixing. It (nearly) transports more messages every day than is countable and just works. SNR - now that needs fixing and a good start would be enforcing plain text.
It's OK though, they replaced email and SMTP with Google Wave back in '09 or so, right?
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the pain of HTML email is Microsoft’s fault, because they have persisted in using the MSO (Word) HTML render/editor in Outlook and Windows Mail, and it’s worse than IE 5.0. (Outlook 2003 switched to the IE renderer, and everyone rejoiced; then the Outlook 2007 went back to the MSO renderer for rather crummy reasons and all web people boggled and despaired.) Sure, other clients have their inconsistencies, but…
I'm fairly certain that Lotus Notes is deserving of at least as much scorn for its mail rendering as Outlook.
I had to do client work once that required Lotus Notes support and I swear that program runs HTML through a blender before trying to render it. It makes Outlook look like Chromium.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would contribute to a campaign to help FastMail support multiple labels on messages. It’s the only thing keeping me tied to Gmail.
The challenge is those labels aren't standards-based. Gmail has all sorts of weird issues when you interact with it over IMAP. Even Google's own Takeout will end up making multiple copies of your messages, one per label, as it converts to folders. For a while I still had Gmail but used platforms Google didn't support with first-party apps, and I had a lot of pain points. (Gmail also likes to "archive" items [or remov…
FastMail is pioneering IMAPs successor:
In the spec, they supercede IMAP folders with “keywords”, which are comparable to labels in Gmail.
“Users may add arbitrary keywords to an email. For compatibility with IMAP, a keyword is a (case-sensitive) string of 1–255 characters in the ASCII subset %x21–%x7e (excludes control chars and space), and MUST NOT include any of these characters: ( ) { ] % * " \”
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#76I, for one, welcome our new AMP overlords.
As a marketer emails are really limited. This opens up possibility of higher engagement and less friction for what you want Gmail customers to do. I work for a loan company - get a rate quote IN YOUR EMAIL! Customer saves time and I just cut 2 steps out of our funnel.
The required coding and browser compatibility scare me a bit though. Nothing to piss off consumers than an email that doesnt work as promised.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#77AMP is terrible for the Web too.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The challenge is those labels aren't standards-based. Gmail has all sorts of weird issues when you interact with it over IMAP. Even Google's own Takeout will end up making multiple copies of your messages, one per label, as it converts to folders. For a while I still had Gmail but used platforms Google didn't support with first-party apps, and I had a lot of pain points. (Gmail also likes to "archive" items [or remov…
FastMail is pioneering IMAPs successor: http://jmap.io/ In the spec, they supercede IMAP folders with “keywords”, which are comparable to labels in Gmail. “Users may add arbitrary keywords to an email. For compatibility with IMAP, a keyword is a (case-sensitive) string of 1–255 characters in the ASCII subset %x21–%x7e (excludes control chars and space), and MUST NOT include any of these characters: ( ) { ] % * " \”
Indeed, and as the case is "The data model is backwards compatible with both IMAP folders and gmail-style labels".
Even so, unless you have a wide multiplatform selection of JMAP-based apps which work properly with labels, you are better off with folders.
EDIT/Am at rate limit: I survived migrating from labels back to folders, and probably wouldn't start using multiple labels again, should they be available, until a point where it's a very common, well-supported standard behavior. No more proprietary nonsense for me.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free market? Is that what we call it when one member of the duopoly controlling most email clients decides to embrace and extend the standard? Also even if you believe in Santa Claus and free markets, people getting on their soapbox to say “this is a terrible idea” is part of the free market.
just a hypothetical, but if you were to assume that Google had no ill will here and was actually trying to make stuff better for users - what do you think the best way would be for people working at Google to do this? I.e. say you worked on the gmail team, you really cared about users, you thought amp for email would be good for users, how would you go about making this happen in the world? genuinely curious if its e…
The fact that no one has a specific answer for the simple "what would you do to launch this if you worked at Google?" really says something.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
FastMail is pioneering IMAPs successor: http://jmap.io/ In the spec, they supercede IMAP folders with “keywords”, which are comparable to labels in Gmail. “Users may add arbitrary keywords to an email. For compatibility with IMAP, a keyword is a (case-sensitive) string of 1–255 characters in the ASCII subset %x21–%x7e (excludes control chars and space), and MUST NOT include any of these characters: ( ) { ] % * " \”
Indeed, and as the case is "The data model is backwards compatible with both IMAP folders and gmail-style labels". Even so, unless you have a wide multiplatform selection of JMAP-based apps which work properly with labels, you are better off with folders. EDIT/Am at rate limit: I survived migrating from labels back to folders, and probably wouldn't start using multiple labels again, should they be available, until a…
I’m already married to the multi label format, so moving back to IMAP is a deal breaker. Eyes forward, no going back.
EDIT: Understandable! Safe travels on the path to owning your data!