Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.mail app

dotmailapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: .mail app

#41

Post by wonderzombie »

rmc wrote: post #22
astral303 wrote: post #12

Best of luck w/ the implementation. However, reading the concept, I am unimpressed. In Mail.app, I can already mark e-mails with different-colored flags, which allows me to come up with my own "get back soon" or "get back later" type of a system. The assertion that e-mail hasn't changed since 1970's is false. Modern e-mail clients manage it much better. Compare Mail.app, Outlook and GMail to PINE--the difference is s…

really pushed the conversational view and presented it in a single-screen way that was innovative (compare how long it took e-mail clients to catch up with that... and no, "group by thread" did not compare). I love GMail's conversation view, but AFAIK, not really many other desktop email clients have adopted it. Who else has it?

Apple Mail has it. I think you can tell it whether you want to see newest-first or the reverse, as well.

Re: .mail app

#42

Post by ChronoGawd »

ChronoGawd wrote: post #40

Seem very similar to Mail Pilot (www.mail-pilot.com), although Mail Pilot seems that it will still be a monthly paid service, as .Mail app doesn't (at least I couldn't find if it is). Which is a big deal for me. As for .Mail seems like you pay for the app such as Sparrow (which it looks similar too) and not have to pay monthly for it. I plan on buying it if it comes out as it shows and does what it does. Anyone know…

And or iPhone app? (Sparrow + Mail Pilot (or .Mail)) Would be my dream iPhone mail app.

Re: .mail app

#43

Post by [deleted] »

ChronoGawd wrote: post #40

Seem very similar to Mail Pilot (www.mail-pilot.com), although Mail Pilot seems that it will still be a monthly paid service, as .Mail app doesn't (at least I couldn't find if it is). Which is a big deal for me. As for .Mail seems like you pay for the app such as Sparrow (which it looks similar too) and not have to pay monthly for it. I plan on buying it if it comes out as it shows and does what it does. Anyone know…

[deleted]

Re: .mail app

#44

Post by brianlovin »

jvm wrote: post #25

Whoo boy does that site ever not work without javascript... Sort of ridiculous since it's a static page advertising a desktop app, neither of which should require javascript at all. EDIT: Oh God, and hot pink highlighting does NOT complement their color scheme. And for all its javascript fanciness, it doesn't handle resizing at all. Sorry to be so negative, this site just pushes all my buttons.

Highlighting is red on my end...

Re: .mail app

#45

Post by dboat »

danielweber wrote: post #23
astral303 wrote: post #12

Best of luck w/ the implementation. However, reading the concept, I am unimpressed. In Mail.app, I can already mark e-mails with different-colored flags, which allows me to come up with my own "get back soon" or "get back later" type of a system. The assertion that e-mail hasn't changed since 1970's is false. Modern e-mail clients manage it much better. Compare Mail.app, Outlook and GMail to PINE--the difference is s…

I like most of this but Gmail's tagging has been so burdensome and then hard to use the results of such that I've given up on it entirely. I like being able to sort things away that I don't read often, but GMail told me I didn't want a "read untagged messages" view so it wouldn't let me do that.

Open message, "Create filter from this message," add an appropriate label, check skip the inbox and automatically label and your folders are good to go. I wasn't keen on gmail's insistence that labels were all I needed either, but I find this workflow agreeable.

Re: .mail app

#46

Post by bman101 »

ChronoGawd wrote: post #40

Seem very similar to Mail Pilot (www.mail-pilot.com), although Mail Pilot seems that it will still be a monthly paid service, as .Mail app doesn't (at least I couldn't find if it is). Which is a big deal for me. As for .Mail seems like you pay for the app such as Sparrow (which it looks similar too) and not have to pay monthly for it. I plan on buying it if it comes out as it shows and does what it does. Anyone know…

Looks like Mail Pilot will have apps for Mac, Windows, iOS, and Android.

Re: .mail app

#47

Post by sigil »

rmc wrote: post #22
astral303 wrote: post #12

Best of luck w/ the implementation. However, reading the concept, I am unimpressed. In Mail.app, I can already mark e-mails with different-colored flags, which allows me to come up with my own "get back soon" or "get back later" type of a system. The assertion that e-mail hasn't changed since 1970's is false. Modern e-mail clients manage it much better. Compare Mail.app, Outlook and GMail to PINE--the difference is s…

really pushed the conversational view and presented it in a single-screen way that was innovative (compare how long it took e-mail clients to catch up with that... and no, "group by thread" did not compare). I love GMail's conversation view, but AFAIK, not really many other desktop email clients have adopted it. Who else has it?

mutt's index view, ordered by thread.

Re: .mail app

#48

Post by nailer »

irahul wrote: post #19
astral303 wrote: post #12

Best of luck w/ the implementation. However, reading the concept, I am unimpressed. In Mail.app, I can already mark e-mails with different-colored flags, which allows me to come up with my own "get back soon" or "get back later" type of a system. The assertion that e-mail hasn't changed since 1970's is false. Modern e-mail clients manage it much better. Compare Mail.app, Outlook and GMail to PINE--the difference is s…

> concepts such as embracing the fact that it is not truly productive to file every single e-mail into a purposeful folder, embracing that tagging is better than folders. I don't know if it was there from the beginning, but I have always used rules which say "apply filter and skip inbox" effectively giving me separate folders. To each his own; I don't like kitchen-sink inbox, and like separate folders to just tagging…

Sure, re: skipping inbox, me too.

But tagging allows you to have a folder-like appearance but removes to 1:1 relationship. I can have a folder of 'emails sent to me specifically' and an 'emails from my accountant' that happens to have the same message. This is super useful.

Re: .mail app

#49

Post by hussam »

aimatt wrote: post #38
reddiric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The true innovator in the e-mail space has been GMail, which has brought things like autosave, Small nit, Outlook 2003 had AutoSave. GMail was publicly introduced in 2004. > embracing the fact that it is not truly productive to file every single e-mail into a purposeful folder That's the "Inbox" > embracing that tagging is better than folders. I'm pretty sure that Outlook has had categories (the color-coded custom…

Someone loves Outlook

I'm a dedicated GMail user, but I think it's good to give credit where credit is due.

Autosave was definitely not first in GMail. Thunderbird also allowed messages to be sorted by thread a while back (which you could argue was a rough precursor to GMail's conversation view).

Re: .mail app

#50

Post by [deleted] »

wonderzombie wrote: post #41
rmc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really pushed the conversational view and presented it in a single-screen way that was innovative (compare how long it took e-mail clients to catch up with that... and no, "group by thread" did not compare). I love GMail's conversation view, but AFAIK, not really many other desktop email clients have adopted it. Who else has it?

Apple Mail has it. I think you can tell it whether you want to see newest-first or the reverse, as well.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN