51–60 of 126 posts
First thing I thought of when I read the heading Actionsteps was being able to tailor actions specific to each email. For instance, you receive an email from Twitter saying someone's following you, and you're given the options to either "follow", "@reply", "ignore", etc, and similarly for Facebook. Receive a bill from ATT and your next steps are "pay bill", "file as important", "put on to-do." You're essentially cont…
Someone wants to work at Google/Facebook then. But on a more serious note, it doesn't look like a cocoa app to me so I'm not that keen on it. Too much custom UI and looks more at home on Windows 8
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?
mutt's index view, ordered by thread.
Also, if I receive a message, reply to it and archive that thread it goes away. But if that person reply's again it brings the whole conversation back to the inbox so I can see the previous messages as well.
As someone who uses the inbox as a partial todo list that is amazing. It makes it difficult to switch from gmail, although I've been using mu4e[1] inside emacs.
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?
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?
I use gmail, and I use Outlook and PINE and Netscape Mail and Eudora etc and I can't work out what was improved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
> 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…
>That's the "Inbox"
In Outlook terms it's search folders.
What I would love to see is a mail client that does away with the antiquated inbox/sent paradigm. It would be replaced by active/archived. If I send an email, it would appear in my active list until the expected outcome is achieved (eg. a reply). At that point I archive it. Sent and received would sit in the same view (like Facebook, etc), why they don't already on clients is beyond me. I shouldnt have to manage 2 views to ensure I've acted on received and others have acted on my sent.
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.
In particular, it doesn't include you or your sent mail in the conversation (http://i.imgur.com/Atkcu.png). It only lets you expand the email quotation to let you dig through nested context (http://i.imgur.com/1Zj2e.png).
Compare this to gmail (http://i.imgur.com/mLel3.png) that actually handles it as a conversation. It's one of the reasons I use Mailplane (thin wrapper around gmail) instead of Mail.app.
