151–160 of 246 posts
Every now and then I'll go on a spree to zero out my inbox, and I find doing this with mutt's search/tag/move/delete workflow is a lot faster than messing around with my mail provider's application (Fastmail's, which is awesome, and Gmail's, which is less so) or any other client I'm aware of.
Interestingly, I went the other way. I used to have mutt for years, then went through a dark phase (macOS Mail.app, Evernote and Things) and finally concluded to Emacs with mu4e. Integrating mail with Emacs was the best idea ever, because Emails include either todos or serve as reference in projects. Creating todos from Mails as well as linking to them from org-mode is only a shortcut away. I have never had a more ea…
Same here. I am a long time mutt user, but recently switched to gnus. Have you considered gnus instead of mu4e? Gnus is notoriously hard to set up, but I found it has some remarkable features.
Maybe things have changed now, but several years ago I wanted to setup Gnus, and asked for help on IRC (#emacs IIRC) because there weren't many good resources online. The response was "if you need to ask for help, then Gnus isn't for you."
I feel that the folks that do this aren't working for big companies. In most big companies you can't really afford to do any email client shenanigans. You probably need to see HTML emails, handle calendar invites, etc.
Calendar invites are just attachments, you can handle them in external scripts and programs any way you like. Personally I just display them in plain text next to the email, but if you wanted to interface them with your calendar application I'm sure there are plenty of scripts doing that out there. As for HTML email, what I take from this entire thread is that I either I've been extremely lucky so far or people in ge…
The biggest issue with that is when the sender of the email doesn't actually check that the content was converted properly. Most notably, hyperlinks in the HTML get converted to the text of the link and the URL in question is no where to be found.
Even if most HTML emails send perfectly created plaintext versions (and yes, Amazon is great at this), you'll remember the crappy unreadable HTML-only emails far more than the normal looking multipart ones with proper conversion of the HTML to plaintext.
My first job in high school involved formatting and sending out email blasts. Even at that point, I was aware of potential formatting issues and I took care to make sure that the automatically generated plaintext version had all the same content. For that reason, I have no patience for HTML-only emails crafted by grown adults.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With the exception of free software mailing lists, people simply do not know how to use email. Bottom quoting is the default. We can thank Microsoft for that one, I think. I can't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea to attach the previous message to the bottom. Most people just accept this as the way email is and never question how unbelievably stupid it is. I think a lot of email clients expect that t…
> Though I do find it interesting that people on Hacker news, Slashdot, and reddit will generally follow the convention of responding inline Actually, they don't. Most posts don't quote their parent at all, it's a unitary response to the full parent post. Which is what bottom-quoting does - it doesn't actually quote the parent post, it leaves it in for reference (which makes sense because email clients, unlike HN, ar…
> Actually, they don't. Most posts don't quote their parent at all
I never said that most people do. When you quoted my post in your response, you left off the clause where I said: "if they quote the parent post in their response".
> It's super-arrogant, and thankfully getting very rare, to insist that your way, just because it was first, and then completely failed to catch on, is the one true way and people are "unbelievably stupid" to disagree with you.
This aptly demonstrates that there value quoting the relevant parts of the post you're responding to. In this case, you're attributing statements that someone else made to me. If you want to argue against what you're quoting, then you should reply to the post that actually made those statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company I work for is big-ish, ~10k, and many use mutt, emacs, Thunderbird and some even use a mailing-list nntp with slrn. I think it all depends on which area of work you are in. For software engineering folks it works just fine. I for one use mutt and handle calendar invites with gcalcli, I can use LDAP lookup and HTML mails are converted using elinks and read inside mutt. If I want to see all the fanciness I…
I have hard time believing that more that 1% of a 10k employees company use Mutt.
> In most big companies you can't really afford to do any email client shenanigans.
So... what does the percentage of employees using Mutt have to do with that?
This is all very nice, but the fact that the article doesn't even _mention_ images or attachments shows how divorced it is from the reality of most people's email experience. I happily used emacs as my mail-reader from 1989 to about 2009 (first RMAIL mode, then VM). The increasing importance of non-text formats made it cumbersome, and I somewhat reluctantly switched to GMail. It's hard to imagine switching back now.
the only images i find are either from spammy adverts or tracking pixels. Normal people don't put images in emails. As for attachments, you can open them in their native programs just fine.
Despite my "Why Be Normal?" visor, I consider myself mostly normal. I send and receive email with inline images. Sometimes they're attached, which is usually annoying, unless they really aren't part of the narrative.
Normal people do it, because it's part of email.
"Normal People Do It" would make a great visor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With the exception of free software mailing lists, people simply do not know how to use email. Bottom quoting is the default. We can thank Microsoft for that one, I think. I can't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea to attach the previous message to the bottom. Most people just accept this as the way email is and never question how unbelievably stupid it is. I think a lot of email clients expect that t…
Though HN doesn't make it easy to do inline quoting. I tried it just now, only to have my nicely formatted text block overflow due to the browser's text area idiosyncrasies. Most people actually don't quote at all. It's just that the majority of mail clients out there, including the Web ones, quote the message being replied to and position the cursor above it, and no one takes the effort reformat it, or remove it. So…
On HN, this is handled entirely by wetware - there's an unofficial convention. You quote the relevant part of a post by preceding it with '>' (but not turning it into a text area!). Many people (myself included) also italicize part after the '>' to make it more visually different from their response.
I feel that the folks that do this aren't working for big companies. In most big companies you can't really afford to do any email client shenanigans. You probably need to see HTML emails, handle calendar invites, etc.
I agree. I work in a large-ish company (~9k) who a few years back moved from Exchange/Outlook to GSuite (with POP and IMAP disabled) - so using anything but the Gmail web interface and/or the mobile apps is out of the question. Add in the obligatory (and yes, slightly annoying) corporate managed email signature (HTML), the fact that everyone is used to just copying images/screenshots inline with the text, and of cour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea to attach the previous message to the bottom Do you mean as opposed to putting the previous message on the top, or not including the previous message at all?
Long-time internet tradition has the replies going inline with the quoted message, with judicious trimming of irrelevant bits. It's frustrating that this has to be explained in the modern world. Smart young developers exist who have literally never seen a discussion that works that way.
If I know my conversation is intended to a small group I'll reply inline, but my default is quote-on-top.