171–180 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it any more difficult to edit multiple email addresses in a single box as it is to edit a multi word subject line in a single box?
Clients tend to get confused about where one address ends and the next one starts. I'm sure there are ways to solve this well, but my personal experience makes me skeptical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a fan of the flat buttons but I strongly disagree about the single/multi line TO situation. I doubt there will be a single person for whom Thunderbird is their first email/messaging type app. Most would have used something on their iOS or Android devices first at least. All of them will be comfortable with multiple users in a single To line, while having multiple lines for multiple users will actually appear alie…
> I doubt there will be a single person for whom Thunderbird is their first email/messaging type app. Most would have used something on their iOS or Android devices first at least. You'd be wrong. I, grudgingly, moved from mutt to Thunderbird after it was clear that email was turning into MIME-encoded web pages.
Ironically, I am moving from Thunderbird to Mutt (NeoMutt actually). I find the elimination of HTML means it's actually easier for me to not get distracted by stuff I dont care about for email, which is interaction with real human beings, who are unlikely to be typing complicated HTML messages. Besides, with the right config (I'm still working on it), the HTML message is 1 shortcut away.
> Update: A few of you have asked how to make a contribution to Thunderbird under the new corporation, especially when using the monthly option. Please check out our updated site at give.thunderbird.net!
I want something like this for Firefox too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way?
Each email in its own file means a minimum of x KB on disk for each email, where x is usually 4. For people with thousands of emails that's very wasteful.
I've started using Thunderbird again after months of trying literally every other solution on the market. I wanted to switch from Outlook and Gmail to something that is fast, has good keyboard support and a good message editor. It's incredible how slow most of the email clients on the market are. What's even more incredible is that, apart from Outlook, none of the other clients offer a good way of editing tables prop…
If you haven't already, check out how profiles and the profile manager work, and maybe put your Thunderbird profile in a location you backup, or even sync with other devices if needed [0]. The ability to install Thunderbird on a new machine, point it to the profile directory and have it exactly as you set it up is just wonderful. I guess by installing plugins and configuring it, but not adding email accounts, you could even make a profile for less technically savy people to use and add their email acount to.
[0] One pitfall is that a profile can only get opened by versions as new or newer than the last Thunderbird installation that used it -- for this purpose I made an empty profile I can switch to just to update Thunderbird before I use my actual profile. There's probably a dozen better ways of doing this, but even this duct-tape method works fine for me.
I've started using Thunderbird again after months of trying literally every other solution on the market. I wanted to switch from Outlook and Gmail to something that is fast, has good keyboard support and a good message editor. It's incredible how slow most of the email clients on the market are. What's even more incredible is that, apart from Outlook, none of the other clients offer a good way of editing tables prop…
Thunderbird's problem is and always has been a lack of resources. Mozilla infamously bungled, underfunded, and then abandoned it (as a result of narrowing their focus from "the Internet" from their original charter and trying to redefine "Internet" to mean "the Web"). But even after the spin-off and independence, Thunderbird's lack of resources isn't helped by Thunderbird development being more difficult than it needs to be (read: seemingly unapproachable for many potential contributors).
"How to keep contributors when they are not even contributors yet" by Soledad Penades is incredibly relevant (moreso for its title than the actual specifics of the post content, but there are good lessons there, too):
https://soledadpenades.com/posts/2015/how-to-keep-contributo...
Ten years ago, you could get folks who were willing to get dirty with XPCOM/XBL/XUL because they already existed in the wider Mozilla community, and the biggest problem was Thunderbird's build process and compile times. Nowadays, you have the same barrier wrt annoying build processes, but the pool of knowledgeable people is smaller since the XUL add-ons ecosystem has been decimated. Ultimately, Thunderbird will need to address its legacy use of XUL, but they already know that and seem to be working on it.
More importantly, though, the problem Thunderbird needs work on is the same old problem from before: the headache of setting up a development environment that can actually perform a successful build, and how long it takes for that build to complete. The way that Zotero is built is currently pretty hacky, but nonetheless an example of how easy it should be to get a development environment set up. (In fact, it can and should be made easier than that, but just getting Thunderbird's build process to where Zotero is right now would be a huge boon to making Thunderbird something that potential contributors actually start considering as "approachable".)
https://github.com/zotero/zotero-standalone-build/blob/maste...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each email in its own file means a minimum of x KB on disk for each email, where x is usually 4. For people with thousands of emails that's very wasteful.
That's ~4MB per thousand emails; while I agree it's conceptually wasteful, I doubt it would have any real consequences for anyone.
I've started using Thunderbird again after months of trying literally every other solution on the market. I wanted to switch from Outlook and Gmail to something that is fast, has good keyboard support and a good message editor. It's incredible how slow most of the email clients on the market are. What's even more incredible is that, apart from Outlook, none of the other clients offer a good way of editing tables prop…
Can I ask what it is you don't like about Outlook? I've been a regular Outlook user for many years, and honestly I'm pretty happy with it. My only real pain is the lack of ability to easily export/import my mail accounts between machines, but that's something I do only every few years. I did run Thunderbird on a low-power laptop some years ago, and did like it, but at the time it was nowhere near feature parity with…
The simple fact that it does not mark lines starting with '> ' as quoting is really off-putting.
At work, my co-workers are getting convinced that in-line replies are much better, but if the author (me!) uses plain-text only, all the other Outlook users will have a hard time reading my emails.
Actually, all about plain-text email is a pain in Outlook. I took more time to configure it (as good as it can) to send plain-text email, but now I read all my incoming emails as plain-text.
And to make it quote with '> ' in the beginning and make it properly work was a hell.
All in all, Outlook, to me, is the symbol of the Microsoft of the 1990s.
Bonus: with External Editor [1], I can use Vim (or any other editor) to edit my emails in Thunderbird. No way I could ever do so on Outlook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I ask what it is you don't like about Outlook? I've been a regular Outlook user for many years, and honestly I'm pretty happy with it. My only real pain is the lack of ability to easily export/import my mail accounts between machines, but that's something I do only every few years. I did run Thunderbird on a low-power laptop some years ago, and did like it, but at the time it was nowhere near feature parity with…
> Can I ask what it is you don't like about Outlook? The simple fact that it does not mark lines starting with '> ' as quoting is really off-putting. At work, my co-workers are getting convinced that in-line replies are much better, but if the author (me!) uses plain-text only, all the other Outlook users will have a hard time reading my emails. Actually, all about plain-text email is a pain in Outlook. I took more t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now it needs some visual indication of a complete e-mail address in the To: line. Like a rounded rectangle 1px border around a complete e-mail address and some kind of hint, that you can enter more than one address.
There is a visual indication of a complete email addresses: each correct/complete email address is wrapped in a "pill", a light gray one (see OP screenshot). An incomplete email will similarly get wrapped into a dark red pill. Your comment maybe indicates the gray is too subtle, or invisible to users with bad eyesight.