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

Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

blog.fastmail.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#31

Post by clebio »

nknighthb wrote: post #29
grn wrote: post #18

From the comments I draw the conclusion that a solid, open source, GUI e-mail client would have great popularity. Are there such clients out there? I used Thunderbird under Linux but it feels cumbersome.

I've searched in vain for an alternative, open or closed, to Mail.app on any platform ever since Mozilla lost its mind and released Thunderbird 3. I can't find anything fast, simple, stable, and maintained. The next best option I've found is, of all things, Outlook (Mac or Windows), not that it's particularly desirable, either.

I'm somewhat confused. Thunderbird on my computer is at version 24.0.1, are you referring to an ancient version, or a different numbering scheme?

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#32

Post by nknighthb »

clebio wrote: post #31
nknighthb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've searched in vain for an alternative, open or closed, to Mail.app on any platform ever since Mozilla lost its mind and released Thunderbird 3. I can't find anything fast, simple, stable, and maintained. The next best option I've found is, of all things, Outlook (Mac or Windows), not that it's particularly desirable, either.

I'm somewhat confused. Thunderbird on my computer is at version 24.0.1, are you referring to an ancient version, or a different numbering scheme?

Thunderbird 3.0 was released at the end of 2009. This was before Mozilla adopted a Chrome-like versioning strategy that led to rapid number inflation for both Thunderbird and Firefox. (1.0 was released in 2004; 2.0 was released in 2007; 3.0 was released in 2009; 3.1 in 2010; 5 (there was no 4) in 2011 commencing rapid versioning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Thunderbird#... )

3.0 was a radical departure from and regression in speed, stability, and usability relative to the 1.x and 2.x series.

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#33

Post by lakwn »

I'm not an iOS user, but doesn't it sound a bit unprofessional for them to write such post on their main blog? Won't it piss off iOS users, who are not responsible for Apple's bad practices?

I think such rants should indeed be made public, but maybe there was a better outlet for FastMail to do that.

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#34

Post by aidenn0 »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #14
fit2rule wrote: post #4

sigh I really miss the good ol' days of e-mail, before all these Web 2.0 people hit the scene with their "let us scan your mail for other addresses" this and their "we'll keep a safe copy of your email as a backup, using IMAP" that .. Frankly, though, I blame MS Outlook. When it hit the scene, email became a thorny mess of standards, almost-standards, and not-standard at all .. and it seems the rest of the industry i…

I honestly have no clue what you're getting at with your first paragraph. Email hasn't changed very much in the last fifteen or more years, so I'm not sure what changes the "Web 2.0 people" made you're referring to, your examples are pretty odd ("scan other addresses" what?). Also keeping a backup of deleted messages for a period of time is standard industry practice and has been since before I or Linux were even bor…

outlook seems to randomly decide to not set the in-reply-to header, which breaks threading every time someone changes the subject

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#36

Post by aidenn0 »

nknighthb wrote: post #29
grn wrote: post #18

From the comments I draw the conclusion that a solid, open source, GUI e-mail client would have great popularity. Are there such clients out there? I used Thunderbird under Linux but it feels cumbersome.

I've searched in vain for an alternative, open or closed, to Mail.app on any platform ever since Mozilla lost its mind and released Thunderbird 3. I can't find anything fast, simple, stable, and maintained. The next best option I've found is, of all things, Outlook (Mac or Windows), not that it's particularly desirable, either.

I've used claws in a pop environment; it beats the pants off of evolution as an e-mail client. I haven't tried its imap though. I stopped using thunderbird about 7 years ago when it deleted messages off of a Pop3 server before noticing that the disk with my mailbox on it was full, thus losing dozens of messages. People tell me it's better now, but I'm currently happy with claws.

I've recently been trying trojita as my imap client (have been using mutt otherwis). It's fairly feature simple, but blazingly fast.

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#37

Post by nknighthb »

aidenn0 wrote: post #36
nknighthb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've searched in vain for an alternative, open or closed, to Mail.app on any platform ever since Mozilla lost its mind and released Thunderbird 3. I can't find anything fast, simple, stable, and maintained. The next best option I've found is, of all things, Outlook (Mac or Windows), not that it's particularly desirable, either.

I've used claws in a pop environment; it beats the pants off of evolution as an e-mail client. I haven't tried its imap though. I stopped using thunderbird about 7 years ago when it deleted messages off of a Pop3 server before noticing that the disk with my mailbox on it was full, thus losing dozens of messages. People tell me it's better now, but I'm currently happy with claws. I've recently been trying trojita as m…

Claws disqualified itself by being slow and crashing often when I tried to use it (with IMAP) maybe a year ago. If there's been significant progress since I might give it another shot, but it'd take a long time to have any real confidence in it...

I'll poke at Trojita but it'll have the same confidence issue by virtue of being relatively new.

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#38

Post by lars »

I don't blame them. I had a go at implementing an IMAP server once, and it ranks as one of the most frustrating programming experiences I've ever had. The standard is huge, fragmented, and is full of strange requirements to fulfill every thinkable use case a client may have. These small details end up heavily dictating the architecture of your application. I don't see how could implement IMAP without completely throwing out most of your work several times.

To make things worse, there is hardly any way to know when you've done it right. I'm not even sure there is a right way. When you start looking at how actual email clients speak IMAP, you'll see that they all manage to ask for a list of emails in completely different ways. It's a small wonder that these systems appear to work at all.

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#39

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

ricardobeat wrote: post #26

> I discovered my second attempt to contact the user about this problem in their Junk folder tonight. Peeking into a user's mail box? I know it's all plain text anyway, but this article makes me feel a bit uneasy.

There's a difference between message contents and meta-data. Even the logs often contain the subject, folder, and TO/FROM frields.

It is pretty hard to diagnose issues without at least gathering basic information on the state of an account.

Not really sure I see the issue. If Google, for example, had an issue and they needed to examine the meta data surrounding individual pieces of my email I'd likely be alright with that as long as they didn't read the message's content/body or any attached files which I view as quite private.

Re: Mac OS 10.9 – Infinity times your spam

#40

Post by Segmentation »

ricardobeat wrote: post #26

> I discovered my second attempt to contact the user about this problem in their Junk folder tonight. Peeking into a user's mail box? I know it's all plain text anyway, but this article makes me feel a bit uneasy.

He's referring to telemetry (logging). It's like an Apache log. Nothing to be uneasy about.
Post reply on HN