Thunderbird 3

[time]

Does anyone else use this POS? Perhaps it's just me, but the search function is absolute shit in version 3. I really have no idea in what way this product has improved since version 1.

Does anyone use it with Gmail, or do you just rely on the web interface?

 

[Stinker]

I tried it once but since it won't easily synch up with my multiple hotmail accounts like WLM does, I dropped it. Been very happy with WLM.

 

[Adcadet]

I use the web interface for Gmail and Outlook for my work email.

 

[CougTek]

I use it, but my e-mail needs are very basic. I never search my e-mails. I classify them so I don't need to. I only use T_bird for the three e-mail accounts I have with my ISP. I don't use it for my hotmail account, my Gmail account, my operamail account, my yahoo! mail account or my mail.com account.

There are more port settings an authentification settings than in version 2, so my unfortunate customers, stuck with Bell as their miserable ISP, can now use Thunderbird 3, something that wasn't possible in version 2.

 

[time]

So if no-one apart from CougTek and I use it, what do people use for a POP3/IMAP client?

 

[ddrueding]

I have no need for a POP3/IMAP client. GMail (and their SPAM filters) all the way!

 

[Stinker]

So if no-one apart from CougTek and I use it, what do people use for a POP3/IMAP client?

WLM Free and easy.

 

[udaman]

I have no need for a POP3/IMAP client. GMail (and their SPAM filters) all the way!

..but u will turn 30 soon, won't U need the viagra ads once yer an old man ?

my yahoo spam filter grabs a lot of legit emails, so I almost have to view that folder once a week

 

[LunarMist]

It is a good question and timely for me as well. I'm still using Oulook on a couple of systems, but am also in need of a new e-mail app on one machine since Office activation is gone.

 

[Tannin]

Thunderbird 3 is underwhelming. But then, my email needs are pretty underwhelming, so it's a fair match. Generally, I ignore email as much as possible because life is too short. Thunderbird 3 helps with that.

There is nothing wrong with the search function. It's primitive and clunky, but I can always find anything I need, usually on the first or second go. I have an email filing system but the reality is that I don't use it - I just let stuff pile up, thousands of messages going back years, and if I need something I use the search function.

The new tabbled interface hasn't been thought through at all and has the look and feel of an early proof-of-concept alpha, not a finished product. I can't say that I care for it at this time. Maybe when/if they finish designing it and stop buggerising about with some functions in table and others (compose, for example) in windows. THey also need to address the close-tab "X" placement issue, and stop moving the search function around in the menu structure. Oh, and have an option - it should be the default - to search all folders in all accounts. This one account at a time that the present version inflicts on us is really rather sad.

So, there is lots wrong with THunderbird, but it is nevertheless (a) perfectly capable of doing what I need (just not doing it very elegantly), and (b) a much, much safer and more reliable email app for recommending to customers than Outbreak - for starters, with Thunderbird, when they hose their system (as most do, sooner or later) I can recover all their data with a simple drag and drop. And that is far, far, far, far more important than any of the minor detail level ease-of-use stuff we have been discussing so far in this thread.

 

[Stinker]

I have no need for a POP3/IMAP client. GMail (and their SPAM filters) all the way!

I access my GMAIL using POP3. It seems their spam filters work with that, too.

 

[ddrueding]

I access my GMAIL using POP3. It seems their spam filters work with that, too.

(Searching for a car metaphor)

Accessing GMail though POP3 is kinda like having a beautiful sports car and hauling it around on the back of a flatbed truck. Sure you get some of the perks (SPAM filtering), but you seem to have gone out of your way to not get some of the others (access from anywhere, tagging messages, integration with Google Docs).

 

[LunarMist]

I don't understand the trailer metaphor. If not Thunderbird, what is a better e-mail app for those not able to use web-based e-mail?

 

[Howell]

So if no-one apart from CougTek and I use it, what do people use for a POP3/IMAP client?

I use Thunderbird. Once a quarter or so I open it up and verify that my Gmail contacts have been successfully backed up. Otherwise I use the Gmail or mobile Gmail interface heavily and extensively.

I haven't had a client that needed a POP3/IMAP client in a long time. I don't even feel bad letting my dad keep using Outlook Express.

 

[ddrueding]

I consider any non-web-based e-mail client to be the trailer. If e-mail is a tool, than simple is better than complicated. Any e-mail client is more complex than no e-mail client.

 

[Tannin]

That, Dave, is a ridiculous point of view. The moment you don't have web connectivity, you have no answers. The moment that your on-line provider goes out to lunch or decides that you are not nice to play with, your data is gone. Unlikely, yes, but you'd be mad to ignore the possibility.

Pretending that you don't have an email client is equally daft. More daft, really - all that is happening is that you are using a remote client over which you have no control instead of a local one over which you have complete control. Either way, you are still using an email client.

 

[ddrueding]

You make some points, Tannin, but they aren't as strong as you make them sound.

1. Lack of web connectivity: Redundancy, Google Gears, HTML5
2. Having a local backup of your data in an open, accessible format is common sense either way.
3. I have an e-mail client that is automatically updated and designed to play perfectly with the server. It is faster, more functional, and less vulnerable than anything on your desktop.
4. You have no control over your client, unless you are comfortable programming the thing. If you are just taking what they give you, what gives you more control than I have? I can take my data to any provider, just like you can switch to Outlook.

 

[time]

1. Lack of web connectivity: Redundancy, Google Gears, HTML5
2. Having a local backup of your data in an open, accessible format is common sense either way.

Dave, can you or someone else explain how this works in a little more detail? Exactly what do you have to do to maintain and access a local cached copy of your gmail database?

 

[ddrueding]

Dave, can you or someone else explain how this works in a little more detail? Exactly what do you have to do to maintain and access a local cached copy of your gmail database?

1. Click on "settings" in the top right.
2. Click on the tab called "offline"
3. Click the button that says "Enable Offline Mail for this computer"
4. It will prompt you to install the Google Gears plugin and restart Firefox
5. Leave the machine logged into your mail for a while to sync your data, it will advise you of its progress as it goes.
6. It will show you in the top-right whether it is working online or off.

 

[Mercutio]

I use Thunderbird. I keep all my mail in my inbox with no folder structure at all (every non-spam message I've gotten since 1993 or so, around 13GB of messages). My mail is pretty much all forwarded to a Gmail account (for spam-handling and backup in a proper, universal format) and then collected using fetchmail by a personal IMAP server in my apartment.

Thunderbird's Search works fine for my needs and the client overall is vastly better than Outlook, which is the only other non-Web client I see on any kind of regular basis. I've tried Evolution on Linux a few times and gone back to Thunderbird.

I strongly dislike Gmail's online interface, especially threaded replies and improper quote handling (replies go BENEATH quoted text, which is the most basic test of whether an email client is worth a shit in my opinion), but at least it's friendly to using non-retarded client software.

 

[ddrueding]

...(replies go BENEATH quoted text, which is the most basic test of whether an email client is worth a shit in my opinion)...

So you want the text that has already been read to be on top of the text that is new? No one I know does it this way, seems pretty lame to me.

 

[timwhit]

That's like arguing whether the OK or the Cancel button goes on the left on an confirmation dialog. No one will ever win.

 

[Mercutio]

So you want the text that has already been read to be on top of the text that is new? No one I know does it this way, seems pretty lame to me.

All your users are on Gmail, which is wrong by default.

When I first got on the internet in the early 90s, the standard for quoting text was to reply beneath quoted text and if necessary to interleave quotes with replies. This establishes context and is vastly preferable to the way Outlook taught people to do it.

Text before quote is as best as I can tell an Outlook-ism. I don't recall anyone writing that way prior to Outlook. That alone makes it incorrect.

 

[Handruin]

Just because email was a poorly formatted by having quoted text at the top back in the early 90's doesn't mean it should be that way today or even a standard. I'm glad they've corrected it and put the old material at the bottom and the new material at the top. I want to get right to the point...not scroll through a bunch of old shit first.

 

[ddrueding]

That's like arguing whether the OK or the Cancel button goes on the left on an confirmation dialog. No one will ever win.

Agreed

 

[Mercutio]

So you can get an E-mail and have no idea what the fuck context or even element your correspondent was replying to? Why not just handle all your communication through IMs or SMS text if you're going to do that?

I'd also like to point out that every forum program we've ever used for communicating here does indeed handle quoting correctly, with replies starting after quoted text.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm tempted to start relying like this

So you can get an E-mail and have no idea what the fuck context or even element your correspondent was replying to? Why not just handle all your communication through IMs or SMS text if you're going to do that?

I'd also like to point out that every forum program we've ever used for communicating here does indeed handle quoting correctly, with replies starting after quoted text.

If I get an e-mail, odds are I know what it is referring to from the subject. I certainly wouldn't want to re-read the whole thing. If I am lost, the content is right there at the bottom. To be honest, only two things are really annoying:

1. Inserted replies. That means I have to re-scan the whole message in case I missed an "ok" at the end of line 42?
2. Inconsistency. I thread of 20 e-mails where some replied on top, some in-line, and some underneath, so you have to time check the header of each one to know where you stand.

 

[Handruin]

So you can get an E-mail and have no idea what the fuck context or even element your correspondent was replying to? Why not just handle all your communication through IMs or SMS text if you're going to do that?

I'd also like to point out that every forum program we've ever used for communicating here does indeed handle quoting correctly, with replies starting after quoted text.

Of course I have an idea and context to the email...I read it first before clicking replying. Are you seriously telling me you personally can't get the context or idea of an email unless it's bloated at the top with old material within your reply? When you get an email, do you always instantly click reply without reading it first? When I get a reply, I don't want a huge portion of old shit at the top; that's inefficient.

Honestly, I'd rather handle communication through IM (and frequently do). Using SMS wouldn't make much sense because most content would be too long for the 160 character limit. It has its purpose in a mobile market, but not as a replacement for email.

Forum quoting also is a selective thing. Imagine how crazy a thread would be if ever user quoted everything every bit of content no matter who it was...that's what you're suggesting is efficient in email. Last I remember, email doesn't make quoting an easily selective option like most forum software.

In cases like this where I'm replying to you, and also to David, the small portion of quoted text before my response makes sense. Otherwise I would simply reply with no quoted text.

I'm tempted to start relying like this



If I get an e-mail, odds are I know what it is referring to from the subject. I certainly wouldn't want to re-read the whole thing. If I am lost, the content is right there at the bottom. To be honest, only two things are really annoying:

1. Inserted replies. That means I have to re-scan the whole message in case I missed an "ok" at the end of line 42?
2. Inconsistency. I thread of 20 e-mails where some replied on top, some in-line, and some underneath, so you have to time check the header of each one to know where you stand.

I really don't like inserted replies either.

You can reply like that, but on an even higher level, the forum always has the latest post at the bottom and maybe it should be at the top? When I got to a new reply, I like to jump right to the bottom when maybe it'll be nicer at the top. I don't reread all the old info.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm tempted to start relying like this

I'd put you with uda on ignore.

If I get an e-mail, odds are I know what it is referring to from the subject.

It's not abnormal for me to write multi-paragraph emails dealing with multiple subjects, even in business communication. "Reply first"-types who insist on doing things the wrong way wind up writing sentences that I then have to read the original message and mentally re-assemble the message properly so that I can figure out what the hell a particular sentence in their reply might relate to. It's easier to just quote and trim specific text as needed.

1. Inserted replies. That means I have to re-scan the whole message in case I missed an "ok" at the end of line 42?

Inserted replies are the right way to do things. The context is there. There's no chance that meaning could be misinterpreted and in handling things that way I am ensuring that you've read my whole message. A decent mail client will make it abundantly clear whether any particular bit of text is attributed to the sender or recipient.

2. Inconsistency. .

Yes, this is why we should all quote above replies. Problem solved.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you seriously telling me you personally can't get the context or idea of an email unless it's bloated at the top with old material within your reply?

You can trim and quote selectively. It's not difficult. The issue that I run in to with top-reply people is that they'll read my messages paragraph-by-paragraph and then reply with sentences or paragraphs using nonspecific nouns or pronouns so I'm not sure what they're talking about without rereading the previous message.

To use a really brief but real-life example:

John the Top Replier:

The price is good on the new server.

I think we should take care of it ASAP.

Me:
> Hi John.
> I went ahead and specced out a new server. It's $2200 and probably six hours of labor.
> The competitive model from HP is $2900 and Dell is $3100 and there's some links here and here if you want to look at alternatives.
>
> Just to note, one of your backup drives is telling me it has self-detected errors.
>
> I want to go ahead and replace it, and that'll be $150 on top of the other costs for new hardware.



OK, reading that, is John approving a new server AND a backup drive or just the new server? It turned out that John didn't read (or remember reading, at least) the bit about the backup drive when I gave him my bill for last month and tried to have a hissy fit about a $3000 bill instead of a $2900 bill.

When I get a reply, I don't want a huge portion of old shit at the top; that's inefficient.

It's useful and necessary for anything longer than a paragraph. It's also EXTREMELY helpful when the reply you get is more than a few days old.

When I got to a new reply, I like to jump right to the bottom when maybe it'll be nicer at the top. I don't reread all the old info.

That's not how we read. It makes sense on a BBS to go to the most recent unread reply, but for example a lot of blogs default to put the most recent posting at the top of the page and go down from there. This makes it very difficult to read postings in chronological order. How would most-recent-first impact unread posts? Would the most recent unread be at the top or bottom of the list? And if it's at the bottom, how would previously-read posts be ordered?

 

[ddrueding]

...then reply with sentences or paragraphs using nonspecific nouns or pronouns so I'm not sure what they're talking about without rereading the previous message.

This is the problem, and replying in-line is a poor fix. The correct fix is having people communicate effectively by saying what they mean.

 

[Mercutio]

This is the problem, and replying in-line is a poor fix. The correct fix is having people communicate effectively by saying what they mean.

You implement your solution and I'll implement mine, and we'll see which one actually happens first.

 

[ddrueding]

You implement your solution and I'll implement mine, and we'll see which one actually happens first.

Considering we are discussing changing the behavior of users, I'm going with neither

 

[Handruin]

To use a really brief but real-life example:

John the Top Replier:

The price is good on the new server.

I think we should take care of it ASAP.

Me:
> Hi John.
> I went ahead and specced out a new server. It's $2200 and probably six hours of labor.
> The competitive model from HP is $2900 and Dell is $3100 and there's some links here and here if you want to look at alternatives.
>
> Just to note, one of your backup drives is telling me it has self-detected errors.
>
> I want to go ahead and replace it, and that'll be $150 on top of the other costs for new hardware.



OK, reading that, is John approving a new server AND a backup drive or just the new server? It turned out that John didn't read (or remember reading, at least) the bit about the backup drive when I gave him my bill for last month and tried to have a hissy fit about a $3000 bill instead of a $2900 bill.

In your example, it would not make any difference if the existing email was on the top or bottom. John doesn't know how to effectively communicate and or you have not adopted to his lazy style to get the answers to the questions you are asking him. You did a lazy instantiation of initiating the work.

Much like David said, the way to fix the issue is to fix the way the person is communicating. If the person to whom you are writing isn't replying to the information you are requesting, you need to adjust and adapt to get the answers you need.

I would have line itemized things to be specific and clear in such a way that requires minimal effort on his end to reply (which is what you are going to get any way). It's a little more upfront work from you, but you reduce additional followup emails and confusion. Always put the most critical information as close to the top of the email and forget about adding 100 lines of old information.

Hi John,

I spec'ed out a new server and it will cost $2200 and an estimate of six hours of labor. You also have a failed backup drive which should be replaced. The cost will be $150 for the new drive.

Do you want me to order the $2200 server?
In addition, do you want me to order the $150 replacement drive?

The competitive server model from HP is $2900 and Dell is $3100 and there's some links here and here if you want to look at alternatives. Please let me know if you want to go with an alternative. Your backup drives is telling me it has self-detected errors which is why I'm recommending it be replaced.

 

[Mercutio]

If John were a reply-after-quote sort of person using a decent mail client, he could also have trimmed my message and quoted the part(s) that he was referencing so I knew where his sentences applied. This is a trifling amount of work and it greatly improves readability.

I have no reason to believe that putting anything in bold would actually improve his reading comprehension; I get crap in bold, italic all caps from time to time and those are the messages I'm most likely to ignore.

I don't like the torturous construction of your alternative message, either.

Some day, where there's a proper manual of style for E-mail, I will be vindicated in this matter.

 

[LunarMist]

I much prefer the newest reply to be on top. It is too difficult to scroll through 18 pages of messages over 2 years and 8 people to find what I want, especially on the BlackBerry.

 

[Handruin]

You're kind of ridiculous. John is who he is and you wanting him to be something else won't improve your email to each other. You can hope until the cows come home but he isn't the reply-after-quote type of person as you've clearly discovered. If you were more direct in asking specific questions, you may have yielded better results from this specific client.

Putting it in bold clearly leads the eye to the location of importance in the message. Just because you ignore things in caps, italics, etc doesn't mean the average reader does this. That's part of being adaptive to your clients, not stubborn. There was nothing in my email that was torturous and you don't have to like it. If anything, your original email was unassertive leaving ambiguity to the next action from the client which is why you got a garbage response (garbage in garbage out). None of this has to do with an email client, but basic adaptive ways of interacting with the millions of styles of people who write email. You can very well continue to be stubborn and blame the email client and whichever location the quotation occurs but it's not going to help to have it in front of the reply.

Continue to be stubborn and hope for whatever you want in an email client and while doing so you can have reduced efficiency, frustration, and less business as you waste time communicating with your clients. It makes no difference to me.

 

[LunarMist]

Who is John?

 

[Howell]

Dammit, late to the party again ; )
Top posting just makes sense. Maybe should design mail clients to start at the bottom.

I'm tempted to start relying like this

It makes for a good punchline but horrible readibility.

 

[Howell]

It's not abnormal for me to write multi-paragraph emails dealing with multiple subjects, even in business communication.

And how many subject line characters does it take to be thorough?! It must look like Sufjan Stevens song titles!

I really hate that. It really screws with the information management forcing me to use search rather than scanning subject lines. I mean its not like you are waiting weeks for message transit or paying for messages individually. I often write multiple replies to messages like that just to break the subjects out into more manageable bits. Mixing non-urgent information with unrelated information that demands action is just cause for a punch in the thoat.

Some information is more urgent than other information so I can address them in due time.