From: demerphq Date: 18:42 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Thunderbird reply to all behavour Dear Thunderbird, A few hours ago I sent out a mail to some coworkers and I wanted to follow up on it with some more information. Since there have been no replies to the mail yet it made sense to me to hit 'reply-to-all' to my own mail. Now in exactly what universe does it make sense to send it 'To' myself and 'Cc' the other, originally 'To', recipients? You fucking hateful piece of shit, if gmail can get this right so can you* yves * Gmail would sensibly send it 'To' the original recipients and not include me in the distribution list at all.
From: lists-hates-sw Date: 19:11 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 07:42:59PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > Dear Thunderbird, > > A few hours ago I sent out a mail to some coworkers and I wanted to > follow up on it with some more information. Since there have been no > replies to the mail yet it made sense to me to hit 'reply-to-all' to > my own mail. > > Now in exactly what universe does it make sense to send it 'To' myself > and 'Cc' the other, originally 'To', recipients? > > You fucking hateful piece of shit, if gmail can get this right so can you* Not that i'm defending Thunderbird too much, it is indeed a hateful bit of software, but on my system it /does/ do the correct thing. This is wierd.
From: Robert Rothenberg Date: 19:34 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 29/10/07 19:11 lists-hates-sw@xxxx.xxx wrote: > Not that i'm defending Thunderbird too much, it is indeed a hateful bit of > software, but on my system it /does/ do the correct thing. This is wierd. Are you using 2.0? Perhaps that bit of hatefulness has been fixed.
From: Jody Belka Date: 19:48 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 07:34:54PM +0000, Robert Rothenberg wrote: > > Not that i'm defending Thunderbird too much, it is indeed a hateful bit of > > software, but on my system it /does/ do the correct thing. This is wierd. > > Are you using 2.0? Perhaps that bit of hatefulness has been fixed. I am indeed, yes.
From: Robert Rothenberg Date: 21:48 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour ------=_Part_245_416980.1193694480377 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain Linux distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? On 29/10/2007, Jody Belka <lists-hates-sw@xxxx.xxx> wrote: > > > Are you using 2.0? Perhaps that bit of hatefulness has been fixed. > > I am indeed, yes. > > ------=_Part_245_416980.1193694480377 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <br>Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain Linux distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available?<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 29/10/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jody Belka </b> <<a href="mailto:lists-hates-sw@xxxx.xxx">lists-hates-sw@xxxx.xxx</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > Are you using 2.0? Perhaps that bit of hatefulness has been fixed.<br><br>I am indeed, yes.<br><br></blockquote></div> ------=_Part_245_416980.1193694480377--
From: demerphq Date: 22:25 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 10/29/07, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain Linux > distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? Like Ubuntu? Hate. yves
From: Peter da Silva Date: 23:58 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 29-Oct-2007, at 17:25, demerphq wrote: > On 10/29/07, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain >> Linux >> distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? > Like Ubuntu? Is it really that hard to "./configure; make install"?
From: demerphq Date: 00:09 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 10/30/07, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 29-Oct-2007, at 17:25, demerphq wrote: > > On 10/29/07, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > >> Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain > >> Linux > >> distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? > > > Like Ubuntu? > > Is it really that hard to "./configure; make install"? That requires dealing with hateful software to get the sources in the first place. Hate on top of hate. :-) Yves
From: Gerry Lawrence Date: 00:54 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour ------=_Part_176_9812557.1193705690057 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thunder-turd -- yes it's hateful but in this particular case I think you've been bit by the "Reply-to" and "Sender" debacle -- Thunder-turd can at least usually get THAT simple thing right. There are so many other thunder-turd things that are so hateful. Take,for example, thunder-turds complete inability to handle attachments in a sane fashion. No, not just that. The way it makes you SUFFER OVER AND OVER AGAIN. What's that? You checked the "always do this in the future"? Good for you. You think tbird will remember? bawawawhahahahahha!. Apparently this is not completely the fault of the 'turd -- a certain linux vendor is equally to blame. If you're downloading an attachment of a particular mime type, one that it's never seen before, you'll probably get a dialog box but the part where you say "always do this" will be greyed out -- a persistent bug with tbird that's been there for years. I guess it doesn't happen enough for them to care. Mostly they don't test UNIX system anyway. If you have an attachment with an "extension" that it doesn't recognize, tbird will render unto you a stupid error. Yay! Can I have another? Thurnder-turd downloads attachments twice -- once when you click on the subject and AGAIN when you try to access the attachment. Good job! I just love waiting, like all people do. Thunderbird does not determine which SMTP server to use based on the From: address you use -- it will use the one that was part of the account that happened to be active when you started typing your email -- no way to change that once you've composed your message. I just love it when it sends WORK email through my PERSONAL server and vica-versa. Yay. Oh, and then there's the setup of t-turd. You can enter an IMAP server, but you'll have to wait until it errors out and then RECONFIGURE it to use ssl. Who the fuck uses non-ssl IMAP these days anyway? Oh, and let's say you want to use two different email addresses on the same server, that happen to use the same domain and the same login/password -- like foo@xxx.xxx and bar@xxx.xxx TOO FUCKING BAD. You'll need to find the dangerous "virtual ID" extension to get that to work. Junk mail detection is useless, but somehow still manages to get in your way until you turn it off. Somehow the turd manages to always suggest the wrong address - usually one you've mistyped ONCE in an email 3 years ago while ignoring the correct email address that you've used 50 times last week. How does it know? And then there's the stupid pop-up modal dialog boxes? ARE YOU SURE? ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE SURE? Too stupid to save your work and make things "un-doable" the turd constantly forces you to pander to its insecurities. Yes I'M FUCKING SURE I WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE WITHOUT A SUBECT -- AGAIN. LEAVE ME ALONG YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!!!! I could go on, for hours and hours but what's the use? Should I try evolution? ------=_Part_176_9812557.1193705690057 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <br>Thunder-turd -- yes it's hateful but in this particular case I think you've been bit<br>by the "Reply-to" and "Sender" debacle -- Thunder-turd can at least usually get THAT simple thing right. <br><br>There are so many other thunder-turd things that are so hateful.<br><br>Take,for example, thunder-turds complete inability to handle attachments in a sane fashion. No, not just that. The way it makes you SUFFER OVER AND OVER AGAIN. What's that? You checked the "always do this in the future"? Good for you. You think tbird will remember? bawawawhahahahahha!. Apparently this is not completely the fault of the 'turd -- a certain linux vendor is equally to blame. <br><br><br>If you're downloading an attachment of a particular mime type, one that it's never seen before, you'll probably get<br>a dialog box but the part where you say "always do this" will be greyed out -- a persistent bug with tbird that's been there <br>for years. I guess it doesn't happen enough for them to care. Mostly they don't test UNIX system anyway.<br><br>If you have an attachment with an "extension" that it doesn't recognize, tbird will render unto you a stupid error. Yay! Can I have another? <br><br>Thurnder-turd downloads attachments twice -- once when you click on the subject and AGAIN when you try<br>to access the attachment. Good job! I just love waiting, like all people do.<br><br>Thunderbird does <span style="font-weight: bold;"> not</span> determine which SMTP server to use based on the From: address you use -- it will use the one that was part of the account that happened to be active when you started typing your email -- no way to change that once you've composed your message. <br>I just love it when it sends WORK email through my PERSONAL server and vica-versa. Yay.<br><br>Oh, and then there's the setup of t-turd. You can enter an IMAP server, but you'll have to wait until it errors out and then RECONFIGURE it to use ssl. Who the fuck uses non-ssl IMAP these days anyway? <br><br>Oh, and let's say you want to use two different email addresses on the same server, that happen to use the same domain and the same login/password -- like <a href="mailto:foo@xxx.xxx">foo@xxx.xxx</a>; and <a href="mailto:bar@xxx.xxx">; bar@xxx.xxx</a> TOO FUCKING BAD. You'll need to find the dangerous "virtual ID" extension to get that to work.<br><br>Junk mail detection is useless, but somehow still manages to get in your way until you turn it off. <br><br>Somehow the turd manages to always suggest the wrong address - usually one you've mistyped ONCE in an email 3 years ago while ignoring the correct email address that you've used 50 times last week. How does it know? <br><br>And then there's the stupid pop-up modal dialog boxes? ARE YOU SURE? ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE SURE? <br>Too stupid to save your work and make things "un-doable" the turd constantly forces you to pander to its insecurities. <br>Yes I'M FUCKING SURE I WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE WITHOUT A SUBECT -- AGAIN.<br>LEAVE ME ALONG YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!!!!<br><br><br>I could go on, for hours and hours but what's the use?<br><br><br>Should I try evolution? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> ------=_Part_176_9812557.1193705690057--
From: Matt McLeod Date: 02:21 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:54:50 -0700, "Gerry Lawrence" <gwlperl@xxxxx.xxx> said: > Should I try evolution? Only if you've got a masochistic streak. The biggest problem with Thunderbird is that all the other GUI IMAP MUAs suck even more. Matt
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 04:26 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour * Matt McLeod <matt@xxxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-30 03:30]: > The biggest problem with Thunderbird is that all the other GUI > IMAP MUAs suck even more. Purportedly Mulberry sucks less, except for, it's written for an OS powered by purified hate... And anyway, is there a *terminal* MUA for IMAP that doesn't suck? By all appearances there's no passable IMAP client at all. Considering the complexity of IMAP that may be unsurprising... Regards,
From: Timothy Knox Date: 05:52 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 05:26:22AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Matt McLeod <matt@xxxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-30 03:30]: > > The biggest problem with Thunderbird is that all the other GUI > > IMAP MUAs suck even more. > > Purportedly Mulberry sucks less, except for, it's written for an > OS powered by purified hate... > > And anyway, is there a *terminal* MUA for IMAP that doesn't suck? Well, mutt almost doesn't suck. Unfortunately, the default config *does* suck, so you have to be prepared to read the (not too badly written) manual, and the (reasonably commented) full config, but I have managed to make it not suck too much, but as always, YHMV*. *Your hatefulness may vary.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 14:41 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour * Timothy Knox <tdk@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-30 07:00]: > Well, mutt almost doesn't suck. Unfortunately, the default > config *does* suck, Yeah. I have a long article about how to make mutt not suck in the pipe -- it's been sitting there for about two years. Mostly I was stymied by having to explain how to make SMTP work with an external MTA... which was not that bad for me, but isn't easy to explain to a neophyte. Now that I find 1.5 can talk SMTP itself, maybe it's time to finish that. Regards,
From: Tony Finch Date: 18:43 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > Purportedly Mulberry sucks less, except for, it's written for an > OS powered by purified hate... Mulberry is cross-platform. However it was originally written for the hopless pre-X Mac OS. > And anyway, is there a *terminal* MUA for IMAP that doesn't suck? Alpine irritates me the least. Tony.
From: demerphq Date: 08:59 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 10/30/07, Matt McLeod <matt@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:54:50 -0700, "Gerry Lawrence" <gwlperl@xxxxx.xxx> > said: > > Should I try evolution? > > Only if you've got a masochistic streak. > > The biggest problem with Thunderbird is that all the other GUI IMAP MUAs > suck even more. Which is amazing really considering that gmail mostly doesnt suck. So how is it that a web email client ends up being superior to pretty well every fat client for email ive ever used? yves
From: Gerry Lawrence Date: 10:03 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour ------=_Part_868_14963072.1193738583517 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Which is amazing really considering that gmail mostly doesnt suck. Google "gets it" -- others are playing catch-up. So how is it that a web email client ends up being superior to pretty > well every fat client for email ive ever used? Simple: DESIGN. It's designed to let people send and receive email. It's not designed so the programmer has an easier task. You can eliminate a lot of software hate with just one design goal: NO DIALOG BOXES. gmail still has a FEW of them, and they are hateful, but it's far less than others and I think they'll eventually get rid of all of them. Google may be hateful as a company, but they "get it" -- here's a short history of the computer world: IBM Microsoft Google. That's it. ------=_Part_868_14963072.1193738583517 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <br><br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Which is amazing really considering that gmail mostly doesnt suck.</blockquote><div> <br><br>Google "gets it" -- others are playing catch-up.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">So how is it that a web email client ends up being superior to pretty <br>well every fat client for email ive ever used?</blockquote><div><br>Simple: DESIGN. It's designed to let people send and receive email. It's not designed so the programmer has an easier task. <br><br>You can eliminate a lot of software hate with just one design goal: NO DIALOG BOXES. <br><br>gmail still has a FEW of them, and they are hateful, but it's far less than others and I think they'll eventually get rid of all of them.<br><br><br><br>Google may be hateful as a company, but they "get it" -- here's a short history of the computer world: <br><br>IBM Microsoft Google.<br><br>That's it.<br><br><br><br></div></div> ------=_Part_868_14963072.1193738583517--
From: Abigail Date: 13:09 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0400, Gerry Lawrence wrote: >=20 > Google may be hateful as a company, but they "get it" -- here's a short > history of the computer world: No. Google doesn't get it. Google is hateful. Most companies don't upgrade their APIs in incompatible ways, several times a year. Google does. While end-of-living their older API versions at most a couple of months after their new API gets live. Google doesn't get it. At all. Abigail --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHJyz/BOh7Ggo6rasRAq58AJ4/ctJ8O0/XiqwfATRvabswVSiMGQCgtcg7 eWvWyEiVxCOej5qj44KhBT8= =0w14 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--
From: demerphq Date: 13:58 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 10/30/07, Abigail <abigail@xxxxxxx.xx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0400, Gerry Lawrence wrote: > > > > Google may be hateful as a company, but they "get it" -- here's a short > > history of the computer world: > > > No. Google doesn't get it. > > Google is hateful. > > Most companies don't upgrade their APIs in incompatible ways, several > times a year. Google does. While end-of-living their older API versions > at most a couple of months after their new API gets live. > > Google doesn't get it. At all. Its a big company. Maybe the gmail department is less hateful than the rest :-) Yves
From: Peter da Silva Date: 18:44 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour > Google "gets it" -- others are playing catch-up. I find the gmail web interface sucks a lot more than either Apple Mail or using fetchmail and elm. The way they only let you see threads is really annoying. I don't work that way, a discussion I'm in can involve multiple people and multiple message threads, and I just want to see each new message as it comes in. Plus, they're not using IMAP internally, so even if they didn't suck they're not an exception to the all IMAP clients suck theory.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 14:53 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour * demerphq <demerphq@xxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-30 10:05]: > So how is it that a web email client ends up being superior to > pretty well every fat client for email ive ever used? Because they're not beholden to the IMAP specification, is my guess. I mean I like the IMAP protocol on some levels, but have you looked at how ambitious it really is? It's highly stateful and has tons of genericity designed in. Writing a good client for it is the work of a lifetime. Webapps define their own one-off protocols, usually designed not for genericity but for making that one specific app UI not suck too bad, and always based on a stateless and addressable protocol. Regards,
From: Robert Rothenberg Date: 11:28 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 30/10/07 00:54 Gerry Lawrence wrote: > Take,for example, thunder-turds complete inability to handle attachments in > a sane fashion.... You want fun. How about saving or deleting the attachments from a message with 200+ attachments? What annoys me about Thunderbird (and some other applications) is that the dialogue boxes have no maximum size, so if they include some large bit of information, the borders scroll off the screen (and sometimes the Cancel/Ok buttons as well). > Thunderbird does not determine which SMTP server to use based on the From: > address you use -- it will use the one that was part of the account that > happened to be active when you started typing your email -- no way to change > that once you've composed your message. > I just love it when it sends WORK email through my PERSONAL server and > vica-versa. Yay. That seems to be an issue not just with applications but operating systems (including Windows and OS/X) on laptops in general. How hard is it to have the laptop check which network it's on when it's started up and configure default e-mail addresses, servers, printers, etc.? > like foo@xxx.xxx and bar@xxx.xxx TOO FUCKING BAD. You'll need to find the > dangerous "virtual ID" extension to get that to work. Extension? Multiple IDs are built into it. > Junk mail detection is useless, but somehow still manages to get in your way > until you turn it off. It works pretty well for me. > Somehow the turd manages to always suggest the wrong address - usually one > you've mistyped ONCE in an email 3 years ago while ignoring the correct > email address that you've used 50 times last week. How does it know? Newer versions seem to prefer the one you've used more often and recently. But you can always delete the mistyped one from your Collected Addresses and it'll go away. Rob
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 12:00 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour Robert Rothenberg wrote: > On 30/10/07 00:54 Gerry Lawrence wrote: > >> Take,for example, thunder-turds complete inability to handle attachments in >> a sane fashion.... > > You want fun. How about saving or deleting the attachments from a message > with 200+ attachments? For serious Thunderturd fun you can also try accidentally selecting more than one message and then hitting Reply. Guess how many Compost, err, Compose Message windows are created? Guess how much fun I had once when I had a few hundred messages selected?
From: Yossi Kreinin Date: 12:24 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > For serious Thunderturd fun you can also try accidentally selecting more > than one message and then hitting Reply. Guess how many Compost, err, > Compose Message windows are created? Guess how much fun I had once when > I had a few hundred messages selected? > I wonder if the machine recovered (without leaving corpses of innocent processes)...
From: Robert Rothenberg Date: 13:14 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 30/10/07 12:00 Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > For serious Thunderturd fun you can also try accidentally selecting more > than one message and then hitting Reply. Guess how many Compost, err, > Compose Message windows are created? Guess how much fun I had once when > I had a few hundred messages selected? If you select multiple messages and hit the Forward button, you get the same hateful effect. But if instead you open the context menu (right click), you get a Forward as Attachments option.
From: Gerry Lawrence Date: 14:17 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour ------=_Part_1864_23139848.1193753838707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You want fun. How about saving or deleting the attachments from a message > with 200+ attachments? Oh my frickin gawd I forgot about that one. There's an extension that fixes this annoying behaviour, btw. > Thunderbird does not determine which SMTP server to use based on the > From: > > address you use -- it will use the one that was part of the account that > > happened to be active when you started typing your email -- no way to > change > > that once you've composed your message. > > I just love it when it sends WORK email through my PERSONAL server and > > vica-versa. Yay. > > That seems to be an issue not just with applications but operating systems > (including Windows and OS/X) on laptops in general. How hard is it to > have > the laptop check which network it's on when it's started up and configure > default e-mail addresses, servers, printers, etc.? There's some recent linux-foo associated with getting this right. In the 'turd's case, all it needs to do is figure out that if I'm sending FROM foo.com use foo.com's smtp server and if it's FROM bar.com us BAR's smtp server. How fucking hard is that? > Extension? Multiple IDs are built into it. Um, er.... no. The 'turd will not let you edit the "from" line -- see the extension "Virtual Identity" -- Warning - be careful with this extension-- it's a corker. (safety tip, turn OFF "smart" reply and "smart" draft -- they are anything but smart.) With virtual ID, If you have two accounts configured, you'll get a pulldown-menu with two addresses. No ability to use bar@xxx.xxx and foo@xxx.xxx unless you configure them as separate accounts. No ability to do THAT if the username and password are the same on the IMAP server. After all, how could it be a different email address if it's the same account? That doesn't make sense! duh. ------=_Part_1864_23139848.1193753838707 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <br><br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">You want fun. How about saving or deleting the attachments from a message<br>with 200+ attachments? </blockquote><div><br>Oh my frickin gawd I forgot about that one. There's an extension that fixes this annoying behaviour, btw.<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > Thunderbird does not determine which SMTP server to use based on the From:<br>> address you use -- it will use the one that was part of the account that<br>> happened to be active when you started typing your email -- no way to change <br>> that once you've composed your message.<br>> I just love it when it sends WORK email through my PERSONAL server and<br>> vica-versa. Yay.<br><br>That seems to be an issue not just with applications but operating systems <br>(including Windows and OS/X) on laptops in general. How hard is it to have<br>the laptop check which network it's on when it's started up and configure<br>default e-mail addresses, servers, printers, etc.?</blockquote> <div><br>There's some recent linux-foo associated with getting this right. In the 'turd's case, all it needs to do is figure out that if I'm sending FROM <a href="http://foo.com">foo.com</a>; use <a href="http://foo.com">; foo.com</a>'s smtp server and if it's FROM <a href="http://bar.com">bar.com</a>; us BAR's smtp server. How fucking hard is that?<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Extension? Multiple IDs are built into it.</blockquote><div><br>Um, er.... no.<br><br>The 'turd will not let you edit the "from" line -- see the extension "Virtual Identity" -- <br>Warning - be careful with this extension-- it's a corker. (safety tip, turn OFF "smart" reply and "smart" draft -- they are anything but smart.) <br><br>With virtual ID, If you have two accounts configured, you'll get a pulldown-menu with two addresses. No ability to use <a href="mailto:bar@xxx.xxx">bar@xxx.xxx</a>; and <a href="mailto:foo@xxx.xxx">foo@xxx.xxx </a> unless you configure them as separate accounts. No ability to do THAT if the username and password are the same on the IMAP server. After all, how could it be a different email address if it's the same account? That doesn't make sense! duh. <br><br><br><br></div></div> ------=_Part_1864_23139848.1193753838707--
From: Peter da Silva Date: 18:53 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 30-Oct-2007, at 06:28, Robert Rothenberg wrote: > That seems to be an issue not just with applications but operating > systems > (including Windows and OS/X) on laptops in general. How hard is it > to have > the laptop check which network it's on when it's started up and > configure > default e-mail addresses, servers, printers, etc.? Apple's locations get you halfway there. I've got a halfway finished program I call OnLocation that runs rc-style start and stop scripts when you leave or enter locations or change SSID, and there's a couple of programs out there to automatically switch locations based on DHCP, SSID, and so on. Apple really needs to clean up and properly export the location and SSID in a regular API so you don't have to figure it out by grepping the output of scselect and /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/ Apple80211.framework/Versions/A/Resources/airport. The hatefulness of that is only partly mitigated by the fact that at least it's exposed in something greppable.
From: Robert Rothenberg Date: 11:07 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 29/10/07 22:25 demerphq wrote: > On 10/29/07, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain Linux >> distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? > > Like Ubuntu? > > Hate. I've not yet upgraded to Greasy Gibbon. (Won't risk wasting a day or two that I can't spare for possible hate, after my experiences with upgrading to Festering Fawn.) Are they still using 1.5 there too?
From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez Date: 11:16 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 30/10/2007, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 29/10/07 22:25 demerphq wrote: > > On 10/29/07, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > >> Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain Linux > >> distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? > > > > Like Ubuntu? > > > > Hate. > > I've not yet upgraded to Greasy Gibbon. (Won't risk wasting a day or two > that I can't spare for possible hate, after my experiences with upgrading to > Festering Fawn.) Are they still using 1.5 there too? No, they use 2.0.0.6. So that's fixed. However, after upgrade, I've had a bad surprise. Every time you now receive a mail, you have a bloody huge notification zone taking almost half of your screen saying that <your email address> has received several mails from <list of senders> <with preview of contents>. That's disturbing. However I quickly found the dialog to disable this new annoying invention.
From: Paul Orrock Date: 11:26 on 31 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > On 30/10/2007, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> On 29/10/07 22:25 demerphq wrote: >>> On 10/29/07, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: >>>> Just a guss: maybe the hatefulness is better directed at certain Linux >>>> distributions that do not yet make Thunderbird 2.0 available? >>> Like Ubuntu? >>> >>> Hate. >> I've not yet upgraded to Greasy Gibbon. (Won't risk wasting a day or two >> that I can't spare for possible hate, after my experiences with upgrading to >> Festering Fawn.) Are they still using 1.5 there too? > > No, they use 2.0.0.6. So that's fixed. > However, after upgrade, I've had a bad surprise. Every time you now > receive a mail, you have a bloody huge notification zone taking almost > half of your screen saying that <your email address> has received > several mails from <list of senders> <with preview of contents>. > That's disturbing. However I quickly found the dialog to disable this > new annoying invention. > Oh good, pleeeeeeaaase tell me where it is. I can't find the fucking thing. I wouldn't mind if it actually had some sensible behaviour ! I get several hundred emails a day, cronjobs, hostmaster / postmaster mails, lists etc. and most of them are left unread and are largely for reference. I have them filtered into different folders so my Inbox only gets stuff that I need to know about right now. However when an email comes in it seems to just randomly scan the folders for unread email whether new or not and tell me about it. It's usually a completely different folder to the one that mail has actually come in to as well. How about an only emails in Inbox option ? I'd even settle for emails you've actually just downloaded, rather than ones that you feel I should read. /me wanders off muttering.
From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez Date: 11:37 on 31 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 31/10/2007, Paul Orrock <paulo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > However, after upgrade, I've had a bad surprise. Every time you now > > receive a mail, you have a bloody huge notification zone taking almost > > half of your screen saying that <your email address> has received > > several mails from <list of senders> <with preview of contents>. > > That's disturbing. However I quickly found the dialog to disable this > > new annoying invention. > > > > Oh good, pleeeeeeaaase tell me where it is. I can't find the fucking > thing. I wouldn't mind if it actually had some sensible behaviour ! Edit->Preferences->General->Show an alert.
From: Andy Armstrong Date: 11:18 on 30 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour On 30 Oct 2007, at 11:07, Robert Rothenberg wrote: > I've not yet upgraded to Greasy Gibbon. (Won't risk wasting a day or > two > that I can't spare for possible hate, after my experiences with > upgrading to > Festering Fawn.) Are they still using 1.5 there too? 2.0
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 22:38 on 29 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Thunderbird reply to all behavour * Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-29 20:45]: > Are you using 2.0? Perhaps that bit of hatefulness has been > fixed. Interesting; my recent upgrade to mutt 1.5 seems to have affected this also. mutt 1.4 was not quite as broken as Thunderbird 1.x: it would put all the original recipients in Cc: and leave To: empty. So I always had to manually delete the To: line and change Cc to To. A nuisance, but not actively hateful. But in mutt 1.5 even that quirk is gone. Regards,
Generated at 10:28 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi