Re: Gmane

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 08:13:48AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 9/10/06, Iain E. Davis <feaelin@...> wrote:
> >Are there mail programs out there that _don't_ do threading?
>
> Heck yes.
>
> MS Outlook, for starters.
Eww. I wouldn't touch Outlook with a 20-foot sterilized pole. I don't
even consider it as a viable mailer.


> Pegasus Mail.
Never heard of this one.


> Fastmail.FM (a webmail client). Hotmail. Gmail (though it groups
> messages into "conversations", that's still not the same as proper
> threading). I'd be a bit surprised if Yahoo! webmail did.
I doubt *any* webmail does any (proper) threading. Even on *nix, Pine
didn't (still doesn't?) have threading. Grouping into "conversations" is
a crippled form of threading that isn't what I was referring to.


> >I thought that tended to be a given in a mail client...
>
> Not in my experience.
[...]

Not in mine, either. It seems that threaded mailers nowadays are the
exception rather than the norm, unfortunately. Which is why I'm not
surprised that people find mailing lists difficult to manage.
High-volume mailing list + no (or improper) threading = inbox disaster.

(In fact, the first time I switched to a threading mailer was
immediately after I subscribed to my first high-volume mailing list.
After about 3 days, I had 600 messages in my mailbox, and realized that
there was absolutely NO way I was gonna keep up with my mail unless my
mailer had proper threading. That was when I learned to be good friends
with the Thread-delete command. Deleting individual messages was totally
out of the question. ... And people here think CONLANG was bad. If they
only knew...)


T

--
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.  Imagination without skill
gives us modern art. -- Tom Stoppard