4 ms·
All of this is great, except the first two sentences: > I haven’t used a desktop email client in years. None of them could handle the volume of email I get wit
by purpled_haze 11y ago
All of this is great, except the first two sentences:
> I haven’t used a desktop email client in years. None of them could handle the volume of email I get without at least occasionally corrupting my mailbox.
If I were to get so many emails that it was corrupt my mailbox, I'd first ask myself why, and how to stop that.
- aaronem 11y agoI wouldn't. If your daily workflow includes a high volume of email, then it does. What I would ask is: is there a way I can solve this problem without having to totally rearrange how I use email? I'm curious whether the author looked at, say, running a personal MDA that served mail over IMAP, so that it could be interacted with via a desktop email client, without requiring that client to serve as the point of truth. Not to say that corruption couldn't still happen that way, but Thunderbird (for example) can be configured to store only a subset of messages locally, or none at all. With a reasonably fast connection to the MDA, this seems like a possibly workable solution.
- purpled_haze 11y ago> If your daily workflow includes a high volume of email, then it does. Not necessarily. For example, if you have monitoring software sending you all email notifications, you could change that to just write records to a database instead.
- aaronem 11y agoI suppose I'm giving the person in question credit for being able to see the blindingly obvious.