6 ms·
To make it worst, "outstanding" software such as outlook or gmail (and others, they're just examples) still don't know how to present threads properly (as in wh
by mshook 6y ago
To make it worst, "outstanding" software such as outlook or gmail (and others, they're just examples) still don't know how to present threads properly (as in who replied to whom), a problem that has been solved for at least 30 years...
So not only you have to read all the replies from bottom to top but replies to different emails in the stack are just sorted by date so they also get presented out of order in the stack.
- kqr 6y agoI think in many ways this is the actual problem. Since these email clients doesn't display threads correctly, their users have to send emails that include the entire thread of conversation as full-text quotes.
- marcosdumay 6y agoIt's email. There is no guarantee that the receiving end has the thread to display, even if you have sent it earlier.
- dredmorbius 6y agoDecent clients can forward threads, as attachments (typically in mbox format, I believe), which decent receiving clients can read, natively.
- einpoklum 6y agoBut decent clients don't and shouldn't forward threads...
- dredmorbius 6y agoWhy on Earth not? They're simply ASCII files, of various encodings. And mutt does, QED.
- mark-r 6y agoWhat if the thing you're responding to is a response to another response from someone else? You shouldn't need to click 4 different messages just to understand the context. I like being able to see the context without doing anything more strenuous than rolling the mouse wheel.
- upofadown 6y agoGmail is bad in lots of ways but it is free. It's a case of "What do you want for nothing?". Outlook OTOH is something that a business usually pays for. Someone should be able to walk into that business and do a presentation for something that just blows Outlook away. But that never happens, even these days when Microsoft is not the monopoly it used to be.
- burrows 6y agoIt’s not free. The price/payment operations are hidden. “Free” is a magical-marketing-mind-control-incantation.
- dylan604 6y ago>Gmail is bad in lots of ways but it is free. While gmail may not cost users money, it is far from free. The average Joey Beercan just doesn't understand that the actual cost is hidden. I'm not sure if the exact cost that G has had on society is/can be fully understood
- leephillips 6y agoI use mutt, which is free (and open source). Mutt knows how to thread properly, and gives me control over threading, as well. So I'm always confused about people's explanation for why top-posting is better, until I remember that they're probably using something like Gmail.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoIf only gmail was free. I made a mistake some years ago and accidentally dropped out of the "free" category. It now costs me US$12/month (along with whatever other gapps i want, mostly). No way to go back (without using a new email address; since I own my own domain, that's not happening).
- jdofaz 6y agoIf you use google as your registrar they will forward to gmail (or anywhere) for free.
- globular-toast 6y agoGmail actually advertised threading as one of its top features. In 2004, decades after it was already sorted.
- u801e 6y ago> To make it worst, "outstanding" software such as outlook or gmail (and others, they're just examples) still don't know how to present threads properly (as in who replied to whom), a problem that has been solved for at least 30 years Interestingly enough, Outlook Express was perfectly capable of properly threading messages. I've always wondered why that feature was in Outlook Express, but not in Outlook itself.