4 ms·

NO. It's your mail client makes these distribution groups a pain in the ass, not email.

by jimbobimbo 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago
Agreed. I use Sup[1] and it's wonderful. Threaded, extremely fast search (indexed), configurable, etc. [1]: http://sup.rubyforge.org/ http://sup.rubyforge.org/
drivebyacct2 14y ago
NO. It's the fact that the server stores no archive of content. NO. It's the fact that ALL functionality has to be implemented in a thick client. NO. It's the fact that I just started working there, and thus am missing out on AGES of content that have been available to me instantly in FAR SUPERIOR FASHIONS using software that is built to store Wiki, Docs, Forums, etc, in centralized, indexed, searchable, archived formats that is far more useful for "social network" and documentation purposes.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >It's the fact that the server stores no archive of content. And that's still not a problem of email. That's a problem of your employer's competence. They should have an archive. Everything else you mention are client problems.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    It's so painfully obvious just from looking at the email model that that is not true. A lack of a central index? Separate content types that by their very nature contain more information? A searchable archive? None of those things are naturally part of email and providing them, at best is work, at worst is cludgy and unnatural.
    - slowpoke 14y ago
      You're thinking of this in the completely wrong way. Why should email - the protocol - offer you all of this? It's nonsense, and goes against basic UNIX philosophy (do one thing). It does another part of the UNIX philosophy very well, though: it's a universal interface. Email can be used to communicate between all sorts of applications, and those applications can give you the features you want easily. Which brings us back to what you're complaints amount to: client problems.

4 ms·

NO. It's your mail client makes these distribution groups a pain in the ass, not email.

by jimbobimbo 14y ago

NO. It's your mail client makes these distribution groups a pain in the ass, not email.

icebraining 14y ago
Agreed. I use Sup[1] and it's wonderful. Threaded, extremely fast search (indexed), configurable, etc. [1]: http://sup.rubyforge.org/ http://sup.rubyforge.org/
drivebyacct2 14y ago
NO. It's the fact that the server stores no archive of content. NO. It's the fact that ALL functionality has to be implemented in a thick client. NO. It's the fact that I just started working there, and thus am missing out on AGES of content that have been available to me instantly in FAR SUPERIOR FASHIONS using software that is built to store Wiki, Docs, Forums, etc, in centralized, indexed, searchable, archived formats that is far more useful for "social network" and documentation purposes.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >It's the fact that the server stores no archive of content. And that's still not a problem of email. That's a problem of your employer's competence. They should have an archive. Everything else you mention are client problems.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    It's so painfully obvious just from looking at the email model that that is not true. A lack of a central index? Separate content types that by their very nature contain more information? A searchable archive? None of those things are naturally part of email and providing them, at best is work, at worst is cludgy and unnatural.
    - slowpoke 14y ago
      You're thinking of this in the completely wrong way. Why should email - the protocol - offer you all of this? It's nonsense, and goes against basic UNIX philosophy (do one thing). It does another part of the UNIX philosophy very well, though: it's a universal interface. Email can be used to communicate between all sorts of applications, and those applications can give you the features you want easily. Which brings us back to what you're complaints amount to: client problems.