Proper threading?

[Steve Lamb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:40:14 +0100, Dr. Martin R. Hadam wrote:

> This is not a very well thought out response. Sorry. You keep ignoring
>the main point.

    No, I don't.  I am offering the best solution possible right now.

>You're stubbornly denying the fact that I want to have
>unread messages first and any other message sorted by subject only.

    No, I am not denying it.  *IT IS BROKEN, THIS IS THE BEST FIX.*  What
part of that is "denying."

>This is not doable with PMMAIL in any of its versions. Yet it's the way
>probably most people would handle and file incoming information.

    Actually, no.  I'd much prefer referenced base threading if I could.

> Does this imply we have to wait until v3 to get this corrected? No -
>that's again difficult because it would break compatibility to v2 and
>v1. .....hmmm......

    Yes.  Because when v3 comes out it will be a change.  It isn't backwards
compatibility I am talking about, it is compatibility between the two versons
of PMMail currently out for public consumption, PMMail98 and PMMail/2.  They
will have to make the change to both simultaniously otherwise people who use
both versions on the same machine will no longer be able to.  This
changeover, the last I heard, was slated for v3.0.

> What have you been smoking? Don't try to tell me that one could not do
>a separate sort priority setting called "unread only". And if it needs
>to be broken, break it! NOW!

    What have I been smoking?  Nothing.  I'm only telling information that I
am privvy to that my NDA with Southsoft doesn't prevent me from telling you.
And while it is all fine and good that you want it broken, I'm sure the
people who use PMMail/2 and PMMail98 on the same machine would have a
different opinion.  Currently, you're inconvenienced but there are viable
work arounds.  Southsoft breaks compatibility between the two platforms and
those people cannot use PMMail at all on one or the other platforms and for
that, there is no work around.  

    Now, sit back and tell me, which do you think is the rational course of
action here?  Breaking the product for paying customers to appease a select
few people who can't abide by the work around, or tell those who can't abide
by the workaround options until it can be fixed IN A RATIONAL MANNER.

> I'd say 99 of 100 users will not sort for priority, sent or replied-to
>mail. Yet more than 90 of those 99 will put "unread" on top of their
>sort list.

    Then sort by received, or subject then received.

> Sorry, if you're the one out of a hundred who selectively reads his
>own sent mails first <eg>

    No.  I'm one of the 99 who understands what is going on and am making do
with the workaround until Southsoft can fix the problem in a manner so that
they don't lose customers.  I'm sorry you're the 100th asshole who can't see
that.  My mistake for thinking you were a rational person.

- -- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN11WlXpf7K2LbpnFEQIzhQCgvDsrQGxaszr46thz+Yk8g5KXFuAAnjXq
uEr80ZzqsuDtehgtLWD6g9JH
=HOzo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----