Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
TheBat email client v4 (early alpha) - some observations
superboyac:
I know! Fume! This is excactly what's wrong with that! :) Do you ever need to press Alt+L in, I don't know, Notepad or Ultraedit? More fume!
-tranglos (January 24, 2008, 11:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
Exactly!! This, to me, is the most frustrating feature of the Bat. There are a couple of quirks with the message editor that I find really annoying. One is this wrapping issue, I don't know why they don't fix it and I don't understand why it should behave any differently than any other text editor.
The other issue is if you copy a paragraph of text from the Bat and paste it in a regular text editor, even though the paragraph is supposed to be one continuous wrapped line, it appears as multiple lines in the text editor. That means that the Bat doesn't keep track of wrapped lines and stuff, so if it appears as two lines, it really is two lines. It's annoying when you have to go back and forth with text between applications.
And what about long hyperlinks (web addresses)? If it's wrapped, sometimes it doesn't detect and connect the second line, even if you use the context-menu, hyperlink-specific options. Wasn't this problem solved years ago with most email clients?
Anyway, other than that, I'm happy with the Bat.
marek_mikus:
regarding nohtml inline, could you be a little more specific?
-mouser (January 24, 2008, 04:24 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sorry about that. :-[ Corrected original wording in my post; however, my questions have been addressed by Marek, except for the one about SmartBat. Well, maybe he already answered it. ;)
-CodeTRUCKER (January 24, 2008, 03:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
for 4.0, no changes are prepared for SmartBat/Scheduller except GUI changes, as I heard, scheduller improvements are planned for 4th generation, but do not when
marek_mikus:
I know! Fume! This is excactly what's wrong with that! :) Do you ever need to press Alt+L in, I don't know, Notepad or Ultraedit? More fume!
-tranglos (January 24, 2008, 11:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
Exactly!! This, to me, is the most frustrating feature of the Bat. There are a couple of quirks with the message editor that I find really annoying. One is this wrapping issue, I don't know why they don't fix it and I don't understand why it should behave any differently than any other text editor.
The other issue is if you copy a paragraph of text from the Bat and paste it in a regular text editor, even though the paragraph is supposed to be one continuous wrapped line, it appears as multiple lines in the text editor. That means that the Bat doesn't keep track of wrapped lines and stuff, so if it appears as two lines, it really is two lines. It's annoying when you have to go back and forth with text between applications.
-superboyac (January 24, 2008, 03:33 PM)
--- End quote ---
old Microed used until 3.99 is not paragraph based, as I know, new one should be, must check this, it is implemented early.
And what about long hyperlinks (web addresses)? If it's wrapped, sometimes it doesn't detect and connect the second line, even if you use the context-menu, hyperlink-specific options. Wasn't this problem solved years ago with most email clients?
-superboyac (January 24, 2008, 03:33 PM)
--- End quote ---
how could program detect wrapped link in plaintext? surprise me :-)
tamasd:
I used Pocomail for three years previously (and Barca for a while when they first released it), and I recently looked at "The Bat!", but I simply don't wish to live with what I consider the "crippled" HTML rendering along with the extremely limited support of IMAP mail accounts. Personally, with common security protections on my PC (and other PCs I use) I have not seen any security threat from an HTML message that wouldn't easily be handled by an Antivirus and/or Anti-Spyware program.
-J-Mac (January 24, 2008, 01:00 PM)
--- End quote ---
1. Problems with HTML in Pocomail/Barca on forwards or replies are not intentional, ie. it's not to "increase security", it's due to a limited viewer/editor control used. Btw. AFAIK it is getting replaced.
2. I have seen antivirus programs fail recognizing security threats in html. No protection is 100%.
And I have no idea why these apps do not willingly support IMAP. Anyone know why IMAP is a problem with either Pocomail or The Bat!?
--- End quote ---
Not sure, my guess is that it's way more complex to implement, and way less people use it than the POP protocol.
All those apps are subject to allowing malware to use that path to spam people - I don't believe that's a valid concern. (Someone should point me to the last time that issue was recorded in the last five years. I cannot find any!)
--- End quote ---
Whether it's a valid or non-valid concern, depends on point of view. It certainly increases the security. Of course you can say that people shall patch their OS, always use latest up-to-date firewalls and antiviruses and antispywares and whatever, and you know what I do it, you do it, and few other people too, particularly those on this board and similar geek types. But try to see a majority user of those apps.
So IMHO it increases security (how much is another question, maybe it's just a very small increase in overall security, I don't know), but cutting down on functionality. Whether that's valid, depends on the user. You and I might hate it as we can secure our computers without having to sacrifice on functionality, but there might be others who sleep better thanks to it. (I have found several MAPI viruses discovered in 2004 and 2005 after some short search, though frankly I'm not an expert on that so I have no clue whether those threats would apply on what we are discussing.)
We are also speaking about future security. If IMAP has long history of past threats, would you now jump on it as a developer knowing that it was ok for last year or two, but not for the years before?
Anyway, I'd like to stress that I'm not supporting the "no IMAP" stance. I'm the "give me full powers, I decide" advocate.
CodeTRUCKER:
...there is new searching pane in viewer
-marek_mikus (January 24, 2008, 09:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
Would this happen to work like the character-by-character incremental parsing of messge bodies, subject, etc. of the "tree" including subfolders? (See Pocomail 4 "Focus" box)
-CodeTRUCKER (January 24, 2008, 03:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
do not know about Pocomail, but no, this is related to searching text in preview of message
-marek_mikus (January 24, 2008, 03:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
Hmmm... there is a little utility value in searching in the body of a preview for specific text (if I understand you right?), especially if the search parses character-by-character, but I would have very little use for such a thing, personally. I can see it being a boon to lawyers, contract writers, etc. My needs are not so critical, but it is improtant for me to be able to locate specific strings in past e-mails (up to 25,000+ so far) quickly. I know I can use the full search feature, but this is a matter of convenience, I guess? My think ing is you can't do anything to an e-mail until you have it.
Here is the link to the free 30-day trial of Pocomail4 download if you want to check out the competition's method of handling a quick search. Don't misunderstand me I am not playing tit-for-tat here, nor am I trying to start a mail client flame war. I only see that there is a capability in a competing product that I would LOVE :-* to see in TheBAT! Thanks again for joining the thread. :Thmbsup: I wish more developers/representatives would do so.
<edit> spelling and clarifications </edit>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version