RE: A Game (Email - Kelly)

> > VM=3F The Vax operating system=3F Virtual Machine=3F=0D=0A>=20=0D=0A> T=
here's an MUA that runs in Emacs (on unix _and_ Windows) called VM.=0D=0A> =
Is it that one, I wonder=3F=0D=0A=0D=0AOk.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> Gmail seems to h=
ave excited people.=0D=0A=0D=0AI haven't been agressively attacking the ema=
il problem for a while, so=0D=0Ait is possible that GMail has some very coo=
l stuff that I'm not aware=0D=0Aof. I'm personally turned off the "webness"=
 of the application. Now if=0D=0Ait were an AJAX application, I would proba=
bly be more excited about it.=0D=0AAlso, to use GMail, you have to change y=
our email address. If you could=0D=0Aaccess your POP3 server with Gmail, th=
at would be kind of cool. That=0D=0Amight be enough to get me to switch for=
 example.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> Whatever mystery thing Microsoft Research are wor=
king on=20=0D=0A> looks quite exciting too.=0D=0A=0D=0AWhere can you find o=
ut more=3F Or is it secret stuff=3F=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> Neither has features th=
at haven't been thought of, and wished=20=0D=0A> for, before.  The ideas ar=
e ancient.  But they're actually=20=0D=0A> putting in the effort to impleme=
nt those features.=0D=0A=0D=0AMy basic point is that email is a MAJOR produ=
ctivity application. Why=0D=0AWOULDN'T you apply more CPU power to making i=
t easier to use=3F Perhaps=0D=0A1/2 of 1% of your CPU time is dedicated to =
processing email, and you may=0D=0Aspend 10-30% of your time reading email.=
 These two numbers seem grossly=0D=0Aout of sync to me.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> > I=
 didn't explain myself well enough. Imagine a combo box=20=0D=0A> (why a co=
mbo=20=0D=0A> > box=3F Because it's easy to imagine) containing "Father", =0D=
=0A> "Programmer",=20=0D=0A> > "Student", "Homeowners Association", etc. Wh=
en you pick "Homeowners=20=0D=0A> > Association" the emails you see are sor=
ted in such a way=20=0D=0A> that emails=20=0D=0A> > from the other board me=
mbers of your homeowners association=20=0D=0A> are at the=20=0D=0A> > top o=
f the list. When you pick "Programmer", emails to the=20=0D=0A> XP list are=
=20=0D=0A> > featured more prominently, etc.=0D=0A> >=20=0D=0A> > This is v=
ery different than just +ing the priority.=0D=0A>=20=0D=0A> I agree that wo=
uld be a very nice feature.=0D=0A=0D=0AThe mechanism I had visualized for a=
ccomplishing this was to have each=0D=0A"Role" have it's own filter list. I=
'm a Eudora user from way back, so=0D=0Athat effects my way of looking at t=
he problem.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> > > Slogan: "The MUA that reads your mind!"=0D=0A=
> >=20=0D=0A> > Now you're on the same wavelength with me.=0D=0A>=20=0D=0A>=
 That too.=0D=0A>=20=0D=0A> Also, when I mark a spam as "spam"(*), I'd like=
 the remaining 2000 new=0D=0A> mails(**) that are in my INBOX to be re-eval=
uated, so that=20=0D=0A> any which have become spams with high confidence w=
ill be=20=0D=0A> deleted immediately.=0D=0A=0D=0AThat is clearly part of my=
 plan. Constant reevaluation of everything=0D=0Abased on the new things lea=
rned.=20=0D=0A=0D=0AHowever, my plan was never to delete spam, unless the u=
ser does it. If=0D=0Ait's filtered low enough, you should never see it in y=
our top priority=0D=0Astuff, and you just stop reading email when you get d=
own into the noise.=0D=0AIf the rules are reevaluated, then something that =
was previously marked=0D=0Aas spam, might come to the top of the list.=0D=0A=
=20=0D=0A> (*) Or any other tag such as "father", "work" etc.=0D=0A=0D=0AI =
wouldn't do this with tags.=0D=0A=0D=0A> (**) I get 1000 spams daily.  It i=
s very annoying.=0D=0A=0D=0AMe too. Big problem.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> Seriously,=
 how about adding those features to Mutt=3F :)=0D=0A>=20=0D=0A> Pointedly: =
why not=3F  Thinking from the POV of a business, why=20=0D=0A> write a new =
MUA, instead of enhancing an existing one=3F=0D=0A=0D=0AEssentially, I am e=
nhancing an existing client. I'm essentially=0D=0Arewriting Eudora. If I'm =
not mistaken there are more former Eudora users=0D=0Athan Mutt users, but I=
 could be wrong. I haven't studied Mutt very much.=0D=0AI have to apologize=
 for that. My program uses Eudora files, Eudora=0D=0Afilters, so switching =
back and forth is absolutely painless, just run=0D=0Athe other program. I j=
ust got sick of the fact that Qualcomm stopped=0D=0Amaking meaningful upgra=
des. Too busy focusing on where trucks are, I=0D=0Asuppose.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A>=
 I would much prefer using Mutt, which I'm used to and happy=20=0D=0A> with=
, with the above features added, over having to use a=20=0D=0A> totally dif=
ferent new MUA just for one feature, which=20=0D=0A> probably sucks for the=
 other features which matter to me.  I=20=0D=0A> probably wouldn't bother u=
sing the new MUA because of the=20=0D=0A> unpleasantness of changing, just =
for that feature.=0D=0A=0D=0AUnderstood. From my point of view, Eudora is w=
hat I'm used to.=0D=0A=20=0D=0A> I'm sure everyone else who is comfortable =
with their MUA=20=0D=0A> would rather adopt a new feature into it, than swi=
tch to some=20=0D=0A> completely different one.=0D=0A=0D=0AAgreed.=0D=0A =0D=
=0A> That suggests it would be better to produce an add-on which=20=0D=0A> =
adds the feature to several popular MUAs, instead of=20=0D=0A> providing a =
new MUA.  Or standardise a protocol, such as an=20=0D=0A> IMAP extension fo=
r that sort of thing.=0D=0A=0D=0AIt's an interesting idea, the IMAP extensi=
on. I have a bias against web=0D=0Abased applications because I enjoy a smo=
oth user interface experience. I=0D=0Acan see that perhaps that is a blind =
spot of mine.=0D=0A=0D=0A> > It's a lot of work :-(  AI isn't easy, and thi=
s is=20=0D=0A> definitely AI stuff.=0D=0A>=20=0D=0A> Your idea of different=
 roles affecting scoring needn't be AI,=20=0D=0A> and that would be useful =
by itself.  A genuine productivity=20=0D=0A> enhancement, I should think.=0D=
=0A=0D=0AYou could implement part of the roles without AI for sure.=0D=0A=0D=
=0AThe AI part is "what's the most important email I haven't read=3F" part.=0D=
=0A=0D=0AThanks for ALL of your input (speaking to the list). Very interest=
ing=0D=0Athoughts.=0D=0A=0D=0A-Kelly=20=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=
E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By rea=
ding the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full re=
sponsibility for taking protective action against such code. Sender is not =
liable for any loss or damage arising from this message.=0D=0A=0D=0AThe inf=
ormation in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It i=
s intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone els=
e is unauthorized.=0D=0A