Re: Mulberry - the future?

--On Monday,  24 Feb 2014 08:03:16 +0000 David Bonde
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 13 feb 2014, v 7, at 23:28, John C Klensin
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> 
> I use subaddresses a lot, for which Mulberry's support is
> adequate but not wonderful.
> 
> How is it adequate? I have installed Thunderbird specifically
> for this purpose (with some extensions that allows me to edit
> the From-line at will) just because Mulberry does not support
> it at all.

First, I use a lot of identities (as Bill mentioned -- including
here for completeness) covering the subaddresses I use most
often.   Second, use of "custom identity" allows me to type
anything I want in the address fields.  So I contend the support
is present.

I'd certainly like to have Mulberry assume that, if a message
arrives with a forward-pointing subaddress and I reply to it,
that address should be the starting point for the "From:" field
whether it is specified as an identity or not.  I'm also
irritated by the amount of clicking and typing "Custom Identity"
requires in an outgoing message (Click on identity field, select
"Custom Identity" and click there, click on the identity
selector button that then appears, click on the "active" box,
click on the "Name" field and key  that in, click on the "Email"
field and fill that in, click on "ok") when I'd like to have
fewer steps and much of that information prefilled.   That is
enough to qualify for "not wonderful" but it an annoyance that
is insignificant compared to my real concerns (although, were
someone to open the code, I'd hope it would turn out to be a
trivial change to improve on principle).

> Regarding Stephen F?s complaints about shared calendars, I
> create appointment and simply enter ?Private? in the
> description for just the specific examples you mentioned. No
> one has ever complained or questioned that. It could be a
> doctors appointment and what should they say about that?

Matter of taste.  I prefer that calendar fields inform me but
not anyone else.  "?Private?" avoids informing others at the
price of not informing me about what the appointment is about
either.

Again, unless someone comes up with a plan that would lead to a
new and updated version, these sorts of discussions are just
speculation (and, for me, fairly depressing speculation at that).

   john