[Users] [Bulk] Re: Claws config needs much better documentation

[Michael Gmelin]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:02:56 +0530
Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Kevin Chadwick
> <ma1l1ists at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > The default for "Open message when selected" (in
> >> > Display/Summaries) is unsafe.
> >> >
> >
> > I always figured this was a nice feature that claws  with certain
> > plugins enabled and even more so other clients should follow in
> > order to allow deletion without virus execution or image handler
> > exploitation etc..
> >
> > A bit like download headers and delete spam with viruses before
> > download when using pop3.
> 
> That would be fine if it matched with what people *expect* from other
> email clients.  IME no other mail clients do this, so it is a
> surprise.  And not a good surprise either.
> 
> The behaviour you spoke of should be implemented more explicitly.  For
> example the checkboxes in gmail let you do just that.  In claws as is,
> I'd say "hide the message view and then move to a message to have that
> safety".

In my understanding claws focuses on useful features which are
presented in a more or less programmer style way (sometimes you just
dig through the rc files to find a configuration settings, the dialogs
tend to be crowded and full of advanced options etc.). And you know
what? I dig that, because it means it is not hiding anything from me
for the sake of usability (Apple), or trying to invent useless features
instead of fixing year old bugs (TB). I switched to claws only a few
weeks ago and it's already second nature to me - everything is so easy
and straightforward and clearly designed by tech people - it's great
for someone like me :)

It doesn't behave like other MUAs and I don't think it should
try to emulate them. There are too many similar working clients
out there already, and making features that are special to claws the
default actually forces people to explore them (and how to change them
if it's not what they want). I wouldn't have found this useful feature,
that you criticize as dangerous, otherwise. It's incredibly refreshing
to see software with a different approach - open source productivity
applications way too often try to copy commercial products instead of
providing alternative solutions.

I cannot speak for the project owners, but to me the project philosophy
is not to create a 100% polished product that's a seamless
replacement for the MUA that came with the OS. It's for people that are
willing to invest into the configuration of their MUA to get the best
possible tool for *their* use case - essentially people that are not
satisfied with the usual 90/10 approach most user-friendly software
takes these days. Wasting development resources to make it more like
other programs seems pointless to me.

Just my 2 cents...


-- 
Michael Gmelin