This is great! I was wondering how you did it exactly so it could be duplicated. I was also wondering if you know if google knows about this. It seems simple enough to do, so what are they waiting for?
Just wondering if it would defeat the whole purpose of Gmail. But
with normal email i would delete all the previous replies to a message
except the most recent one. Is it better to do that with Gmail as
well? Probably not now that i think about it...
I haven't deleted a single valid email yet. I just archive them. As
for deleting the last one from a thread, that would require that noone
snips the previous talk in his reply, which many people including me,
do. It would also require that everyone replies to the exactly
previous email, so that you keep a full snapshot of the conversation
in the last email. That is ofcourse if you do care about such
meticulous archiving.
Gmail has been subtly suggesting that we don't *need* to delete
anything, and many people think it's a plot so that we keep more and
more information in here for Them to access at their leisure. Maybe
they're right. Or maybe it's just a marketing scheme. Saying "you have
so much space you don't need to delete an email ever" may be an
exageration, but it plays on peoples previous (bad) experiences with
email, where storage is an issue. We all have had to keep deleting
email from our email server at some point, so Gmail's catch line will
work wonders on us. Ofcourse as soon as you start using it you forget
about the space and start appreciating the well thought-out interface
and functionality itself, which is what we've been collectively doing
here at gmail-users :)
> Just wondering if it would defeat the whole purpose of Gmail. But
> with normal email i would delete all the previous replies to a message
> except the most recent one. Is it better to do that with Gmail as
> well? Probably not now that i think about it...
> I haven't deleted a single valid email yet. I just archive them. As
> for deleting the last one from a thread, that would require that noone
> snips the previous talk in his reply, which many people including me,
> do. It would also require that everyone replies to the exactly
> previous email, so that you keep a full snapshot of the conversation
> in the last email. That is ofcourse if you do care about such
> meticulous archiving.
> Gmail has been subtly suggesting that we don't *need* to delete
> anything, and many people think it's a plot so that we keep more and
> more information in here for Them to access at their leisure. Maybe
> they're right. Or maybe it's just a marketing scheme. Saying "you have
> so much space you don't need to delete an email ever" may be an
> exageration, but it plays on peoples previous (bad) experiences with
> email, where storage is an issue. We all have had to keep deleting
> email from our email server at some point, so Gmail's catch line will
> work wonders on us. Ofcourse as soon as you start using it you forget
> about the space and start appreciating the well thought-out interface
> and functionality itself, which is what we've been collectively doing
> here at gmail-users :)
> Fanis
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:52:06 -0400, Bryon Sommers
> > Just wondering if it would defeat the whole purpose of Gmail. But
> > with normal email i would delete all the previous replies to a message
> > except the most recent one. Is it better to do that with Gmail as
> > well? Probably not now that i think about it...
I delete about 50% of all emails coming in. Since Gmail does not offer
the option for a *true* "Select All", I rather delete irrelevant
threads, and pointless n00b's repeats, as I go through them, rather
than having to go through *ALL* of my email later on, when space does
become an issue.
I also tend to delete threads with attachments, since that feature is
also lackinging (visibility of attachment size through the folder
view).
If we don't delete the unnecessary mail NOW the chance to find it
tomorrow is significally reduced.
But recently I realized something that was not very pleasent - in fact
Gmail is targeting average - not heavy users like myself. Only for
them it's true that they don't have to delete - my box will be over
quota the next year...
> I delete about 50% of all emails coming in. Since Gmail does not offer
> the option for a *true* "Select All", I rather delete irrelevant
> threads, and pointless n00b's repeats, as I go through them, rather
> than having to go through *ALL* of my email later on, when space does
> become an issue.
> I also tend to delete threads with attachments, since that feature is
> also lackinging (visibility of attachment size through the folder
> view).
Kael, weren't you kicked from this group before?
I would really like it if we didn't start a whole new thread with your
anti-google views all over again...
> Kael, weren't you kicked from this group before?
Dear Triple 6, Ooop, Dear Triple 7,
What do you mean by being "kicked" from the this group ?: Ryan banned me ? I unsubscribed to the list ?
You behave like the cop of this list - more over, thanks to you another non-relevant message had been posted to the list.
You could have written a private message, haven't you ? Unless you just want to try to heap opprobrium in public - as you are used to do with "n00bs" ?
> I would really like it if we didn't start a whole new thread with your
> anti-google views all over again...
BamaG33K is referring to a third-party attempt to provide IMAP access
to Gmail, sortof like how POP Goes the Gmail allowed users to have POP
access to Gmail before they added POP access. I wouldn't put any trust
in these solutions as far as not doing bad things to my mail; I also
wouldn't give my password to a non-Google server. They are out there,
though.
