What does Penelope need to move forward?
Allie
First-time poster here, but long time user of eudora, and watcher of the
penelope Bug List. While I'm sure the developers of Penelope are making
heroic efforts, I believe that most would agree that, for those who
crave eudora features, the only solution is staying with, or moving back
to, Eudora 7.1.
I moved to TB when Eudora was proving unusable in a low-bandwidth, IMAP
situation. I have missed the session saving & mdi features of Eudora
more than anything else. The task queue also pains me to live without.
It absolutely STUNS me how lacking email clients are in their
feature-sets. Email clients must be one of the most used pieces of
software in the world, yet you can't close them and keep all your old
open messages available upon reopening! This is simply amazing to me.
So my question is: what is it that Penelope needs to move forward at a
much more rapid clip? Is it money? People? Both? Changing the order
of priorities? What can we do? Eudora was a great product and came
from a private company - does Penelope need to be re-privatized somehow?
I, along with a bunch of others I'm sure, think that Penelope is a very
important project that could use a little something to help. I'd
appreciate hearing what others think.
Thanks,
Allie
Steve Maser
<als_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So my question is: what is it that Penelope needs to move forward at a
> much more rapid clip? Is it money? People? Both? Changing the order
> of priorities? What can we do? Eudora was a great product and came
> from a private company - does Penelope need to be re-privatized somehow?
IMO, what's holding back "Penelope" is really "Thunderbird 3.0".
I don't think TB3 has officially even gone "beta 1" yet (the
latest-trunk downloads all still say "3.0b1pre" on them...)
The "penelope" developers probably have their hands tied somewhat until
TB3 progresses further...
- Steve
Allie
I've heard that, but... tomorrow will mark *2 years* since the last
Eudora release (7.1). I think it's legit to consider this
very-slow-moving at this point. While I'm sure the developers are doing
all they can given the circumstances (thus my question - how can we
change the circumstances?), I think there's not too much to show for a
2-year-old product (and I'm being kind). I find it hard to believe that
TB3 is really responsible for that.
allie
Allie
I've heard that, but... tomorrow will mark *2 years* since the last
Allie
I've heard that, but... tomorrow will mark *2 years* since the last
rickman
I'm not sure you understand what has happened with Eudora. It used to
be a Qualcomm product and was dropped from further development. They
were nice enough to release the sources to the public domain. So
there was some amount of time following the 7.1 release until the code
was opened up. Now volunteer developers are working to duplicate
Eudora based on TB code. Clearly the first real release is going to
take a while.
I feel lucky that Eudora has not just up and died!
Allie
It's true that I'm not familiar with all the details of the timeline of
the eudora code releases. So - how long has the code actually been
available then? Regardless, it's not just the "public" who is working
with Penelope as I understand it. Some of the Qualcomm developers are
working full time on it, no?
I absolutely feel like Eudora HAS just up and died! I'm glad that there
is a project like Odysseus that at least gives SOME hope of future
Eudora functionality in my lifetime. And I'm grateful that Qualcomm has
been as supportive of the transition as they have been. But I've lost
hope in Penelope. I hope I'm proven wrong. I'd like to be a *little*
more proactive than just giving up on Penelope though, and hence I'm
wondering about how to change things to let it succeed.
The debate here seems to be one of whether Penelope will, in any
reasonable timeline, actually bring about important eudora functionality
to Thunderbird if left in its current context. I would be happy to
reconsider my position if there were a list of accomplishments so far.
But as I understand it, Penelope is basically able to put a Eudora skin
on Thunderbird, and do some Eudora-settings imports. It also maps some
keys. In all this time, they haven't gotten out of stage 0.1 alpha.
What I consider to be important features (albeit a very self-centered
view) are *very* far down on the priority list in the bug list. The bug
list is long, and it's not getting shorter very quickly (that's an
understatement).
allie
John H Meyers
> I'm not sure you understand what has happened with Eudora. It used
> to be a Qualcomm product and was dropped from further development.
It's still a product being created basically by Qualcomm,
although development was sort of shifted to Mozilla's platform,
with the same developers (see below).
> They were nice enough to release the sources to the public domain.
> So there was some amount of time following the 7.1 release
> until the code was opened up. Now volunteer developers
> are working to duplicate Eudora based on TB code.
Eudora original source was never released to public domain
(parts of it do not even belong to Qualcomm,
none of it is cross-platform for Win/Mac, nor is any of it for Linux),
but some of the Qualcomm developers continued on Qualcomm's payroll
(working from Qualcomm offices, using Qualcomm servers)
with "Penelope/Eudora8" as their new project -- the latter is based on
Thunderbird's "open" source, which is what will remain "open source."
Although anyone can volunteer to contribute,
it takes much time to learn and become effective;
most people also need a paycheck from somewhere
to continue making a living while "volunteering,"
and infrastructure to work in and on, so most development
seems to have come from people and facilities
for which Qualcomm keeps paying
(how long will that continue, and has anyone yet moved on?)
Signs of life for Eudora are said to remain at Qualcomm,
although nothing new has been released since last February:
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13661
Original source it isn't
(some of the user forum posts below are also quite misinformed):
http://www.linux.com/feature/119019
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=10559
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=12966
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=34319
--
rickman
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:27:46 -0500, rickman wrote:
> > I'm not sure you understand what has happened with Eudora. It used
> > to be a Qualcomm product and was dropped from further development.
>
> It's still a product being created basically by Qualcomm,
> although development was sort of shifted to Mozilla's platform,
> with the same developers (see below).
I see you used the word "product". Surely it is *not* a product, at
least not in the commercial sense.
> > They were nice enough to release the sources to the public domain.
> > So there was some amount of time following the 7.1 release
> > until the code was opened up. Now volunteer developers
> > are working to duplicate Eudora based on TB code.
>
> Eudora original source was never released to public domain
> (parts of it do not even belong to Qualcomm,
> none of it is cross-platform for Win/Mac, nor is any of it for Linux),
> but some of the Qualcomm developers continued on Qualcomm's payroll
> (working from Qualcomm offices, using Qualcomm servers)
> with "Penelope/Eudora8" as their new project -- the latter is based on
> Thunderbird's "open" source, which is what will remain "open source."
>
> Although anyone can volunteer to contribute,
> it takes much time to learn and become effective;
> most people also need a paycheck from somewhere
> to continue making a living while "volunteering,"
> and infrastructure to work in and on, so most development
> seems to have come from people and facilities
> for which Qualcomm keeps paying
> (how long will that continue, and has anyone yet moved on?)
>
> Signs of life for Eudora are said to remain at Qualcomm,
> although nothing new has been released since last February:http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13661
>
> Original source it isn't
> (some of the user forum posts below are also quite misinformed):http://www.linux.com/feature/119019http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=10559http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=12966http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=34319
I stand corrected. I will have to say I don't understand Qualcomm's
interest in creating a Eudora look-alike in the open source domain.
Why are they paying for any of this? Also, if they *are* paying, why
don't they have a plan with a schedule? Not many companies are
willing to fund an open ended development effort... other than Windows
perhaps. That seems to be always "under construction".
Tim Streater
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:27:46 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> declaimed the following in comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows:
>
>
> > I'm not sure you understand what has happened with Eudora. It used to
> > be a Qualcomm product and was dropped from further development. They
> > were nice enough to release the sources to the public domain. So
>
> Qualcomm did NOT release sources to the public.
>
> The FAQ states that Qualcomm was "moving Eudora to an open-source
> development model" -- but NOT that they were releasing the existing
> source code base. In essence, all that moved was the name "Eudora" to
> the new developers who are now patching Thunderbird to look like Eudora.
>
> http://www.linux.com/feature/119019
> """
> Last fall, Qualcomm announced plans to join forces with the developers
> of Mozilla's Thunderbird email client to produce an open source version
> of Eudora. Since some code in the original Eudora client is proprietary,
> engineers needed to rebuild the application from scratch.
> """
> and
> """
> Another point of clarification Beckley stresses is the source code
> origins for Penelope and Eudora. "This project is being implemented with
> no source code from the previous versions of Eudora. The original Eudora
> source code contains some proprietary portions from third parties that
> we are unable to distribute under open source. So there is no easy way
> to 'move' features from Classic Eudora to the new Eudora/Penelope. All
> changes have to be reimplemented."
> """
>
> "Penelope" is a look&feel plug-in running on the established
> Thunderbird base code. "Eudora 8" -- when it appears -- will be a
> modified version of the Thunderbird code itself rather than a plug-in;
> some of the more esoteric features of Eudora can not be done with a
> plug-in, hence needing the TB code to be modified.
Eudora 8 already exists and is at beta 3. But that's where it's been
stuck since about Feb 2008
mpom...@gmail.com
> In article <Wbednd7Tcbs5JnLVnZ2dnUVZ_ojin...@earthlink.com>,
They are still working on Eudora 8.
They hold a meeting every day on IRC Chat on the #penelope channel at
Mozilla.
They seem to be making progress and are using the TB 3.0 code. They
were discussing last week the next beta plans based on the release/
freeze for the TB 3.0 code.
I think people think that they are just putting a "SKIN" on TB. I
dont believe that to be true. I think it will feel more like Eudora.
The early betas they have released were just the initial work on the
project and that was moslty just changes to the look and menus.
I am hoping that the next beta will be better.
They (The Eudora Development Team) could probalby do a MUCH better job
of communicating the status of the project to us fans.
Allie
I'm glad to hear they're still going. I don't think most people's
impression is that the *goal* of the project is to skin TB. Rather, I
think the impression is (I can at least speak for myself) that that's
all they've actually accomplished and seem focused on. The important
features that need to be ported to TB still remain to be touched. They
all lie down at priority level 5 or less in the bug list (see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&product=Penelope
)
Let me make a correction: They are still working on alpha versions (the
latest extension release is 0.1a22). They haven't made it to beta yet.
They are still in the Release 0.1 phase, which is listed here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Penelope . The tasks in Release 0.1 include:
* Importers for your mail store and contacts
* Remapping of accelerator keys
* Basic settings and personalities
This is why I perceive there has been very little progress in Penelope.
They haven't gotten through remapping of accelerator keys and basic
settings yet! I'm sure that's a bigger task than I give it credit for.
But still, it has been 2 years since the last Eudora release. That's
out of control. Again, I hope I'm proven wrong.
Has Qualcomm decided not to press for the development of Eudora anymore?
Is that why it's going so slowly? It was mentioned before that it's
not a normal open-source project. Is entry for the average open-source
contributor difficult, and thus things aren't moving forward? I find
that very likely. If so, anyone know how that might be remedied?
allie
Tim Streater
Allie <als_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Alpha versions of the skin, perhaps. The reference you give here also
talks about Eudora 8.0.0b3.
Allie
Ah, you're right. Extension alpha, Eudora beta. I'd love to hear an
explanation for THAT one. The extension is not meant to be a "skin"
(see discussion above). Rather, pretty much the entire Eudora
modification, or at least all that's possible to fit in an extension.
From the 8.0.0b2 release notes: "Most features in Penelope can be
accessed when used with Thunderbird, but there are a few that require
Eudora in order to work correctly and it's not something that gets tested."
Regardless, they are still stuck in 0.1 neverland. According to the
wiki, the importers are still "rough". Personally, I think moving on to
more important features rather than frittering about importers and
keymaps would be wise. There's no reason to import if the features are
missing. And addressing whatever is responsible for the current lack of
progress is of utmost importance.
allie
j...@unspameljefe.net
wrote:
>I've heard that, but... tomorrow will mark *2 years* since the last
>Eudora release (7.1). I think it's legit to consider this
>very-slow-moving at this point. While I'm sure the developers are doing
>all they can given the circumstances (thus my question - how can we
>change the circumstances?), I think there's not too much to show for a
>2-year-old product (and I'm being kind). I find it hard to believe that
>TB3 is really responsible for that.
Well, consider this the dumbass question of the day, but...
What's NOT in two-year-old Eudora 7.1 that makes it any less
functional for most users? What is it you guys are hoping to see in
"Eudora 8" that would constitute a huge improvement over v7.1?
When I think of all the versions I've used over the years (starting
with 1.5.3), I like the stability of the later versions. And
Personalities was a big step up. But some of the "improvements"
(MoodWatch, for instance) were just plain useless and dumb (IMNSHO,
heh).
You know what I'd like to see? (Don't all scream at once, lol.) I'd
like to be able to highlight and change the font of any message
listing. I'd also like to show it in bold or italic if I want. In v6,
I can change the color, but not the font. Whyzzat? And I'd like more
Label color options instead of just seven. And I'd like a choice of
colors for my various mailbox names, so I'm not stuck with 100
black-on-grey titles. I'd like to able to edit INCOMING headers, at
least to the extent where I can delete massive lists of addresses some
wonk has decided to put in TO or CC, instead of BCC. And I'd prefer to
delete stuff I consider inconsequential, like all this trace troute
junk:
>DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=key1; d=myalaskaair.com;
> h=From:To:Subject:Date:Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-version:Content-type; i=Alaskaair...@myalaskaair.com;
> bh=iDmcqfuH2jAMZq8siUItK3T6Zq4=;
> b=vLBxAOX9dsQhs97zKNXLlQdI7G0Ev15mOeoY6aFEOBSBPTiedv5Td2k++0Kkvv6KkchMMEGzwStY
> 876wYfb/06v0QH8RY3AXqjqCcGGxqeeY6BVtcOtQXSBqVXwQKcVk
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=key1; d=myalaskaair.com;
> b=0QzhRQrh5/aOzaw1v5sW0h9qDXmtOkuNoJEP1d5RKfffQUxnWu18ltuuQ7ajdHbJtXQnN8+X7uVT
> dwDPIaZ6sL6+Smo3VKyUtyPomjsgq5ujVlfy1TnSdWklXV/TKXoK;
>Received: from seabcw3wcw1.seavvw3.local (172.20.25.39) by email1.myalaskaair.com (PowerMTA(TM) v3.2r14) id hmphna0fisk7 for
Jeez! Who gives rats? I sure don't. All I want is To, From, Subject,
Date. That's plenty. If I wanted more I could hit the blah blah
button.
But that's just me. What are you guys hoping for?
JJ
Allie
I don't consider that a dumbass question - i'll give my own perspective
on it. I'd like to see better stability, especially when dealing with
IMAP. I can't count the number of times that Eudora 7.1 would crash,
closing all the windows I had left open to work on. Or the process
queue would screw up when in a low-bandwidth situation. Stuff like
that. Other than that, there aren't too many other features I was
hoping to get out of the new Eudora. Perhaps one new feature would be
better HTML email authoring. And filtering based on personality is a
must (ie, MUST we apply all filters to all accounts?). But basically, I
just want a Eudora 7.1 that actually works well, which 7.1 didn't all
the time IMHO.
Once all hope of improved stability went out the window, I felt I had to
migrate to TB. I've found TB much more stable, though it doesn't try to
do as much as Eudora did/does, so it's a bit like comparing apples and
oranges. Still, session management in firefox is great, and even when
it crashes, if you use the right plugins with the right settings, you
can usually retrieve your old sessions. So, I have hope.
allie
John H Meyers
> I'd like to see better stability, especially when dealing with IMAP.
> I can't count the number of times that Eudora 7.1 would crash...
For IMAP it was still "under development" (now sadly dead);
for POP it was perfected (and still is),
and for so many wonderful features, often remaining
"undiscovered treasure" by users who never explored it,
it was the "only."
--
John H Meyers
It looks as if the ship is about to get underway again,
seeing a post from Matt Dudziak, this very morning:
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13715
Quoting Matt:
"We were planning to post the next build
when the Thunderbird follks posted the Thunderbird Beta.
Thunderbird was delayed.
I expect we should be releasing a new Eudora build in the next week or two."
--
Allie
From what I've heard, the IMAP protocol itself is a nightmare, and
hence all clients are likely to always be "under development" to some
degree. I wonder if another protocol will ever come along to clean up
server-based email.
allie
Tim Streater
I'll test it but am not expecting much. They may be feeling pressure
from Odysseus.
rickman
>
> What's NOT in two-year-old Eudora 7.1 that makes it any less
> functional for most users? What is it you guys are hoping to see in
> "Eudora 8" that would constitute a huge improvement over v7.1?
> But that's just me. What are you guys hoping for?
I am pretty happy with the features. But I would like to see bugs
ironed out. That is my biggest peeve, bugs. Right now I am fighting
the reset of the divider bar between the message list and the preview
pane. Some folders seem to randomly reset the divider bar to a
default location when new mail is filtered into that folder...
sometimes, but not always. But always eventually. Very strange.
There are other issues as well.
j...@unspameljefe.net
wrote:
>I am pretty happy with the features. But I would like to see bugs
>ironed out. That is my biggest peeve, bugs. Right now I am fighting
>the reset of the divider bar between the message list and the preview
>pane. Some folders seem to randomly reset the divider bar to a
>default location when new mail is filtered into that folder...
>sometimes, but not always. But always eventually. Very strange.
>There are other issues as well.
Now that you mention it, I'd like to be able to set ALL the vertical
dividers just once for all the mailboxes. Surely someone can write a
script for the Tools/Options menu that would do that.
JJ
John H Meyers
> Now that you mention it, I'd like to be able to set ALL the vertical
> dividers just once for all the mailboxes. Surely someone can write
> a script for the Tools/Options menu that would do that.
Are you referring to "Eudora 8/Penelope" (subject of this thread),
or to column widths for mailboxes, for "Classic" Eudora through 7.1 ?
The latter are in Table of Contents (.toc) files for each individual mailbox.
rickman
What about the positioning of the bar between the message list and the
preview window? Is this also stored in the .toc file? I thought I
had looked there but didn't see a change when I modified this. But
then I don't know when this info is saved to the file.
John H Meyers
> What about the positioning of the bar between the message list and the
> preview window? Is this also stored in the .toc file?
> I thought I had looked there but didn't see a change when I modified this.
> But then I don't know when this info is saved to the file.
I just re-enabled my Preview Pane,
and positioned it at different heights for several different mailboxes.
As soon as I close each mailbox, I see that
the modification time of its .toc file gets updated.
I also see that each mailbox is independently remembering
the unique position of the horizontal "divider"
between message list and Preview pane, and that this persists
right across closing and re-opening Eudora.
I do not have filters sending mail into (and automatically opening)
each mailbox, so I can't test that additional function,
but I don't see any reason for that to change the divider positions.
There is one situation, however, in which Eudora will make a change
on its own -- if you move a divider way up to the top,
so that the message list is hidden,
the next time the same mailbox window opens,
the divider will be moved down to expose the message list.
I think that automatic correction of such extreme situations
is both useful and good design -- otherwise any number of other users
might be complaining that their message lists have disappeared
and denouncing Eudora instead for that alternate problem :)
These are fundamentally mailbox windows, rather than message windows,
after all, so they need to always be able to list some messages;
otherwise you would lose the ability to read any messages at all,
except for the single message last selected in the list.
So I think what we have here is proof of "Intelligent Design,"
just as some folks have long been searching for :)
Lack of sufficient memory might also be a problem,
because at some point each entire TOC must be read into memory
(and remains in memory all the time for In/Out/Trash/Junk);
in such cases, I would make sure to always close Eudora
before shutting down Windows, to prevent Windows from rushing
to terminate Eudora before everything has been written to disk.
Now I shall again disable my Preview pane, because I prefer
to open my messages normally, each having a whole window to itself,
which gives me much more room to see everything all the time,
and not have to spend half my time zipping the divider up and down,
to alternate between seeing more of the list vs. more of the message.
--
Jim Higgins
<wlf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I don't see any of that stuff UNLESS I hit the blah button. I've put
>most all such into the taboo headers list in the ini file.
>
>TabooHeaders=X-,Sender,List-,Mailing-List,Delivered-To,Errors-To,Return-Path,References,Received,Status,Message-ID,In-Reply-To,Mime-Version,Content-,Precedence,Old-,Resent-
That's the way to go and in the interest of keep it simple... you
(meaning the OP) can use as little as the first character of any
headers you want to exclude... just use enough characters to select
what you want to reject without also selecting something you want to
keep. Sort of like you already have with "X-" except just plain "x"
is enough. Instead of "Return-Path,References,Received" that could be
"Ret,Ref,Rec" or just "re" or even just plain "r" since I've never run
across an "r" header I wanted to see.
Give this a try if you just want to see Date:, To:, From:, CC: and
Subject:.
TabooHeaders=a,co,date-w,de,di,dk,do,e,fc,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,se,st,th,u,v,w,x,y,z
Granted you might some day encounter a header beginning with b, c, d,
f, s, or t that the above doesn't block, but that hasn't happened here
in years and it's easy enough to fix if it does.
rickman
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:08:14 -0500, rickman wrote:
> > What about the positioning of the bar between the message list and the
> > preview window? Is this also stored in the .toc file?
> > I thought I had looked there but didn't see a change when I modified this.
> > But then I don't know when this info is saved to the file.
>
> I just re-enabled my Preview Pane,
> and positioned it at different heights for several different mailboxes.
Yes, I found where it is stored in the .toc file. I put my text
editor into hex mode and waited for the file to change. Byte 54 seems
to be the one that is controlling the positioning of the bar. I don't
get why a filter action would cause that to change. I expect this is
a bug of some sort and I am seeing it a lot more frequently on this
setup than I was on my old setup.
I initially thought it was an issue with the info not being stored
correctly. But I can see that it is stored ok. It is getting
clobbered when a filter opens the mailbox. I have not been able to
figure out when it does and when it doesn't clobber things. Since
Eudora is not getting any further maintenance, unless there is
something I am doing wrong, I guess there is not way to fix this.
rickman
email. When the mailbox was opened, the file was written, but the
byte controlling the bar placement did not change, however the bar was
not in the correct spot. When the mailbox was closed without any
other changes, the .toc file was written again. This time the byte
controlling the placement of the bar was changed! So clearly Eudora
is resetting this to a default value inappropriately under undefined
circumstances.
John H Meyers
> I don't get why a filter action would cause that to change.
I have evidence to think it doesn't (see below).
> unless there is something I am doing wrong,
> I guess there is no way to fix this.
There's no such problem here -- I've just sent myself
several messages from an external account,
contrived to satisfy an existing filter condition
that will transfer to and open a personal mailbox.
Every single time that another incoming message arrives
and that mailbox opens, its preview pane divider
is exactly where I last set it
(I moved it between tests to make quite sure of that).
If you have any anti-virus, non-windows firewall, etc.,
try momentarily de-activiating them and see whether
it might make any difference.
There have in the past been such programs which have
inserted themselves between applications such as Eudora
and the lower file handling levels of Windows,
where they have managed to interfere with writing files,
causing various pains to Eudora -- in particular,
one ZoneAlarm update broke Eudora a few years back,
by failing to update TOC timestamps (and perhaps more),
resulting in a flood of "Eudora problems," all of which vanished
when a hurried next update to ZoneAlarm came out.
This might be a good time for any onlookers
to try their own experiments, post results,
and see how the votes tally up.
Ye olde Limerick:
I sat next the Duchess at tea;
It was just as I feared it might be:
Her rumblings internal
were simply infernal
and everyone thought it was me!
--
John H Meyers
How come it doesn't happen here?
You are jumping to a conclusion that Eudora is "doing" it,
whereas "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip" :)
Has there been any computer restart before a new experiment,
plus any deactivation of other low-level software?
--
j...@unspameljefe.net
<jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
I'm talking "Classic" Eudora through 7.1 (which is why I moved my butt
outta the other thread, heh). I haven't really played with much beyond
that, since I've been pretty content with the original system. It
seems the newer ones, including TB, try to emulate Outlook's format,
which I don't much care for.
Meanwhile, it sounds like I have to modify the .toc files in each
"Classic" mailbox to get my "verticals" where I want them. That's
essentially what I do, anyway, every time I create a new box and
adjust the sliders at the top. I take it E8/Penelope already allows
for that with one centralized setting?
JJ
j...@unspameljefe.net
Here's what I've already got in there. Obviously, doesn't seem to be
foolproof. Do I have something wrong in the X coding?
TabooHeaders=X-,Return-Path,Authentication-Warning,Auth-Received,Received,Message-ID,UserAgent,MIME-Version,References,In-Reply-To,Content-Type,Content-Transfer-Encoding,Content-Disposition,Status,Originating-IP,Originating-Email,Sender,OriginalArrivalTime,Spam-Flag,Scanned-By,Spam-Status,Spam-Level,TrueSenderIP,
SenderHTTPUserAgent,Mailer,TrueHostName,WebServer,Queue,Accept-Language,ELNK-Trace,
Symantec-TimeoutProtection,MIMETrack,DomainKey-Signature,Importance,Organization,
XData,
I've now added a second TabooHeaders line with the letters you show
above. Is that redundant, confusing to Eudora or irrelevant?
JJ
Allie
> I'm talking "Classic" Eudora through 7.1 (which is why I moved my butt
> outta the other thread, heh). I haven't really played with much beyond
> that, since I've been pretty content with the original system. It
> seems the newer ones, including TB, try to emulate Outlook's format,
> which I don't much care for.
I don't much care for it either! Hence, I've voted for the MDI
interface to be implemented on Penelope's bug list. You can see the
feature requests here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375993
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417230
Note they are *way* down the priority list. Sigh. IMHO, it's one of
the most important and obvious features, and goes along with session saving.
allie
Allie
Furthermore (just noticed this), they don't even have a target milestone
attached to implementing MDI! That is, there really is no plan for when
they intend to roll it out. Sigh (again).
(sorry for hijacking the thread back to penelope...)
allie
John H Meyers
> MicroSloth itself is reputed to have decreed MDI
> to have been a mistake (Notice how Word is no longer MDI)
When will IE7 no longer be "tabbed"? ;-)
Adobe's Reader can appear to be either way, IIRC;
too much flexibility no doubt confuses users, however :)
--
Allie
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:25:33 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> MicroSloth itself is reputed to have decreed MDI
>> to have been a mistake (Notice how Word is no longer MDI)
>
> When will IE7 no longer be "tabbed"? ;-)
Right - there are some folks calling for Penelope to add tabs. However,
I don't quite consider this to be MDI. Unless, of course, the tabs can
be "un-maximized". As far as I know, firefox lacks that capability. I
don't know about ie7 - i've been lucky enough to avoid windows update
sneaking it onto my machine so far.
allie
Jim Higgins
I don't know what "X coding" means.
Apart from the comma on the very end of the above, which isn't needed,
the content above is neither right nor wrong. The content is whatever
you want it to be based on what you want to hide from view.
You can definitely achieve the above in a far more compact form, but
that's your choice.
>I've now added a second TabooHeaders line with the letters you show
>above. Is that redundant, confusing to Eudora or irrelevant?
You should have only one TabooHeaders line.
Trust me and do the following. Close Eudora. Edit Eudora.ini to put
a semicolon in front of your old TabooHeader entry. That will comment
it out so Eudora won't see it, but you can restore it if you want to
by just removing the comma. Leave my TabooHeader line suggested
earlier (above) in place. Save Eudora.ini. OK, the worst is over and
there's nothing you can't change back easily.
Now start Eudora and look at some old messages and see if you like
what you see.
You can adjust the TabooHeaders line any time you need to, but past a
couple of headers that might be unique to your ISP or to someone you
correspond with, that line I suggest ought to pretty much do the job
as long as all you want to see is Date, To, From, CC, Subject.
If you're still having problems, you'll need to give maybe 5 examples
of the full header name you want to hide along with a list of the full
header names you always want to see. And the full TabooHeader entry
you're using at the time. We'll go from there.
This Taboo-Headers thing works really well so it's just a matter of
getting to the bottom of what you want to do vs what your TabooHeaders
line is actually doing.
Good luck.
rickman
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:37:42 -0500, rickman wrote:
> > Another data point... I was watching the .toc file as Eudora received
> > email. When the mailbox was opened, the file was written, but the
> > byte controlling the bar placement did not change, however the bar was
> > not in the correct spot. When the mailbox was closed without any
> > other changes, the .toc file was written again. This time the byte
> > controlling the placement of the bar was changed! So clearly Eudora
> > is resetting this to a default value inappropriately under undefined
> > circumstances.
>
> How come it doesn't happen here?
Probably the same reason it often doesn't happen here. It is
*intermittent*. It is dependent on something that I can't identify.
You seem to think it is anti-virus software or something similar. I
suppose anything is possible, but that seems unlikely.
> You are jumping to a conclusion that Eudora is "doing" it,
> whereas "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip" :)
>
> Has there been any computer restart before a new experiment,
> plus any deactivation of other low-level software?
Yes. Now what?
BTW, I also can't turn off the message about deleting the old messages
in the junk mailbox. I see several controls in the options.ini file,
but no documentation on them. Any ideas?
John H Meyers
> there are some folks calling for Penelope to add tabs. However,
> I don't quite consider this to be MDI. Unless, of course, the tabs
> can be "un-maximized". As far as I know, firefox lacks that capability.
Tsk, Tsk! Try Opera web browser -- it can do all that!
--
John H Meyers
> BTW, I also can't turn off the message about deleting the old messages
> in the junk mailbox.
This doesn't sound familiar to me.
> I see several controls in the options.ini file,
> but no documentation on them.
Do you mean Eudora.ini ?
http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/ini.html
There's also an extensive section with similar info,
titled "EUDORA.INI Settings File," in the Eudora manual,
available at http://eudora.com/download
or at http://eudora.com/techsupport/manuals.html
Older version manuals are also available:
http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2515hq.html
A complete list of option names, but no further info:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows/msg/a4fb742b3f152bf7
--
rickman
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:40:21 -0500, rickman wrote:
> > BTW, I also can't turn off the message about deleting the old messages
> > in the junk mailbox.
>
> This doesn't sound familiar to me.
I don't know what that means... I'm pretty sure I mentioned that I am
running under Vista Home Premium. Unfortunately that does not come
with the option of "downgrading" to XP. I expect all of the "new"
issues I am seeing are due to incompatibilities with Vista.
> > I see several controls in the options.ini file,
> > but no documentation on them.
>
> Do you mean Eudora.ini ?http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/ini.html
Yes, it's not in there. A search on "junk" yields nothing. This list
is not very complete. A Google search didn't turn up anything else.
> There's also an extensive section with similar info,
> titled "EUDORA.INI Settings File," in the Eudora manual,
> available athttp://eudora.com/download
> or athttp://eudora.com/techsupport/manuals.html
I tried looking in the help file which is supposed to include this,
but the old style of help is not supported under Vista.
> Older version manuals are also available:http://eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2515hq.html
>
> A complete list of option names, but no further info:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows/msg/a4fb74...
I'll take a look at the manual.
Allie
*That* kind of tabbed window I'd be up for. The firefox version, while
better than nothing, doesn't quite fit the bill for an email app, IMHO.
John H Meyers
> I don't know what that means... I'm pretty sure I mentioned that I am
> running under Vista Home Premium. Unfortunately that does not come
> with the option of "downgrading" to XP. I expect all of the "new"
> issues I am seeing are due to incompatibilities with Vista.
Or bugs with Vista, and/or with other critical vendor software
added to Vista (e.g. "security" suites).
The only two issues I regularly see about Eudora under Vista are:
1. Trying to store mail with the programs under "Program Files"
(Eudora for many years has provided the proper installation alternative)
2. Trying to select more than two address book entries using Ctrl+Click
(even Vista's own "Windows Explorer/My Computer" commonly stops working
and can't select more than two files with Ctrl+Click, so evidently
Vista Windows Explorer itself is incompatible with the rest of Vista :)
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=38267#post38267
Someone has recently pointed out that you can still use as many
Address Book entries as you want, just select two of them at a time
while adding them into "To:" etc.
> I tried looking in the help file which is supposed to include this,
> but the old style of help is not supported under Vista.
It would appear that Microsoft sacrificed its customers' interests
just to force application developers to switch,
but you can get back the deliberately removed "support,"
either from Microsoft itself, which released an official
download for restoring it, or from elsewhere:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows/browse_thread/thread/6b4ead141ce43968/
--
John H Meyers
> *That* kind of tabbed window I'd be up for.
So give Opera a try -- you can install as many web browsers as you like,
to compare them.
> The firefox version, while better than nothing,
> doesn't quite fit the bill for an email app, IMHO.
Thunderbird (Mozilla's separate email+news client)
seems intended to replace Outlook Express (now "Windows Mail"),
and of course is the basis for Qualcomm's open-source "Eudora 8"
(which hopes to add some Eudora-like features to Thunderbird,
and otherwise has nothing to do with "Classic" Eudora versions 1 thru 7).
Opera (above) happens to come with an integrated email+news+chat
client of its own, but that client "hears a different drummer,"
and is unlike anything else I've ever seen (e.g. there is no "Inbox"!)
I use Opera's mail client for newsgroups,
as may be seen from headers in this post.
--
j...@unspameljefe.net
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Trust me and do the following. Close Eudora. Edit Eudora.ini to put
>a semicolon in front of your old TabooHeader entry. That will comment
>it out so Eudora won't see it, but you can restore it if you want to
>by just removing the comma. Leave my TabooHeader line suggested
>earlier (above) in place. Save Eudora.ini. OK, the worst is over and
>there's nothing you can't change back easily.
Looks good!
>You can adjust the TabooHeaders line any time you need to, but past a
>couple of headers that might be unique to your ISP or to someone you
>correspond with, that line I suggest ought to pretty much do the job
>as long as all you want to see is Date, To, From, CC, Subject.
Also BCC, which isn't excluded, right? At least I didn't see anything
that looked like it would exclude it.
Thanks!
JJ
John H Meyers
> Also BCC, which isn't excluded, right?
"Bcc" is an outgoing header, which appears
in a separate "header area" of each "compose" window;
hopefully it should not be found on incoming messages,
or else it has failed its purpose :)
For an alternative to "Taboo Headers,"
try setting "Message Window" to "Compact"
in your "Content Concentrator" options
(not in the mailbox window preview, but in "Options"!)
This is available in any mode except "Light," and
will display only To/From/Subject/Cc headers actually present,
while the date appears in the message window title bar
(and in the message list); no need for "Taboo Headers"!
The "Blah blah" button (in each incoming message window)
always remains available to display all headers, whenever desired.
You can actually add "Date" (or other) headers
to the list which will be displayed,
by editing "EudoraCCProfiles.xml" in the "Program" files.
To add "Date," for example, insert the third line below,
after the others which are already present:
<profile name="Compact">
<element>Header<output>remove</output></element>
<element>Header<name>Date</name><output>display</output></element>
You may also re-arrange the headers display order, if desired.
This profile also controls the Preview pane's default "compact" headers.
--
Froggie the Gremlin
JJ, there's NEVER a BCC on an incoming msg... that why it's a "Blind Carbon
Copy"... <g>
---<ribbit>
John H Meyers
> there's NEVER a BCC on an incoming msg...
> that why it's a "Blind Carbon Copy"...
Chorus: "What, never?"
Captain: "No, never!"
Chorus: "What, never?"
Captain: "Well, hardly ever!"
"HMS Pinafore" by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/web_opera/pin04.html
As one of those rare exceptions,
I just downloaded a message actually containing a "Bcc" header.
It was downloaded via POP from my own Gmail account,
from which I had sent that message, with a Bcc.
Any messages that were composed by and stored in the same account,
whether at Gmail or while using any IMAP account,
and which contain an originating "Bcc" header,
will be downloaded with that header intact.
On other rare occasions, some SMTP servers
which were given no "To" header in a message
may insert all SMTP recipients (including those from Bcc,
even though the client does not send that header)
into a "To" header, thus exposing the "Bcc list."
This is one reason why many email clients
always supply a "To" header when you omit one yourself,
saying something like: To: "Undisclosed recipients":;
just to guard against SMTP servers which might do that.
More info about potential exposure of "Bcc" list:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.mail+news/msg/358091a929550a73
The Opera web browser's integrated email client
neglects the preventive measure mentioned above,
which motivated that posting (and its entire thread).
--
John H Meyers
> I always missed not seeing Date: in the message window
You might also try adjusting:
X-Eudora-Option:PreviewHeaders
Default value:
To:,Subject:,Cc:,Bcc:,X-Attachments:
My own setting:
Date:,From:,To:,Subject:,Cc:,Bcc:,X-Attachments:
This would presumably be the only way to adjust the preview
in "Light" mode (which disables Content Concentrator).
--
j...@unspameljefe.net
<Fro...@see.sig.for.details> wrote:
>JJ, there's NEVER a BCC on an incoming msg... that why it's a "Blind Carbon
>Copy"... <g>
>
>---<ribbit>
D'OH!!! :)
JJ
John H Meyers
> you might like to see the bcc line in saved outgoing messages
> so you can see who you sent them to.
Always visible by default; not under control of "TabooHeaders"
(which, like the "Blah" button, applies only to incoming messages)
Close inspection reveals that incoming and outgoing messages
have quite different window format (outgoing is still like
the "compose" window, with "split" header section at top).
--
Brana Bujenovic
news:gclqao$480q$1...@usenet.osg.ufl.edu:
> So my question is: what is it that Penelope needs to move forward at a
> much more rapid clip? Is it money? People? Both? Changing the order
> of priorities? What can we do? Eudora was a great product and came
> from a private company - does Penelope need to be re-privatized somehow?
Good ol entrepreneurial spirit wouldn't hurt. It would speed up the
development, in no time.
(T-Bird won't be privatized thought, forget about it.)
I'll take the wild guess: This firm, Qualcomm, as it is fine company as it
may be, was a miss-match for an e-mail client. Eudora, as a product was
just too small / trivial for them (incidental).
Think of a Mercedes, hiring engineers for their transmission mechanisms.
Engineers make espresso machine just for the fun of it. Machine is so damn
good company starts selling it. If something goes wrong with those espresso
sales, and they notice it, they can "sustain" dwarf-loses for about
infinitive period of time...
As long as they are happy with their coffee... there are no loses :-)
To move forward:
Small or medium size (1), software specialized (2) company needs to take
over the torch, or build the brand new client.
1 & 2 - required
> I, along with a bunch of others I'm sure, think that Penelope is a very
> important project that could use a little something to help. I'd
> appreciate hearing what others think.
Allie
> Allie <als_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:gclqao$480q$1...@usenet.osg.ufl.edu:
>
>> So my question is: what is it that Penelope needs to move forward at a
>> much more rapid clip? Is it money? People? Both? Changing the order
>> of priorities? What can we do? Eudora was a great product and came
>> from a private company - does Penelope need to be re-privatized somehow?
>
> Good ol entrepreneurial spirit wouldn't hurt. It would speed up the
> development, in no time.
>
> (T-Bird won't be privatized thought, forget about it.)
>
> I'll take the wild guess: This firm, Qualcomm, as it is fine company as it
> may be, was a miss-match for an e-mail client. Eudora, as a product was
> just too small / trivial for them (incidental).
I think Eudora was too far off their core mission, so it didn't fit in
their business strategy.
> To move forward:
> Small or medium size (1), software specialized (2) company needs to take
> over the torch, or build the brand new client.
Ok, but what about the success of Firefox, for example, or the billion
other open-source projects? Why is this one faltering horribly? I
agree that some sort of impetus is needed, and perhaps takeover by a
company (such as odyssesus) is what's necessary, but $$ is only one kind
of motivation.
I'm wondering if, in fact, Penelope isn't really run like other
open-source projects. Is it easy to start developing with the code? I
don't know. Is it not interesting to developers? That would be hard to
imagine.
Allie
> Allie <als_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:gclqao$480q$1...@usenet.osg.ufl.edu:
>
>> So my question is: what is it that Penelope needs to move forward at a
>> much more rapid clip? Is it money? People? Both? Changing the order
>> of priorities? What can we do? Eudora was a great product and came
>> from a private company - does Penelope need to be re-privatized somehow?
>
> Good ol entrepreneurial spirit wouldn't hurt. It would speed up the
> development, in no time.
>
> (T-Bird won't be privatized thought, forget about it.)
>
> I'll take the wild guess: This firm, Qualcomm, as it is fine company as it
> may be, was a miss-match for an e-mail client. Eudora, as a product was
> just too small / trivial for them (incidental).
I think Eudora was too far off their core mission, so it didn't fit in
their business strategy.
> To move forward:
> Small or medium size (1), software specialized (2) company needs to take
> over the torch, or build the brand new client.
Ok, but what about the success of Firefox, for example, or the billion