Can "Mail" quickly switch between ISPs?
Mark Conrad
switch between two different Internet Service Providers?
My initial attempts to use Mail in this fashion failed, in so far as
using the "Location" feature in the Apple menu was concerned.
Can't find anything in Mail Help that indicates this is possible.
Mark-
Gerry
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
Go to Mail preferences, click Accounts tab, create a new account for
your new ISP fill in the blanks.
Dave Balderstone
<thi...@totally.invalid> wrote:
> Is it possible for the OS X "Mail" application to quickly and easily
> switch between two different Internet Service Providers?
>
> My initial attempts to use Mail in this fashion failed, in so far as
> using the "Location" feature in the Apple menu was concerned.
Mail doesn't switch between ISPs.
Mail doesn't care about ISPs.
I move my laptop between work and home daily, and never have to do
anything to Mail to have it recognize 5 different email accounts. I
select the appropriate location, and that's it.
Mark Conrad
The situation here is that I have two completely different ISPs, with
their own different user names and passwords.
(for redundancy reasons, because one ISP tends to go offline completely
at critical times, at least for me)
If I enter all the Mail settings for just _one_ ISP, everything works
ducky.
However if I enter the settings for two ISPs, a few of those settings
overwrite previous settings.
Specifically, the ISP username and password settings.
The result is that even though the "Location" names are different in the
Apple menu, only one of the ISPs can be accessed.
(...the ISP whose settings were entered _last_ will work,
the other ISP will not because its settings were overwritten)
Confusing part is that _some_ of the settings do not get overwritten,
such as the names of the incoming/outgoing servers.
Heh, guess the answer is to carry two Mac powerbooks.
...or change to a different mail app' that can handle two ISPs.
Mark-
Gerry
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hp0038.m9r05aluz22gN%thi...@totally.invalid>, Mark Conrad
> > <thi...@totally.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Is it possible for the OS X "Mail" application to quickly and easily
> > > switch between two different Internet Service Providers?
> > >
> > > My initial attempts to use Mail in this fashion failed, in so far as
> > > using the "Location" feature in the Apple menu was concerned.
> >
> > Mail doesn't switch between ISPs.
> >
> > Mail doesn't care about ISPs.
> >
> > I move my laptop between work and home daily, and never have to do
> > anything to Mail to have it recognize 5 different email accounts. I
> > select the appropriate location, and that's it.
>
> The situation here is that I have two completely different ISPs, with
> their own different user names and passwords.
>
> (for redundancy reasons, because one ISP tends to go offline completely
> at critical times, at least for me)
>
>
>
>
> If I enter all the Mail settings for just _one_ ISP, everything works
> ducky.
>
> However if I enter the settings for two ISPs, a few of those settings
> overwrite previous settings.
>
> Specifically, the ISP username and password settings.
>
Where are you entering this information?
>
> ...or change to a different mail app' that can handle two ISPs.
>
> Mark-
I have two different mail accounts with two different ISPs and I'm able
to sent and receive mail by simply select their respect in boxes in tthe
Mail.app.
Mark Conrad
> I have two different mail accounts with two different ISPs and I'm able
> to sent and receive mail by simply select their respect in boxes in tthe
> Mail.app.
In my case, a simple one-click selection does not seem to work.
Gerry, allow me to include part of a thread I started in another NG,
perhaps you might be able to suggest where I am going wrong:
> > You want to go to Mail>Preferences>Accounts and
> > add another account. You can put in a separate
> > user id and password without overwriting the
> > other one.
>
> Already tried that, and indeed _most_ of the settings flip over
> when I one-click the name of the 1st account (ISP Account#1)
> in the Accounts column of Mail>Preferences>Accounts
>
> ...however the user name and password fields were overwritten,
> therefore were incapable of "flipping back" to their correct settings.
>
> Result is that _most_ of the fields of "ISP Account#1" flipped,
> but the "ISP Account#1" is trying to use the username and
> password of "ISP Account#2", which of course will not work.
>
> In other words, the username and password of the very first
> ISP account were overwritten by what I wrote later, when I
> was filling in the entries for the 2nd ISP account.
>
> Does any of this make sense to you? I hope so.
Gerry, I know the above is not all that clear.
Just wish I knew why it is working okay for you, but not for me.
Mark-
Dave Balderstone
<thi...@totally.invalid> wrote:
> If I enter all the Mail settings for just _one_ ISP, everything works
> ducky.
>
> However if I enter the settings for two ISPs, a few of those settings
> overwrite previous settings.
>
> Specifically, the ISP username and password settings.
This makes no sense to me.
Mail only wants mail account information. It doesn't give a rat's rosy
red rectum about the ISP settings.
You can only access one ISP at a time.
Once again, I think, you are making words mean something that only you
understand.
Tom Stiller
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
First, you need to separate the concepts of ISP connection and e-mail
accounts in your mind; somehow you have them intermixed.
Define a Network Location for each of your ISPs; connection to the ISP
has nothing whatsoever to do with e-mail. If you have issues with
usernames and passwords at that level, deal with them there and forget
about Mail.
Once you can reliably switch ISPs, then define as many Mail accounts as
you need (I have four). In each account definition, you will specify
email servers to receive and send mail. These may, or may not, be
associated with a particular ISP; it doesn't matter.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Mike Rosenberg
> Once you can reliably switch ISPs, then define as many Mail accounts as
> you need (I have four). In each account definition, you will specify
> email servers to receive and send mail. These may, or may not, be
> associated with a particular ISP; it doesn't matter.
The one potential complication is that, to send mail, the SMTP server
often has to be the one used by the ISP, not the mail host.
--
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
Tom Stiller
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Tom Stiller <tomst...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Once you can reliably switch ISPs, then define as many Mail accounts as
> > you need (I have four). In each account definition, you will specify
> > email servers to receive and send mail. These may, or may not, be
> > associated with a particular ISP; it doesn't matter.
>
> The one potential complication is that, to send mail, the SMTP server
> often has to be the one used by the ISP, not the mail host.
If needed, you can define specific accounts that are serviced by the
SMTP server on a specific ISP. You just have to remember which account
to use when sending mail.
Mark Conrad
forbearance than most.
Tom Stiller <tomst...@comcast.net> wrote:
> First, you need to separate the concepts of ISP connection and e-mail
> accounts in your mind; somehow you have them intermixed.
I think I have separated them. I presently have no problem instantly
switching to using different ISPs when accessing the Internet via the
Safari browser. (using "Location" in Apple Menu)
Mail also works with each of my different ISPs, but only if I manually
configure Mail after switching to a different ISP.
I _do_ have a problem with OSX's "Mail" app', however.
Namely, no "one-click" technique seems to work for Mail, _after_ I
switch ISPs.
No Big Deal, I can always manually configure Mail after I change over to
a different ISP, but my hope was that there might be a one-click way to
do it.
Some here insist that there is a one-click way. So be it, possibly I am
doing something differently than they are.
Would it help if I posted the exact settings I am using?
(altered slightly to preserve password privacy etc.)
Mark-
Dave Balderstone
<thi...@totally.invalid> wrote:
> Namely, no "one-click" technique seems to work for Mail, _after_ I
> switch ISPs.
I just don't get this.
I have five email accounts handled by Mail.
Work. Accessible regardless of ISP.
Dot-mac. Ditto.
Two at "balderstone-dot-ca". Ditto.
One at "woodenwabbits dot com". Ditto
One at my home cable ISP. Accessible only when connected to their
network.
Mail does NOTHING to access the first four, no matter what ISP I use
(two daily... work and home cable), differently. It JUST connects.
The fifth is only available when I'm at home, but again, I make no
changes to Mail.
This isn't rocket science, Gerald.
Charles
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> I just don't get this.
And you never will because Mark Conrad is probably playing games.
Suppose he was not and is just dense. You would not change the Location
setting to access various ISP's mail accounts from one Location. You
would only change the Location settings if you need different network
settings. Like one Location is a different Dial Up number than another.
Or if you want to turn off all network ports or there is a wired cable
modem at one location and a wired DSL modem at another location and
need PPPoE. Location should usually be set on Automatic.
--
Charles
Dave Balderstone
<for...@mac.com> wrote:
Over the many years I've been dealing with him both here as Mark Conrad
and on the old Compuserve forums as Gerald Smith he's had me convinced
that he's a troll, he's suffering a mental problem, he's a mentally
ill troll, and that he's genuinely trying to understand things that for
some reason (possibly a learning disability) he just really finds
difficult to grasp. Or any combination of the above...
If he's playing games/trolling, he's been successfully stringing me
along for YEARS.
I'm not a stupid person. Which makes it even more frustrating to
confess that Mark/Gerald genuinely stymies me.
Given that I can't categorize him after so long, I think I may finally
have to conclude that he's not a troll, and in fact does have some
legitimate learning disability or mental illness.
Tom Stiller
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> First things first. Thanks for helping, you have more patience and
> forbearance than most.
>
>Tom Stiller <tomst...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > First, you need to separate the concepts of ISP connection and e-mail
> > accounts in your mind; somehow you have them intermixed.
>
> I think I have separated them. I presently have no problem instantly
> switching to using different ISPs when accessing the Internet via the
> Safari browser. (using "Location" in Apple Menu)
>
> Mail also works with each of my different ISPs, but only if I manually
> configure Mail after switching to a different ISP.
>
Configure _two_ different accounts in Mail; one using the servers
provided by ISP 1 and one using those provided by ISP 2. Any account
that cannot connect with its servers will go offline, as indicated by
the little symbol next to the appropriate mailbox folder.
Mark Conrad
Already did all that, two seperate accounts with separate and distinct
server names, ISP user names, and ISP login passwords, to no avail.
I do not know what I was doing wrong initially.
Everything was snarled up, to the extent that none of my email accounts
were working, even after I restored their initial settings.
I had to restore my entire boot partition just to get my original email
working again.
One thing I found out very quickly. A person can't rely on their ISP
technical support to supply them with correct information.
The tech' guy at my new ISP kept insisting that his email server
required authentication. (ISP user-name and password)
Silly me, I believed him, all sorts of problems resulted.
Out of sheer desperation on Sunday afternoon, I tried it with
authentication set to "none".
Everything now works okay, can do "one click" to my hearts content.
I find it hard to believe that the authentication issue was the main
cause of all my email difficulties though. I must have had some
crucial setting wrong, without being aware of it.
Anyhow, now everything works as it should.
ALL my email's "preference" settings for my various ISPs now flip over
automatically, in response to the "Location" setting in the Apple Menu.
I do not have to touch anything in the email program's preference
settings, nothing at all, not even the outgoing mail server box, which
has a drop-down menu of all my various outgoing mail server names.
FWIW, here I am running OS 10.4.8 with Mail version 2.1 on a six year
old Pismo powerbook.
Mark-
NM Public
>
> You should not have to do anything at all to retrieve mail after
> switching ISPs. The only thing you might have to change is the smtp
> server you send mail through.
And ideally you are sending your email through an SMTP server that works
no matter what Internet Access Provider (IAP)* you are using. Back in the
1990s it was common to use the SMTP server provided by your Internet
access provider, but nowadays -- mainly due to spam & mobile computing --
it is common to use a dedicated email service provider for your SMTP,
IMAP, and POP services. For more information about this often
confusing/confused topic, see this item in my blog:
Use a Different Provider for Internet Access, Email Services, and Web
Hosting
<http://deflexion.com/2006/10/use-different-provider-for-internet>
Hope this is helpful,
Nancy
* I think that the ambiguous acronym ISP (Internet Service Provider) is
part of what makes this topic confusing -- that's why I prefer to use the
acronym IAP (Internet *Access* Provider).
Tom Stiller
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
I've never seen a case where authentication required the ISP user-name
and password. All the ones I've seen only require the e-mail account ID
and e-mail password. Many only require authentication if you are coming
in from a network other than theirs.
[snip]
Mark Conrad
> > One thing I found out very quickly. A person can't rely on their ISP
> > technical support to supply them with correct information.
> >
> > The tech' guy at my new ISP kept insisting that his email server
> > required authentication. (ISP user-name and password)
>
> I've never seen a case where authentication required the ISP user-name
> and password. All the ones I've seen only require the e-mail account ID
> and e-mail password. Many only require authentication if you are coming
> in from a network other than theirs.
Well the entire subject is a big mystery to me.
I have been "just using" email for years, without really understanding
it. This worked until recently, when I required more out of my email
application, such as using several ISPs, also having two separate and
distinct user accounts with _one_ of those ISPs. (Earthlink)
By two separate accounts with Earthlink, I mean each account has its own
different user login name, and different login password.
...also a bigger monthly bill from Earthlink.
All that is necessary because Earthlink will not allow users to use TB2
for remote control of their own computers with one ordinary ISP account.
For years they claimed that they would not even allow separate accounts
to one user. Eventually I contacted the "right person" at Earthlink
who claimed that was nonsense, and he fixed me up with two separate
accounts. Sheesh !!!
Possibly other ISPs have a more liberal policy than Earthlink regarding
remote control of one's own home computers.
...but I hesitate to drop Earthlink because they are a big outfit, so
seem to have local access numbers everywhere.
Right now what I need is some way to learn the basics of email/ISP
concepts and terminology, Mac oriented and _modern_ , not some tutorial
written years ago.
An entire (modern) book would be nice, but failing that possibly someone
runs a blog that treats the entire subject in depth.
Failing those approaches, I will have to learn the long hard way, by
rooting around in Google. That approach takes forever.
Mark-
Tom Stiller
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> Possibly other ISPs have a more liberal policy than Earthlink regarding
> remote control of one's own home computers.
>
> ...but I hesitate to drop Earthlink because they are a big outfit, so
> seem to have local access numbers everywhere.
>
If you're using dial-up, try CopperNet. I went to them because my
daughter was working at a small college in Maryland and they had local
access where Earthlink did not.
RobertB.
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
I'm not sure I completely understand, but why not simply set up
different accounts for each mail server? Just plug in the requisite POP
and SMTP information.
Mark Conrad
I did that initially, no joy.
Since the start of this thread, there were several "gotchas".
1) Likely I entered some data wrong, dunno.
2) My 2nd "emergency" ISP furnished bad info',
kept insisting their outgoing mail server
required authentication. It did not. I only
found that out when I got desperate and
experimented with mail authentication
set to "none".
3) Default mail port was 587 for 1st ISP, was
port 110 for 2nd ISP, was port 25 for 3rd ISP.
Eventually set them all to port 25,
which seemed to work.
4) My main ISP furnished bad info'. They kept
insisting, and still insist to this day, that the
name of their outgoing mail server is changed,
from old "smtp.earthlink.net"
... to newer "smtpauth.earthlink.net"
That new server name did not work on my old Pismo, running OS-10.4.8
Much later found a person at Earthlink who explained that the new server
name was aimed at particular Mac models.
He did not elaborate, merely told me to continue using the old server
name. Sounds fishy to me, although I will continue to use whatever
works.
When I got the above comedy of errors all sorted out, with the help of
the good people here, everything worked.
Now when I one-click on Location, in the Apple menu, _everything_
switches to the desired setting, very convenient. I never have to mess
around with entering/switching email settings.
Do not even have to set "outgoing mail server", which has a dropdown
menu with all the server names listed.
"Location" in the Apple menu does all that for me.
When it comes to any knowledge concerning networks, ISPs, or Email, I am
totally lost.
I feel like I am trying to steer a cow by the tail.
I do not understand even the simplest concepts, such as "mailbox".
I already have "incoming", "outgoing", and "trash" mailboxes.
Why in the world would I ever need a "new" mailbox?
Every other sentence in Mail Help is "create a new mailbox for this", or
"create a new mailbox for that".
For what reason? Just adds confusion when one has to keep track of 20
mailboxes. Why not keep things simple?
How in the world would you tell the mailman/mail-program that you wanted
them to put all your junk mail in the brown mailbox, and all your
important mail in the red mailbox?
Now some idjit will no doubt post "set your mailbox rules", like that is
intuitive.
Yeah, right, NOT.
Big mystery to me, but then I will readily admit that I am not the
brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
Heck, most people are content with one old beatup mailbox, my current
mailbox is 20 years old.
BTW, none of these fundamental concepts are explained at all in the OS X
"Mail Help" section.
They assume everyone already knows.
Perhaps people pick it all up by osmosis.
Maybe I should try soaking in Magical Help Bubble Bath. ;-)
Mark-
Mark Conrad
> > Heck, most people are content with one old beatup mailbox, my current
> > mailbox is 20 years old.
>
> And after you take the mail out of that box, you don't sort it?
Of course I sort the mail, but I do not put all my sorted mail into a
bunch of mailboxes! I put the sorted mail into drawers, shoeboxes,
filing cabinets, and occassionally on a lamp-table, usually with a
scribbled note on the envelope to remind me what to do.
NEVER put my sorted mail back into a bunch of mailboxes.
That would be downright stupid. It does not make sense.
Seems to me that Apple could have easily created more suitable models as
regards where to store sorted mail.
"Storage-Bin" would be my choice, graded from "extremely important" to
"Junk".
> > Why in the world would I ever need a "new" mailbox?
>
> For filing. It keeps your other mailboxes from filling up.
In real life, and also on my computer, I completely remove _everything_
from my mailbox. No danger whatever of my mailbox filling up.
(unless I let too much time go by between mailbox visits)
After I remove everything from my real-life mailbox, I throw it all into
a big plastic bag. That bag gets transported into my house, where I
plop the bag onto my recliner chair. It stays they, to annoy me until I
sort all the mail in order to reclaim my Kings Throne. (my chair)
Oh I know, most other Mac users have their Kings Throne in their
bathroom, but I like to be different.
> Also, if you delete an account, all the mail in the boxes
> associated with that account are lost.
In real life, if i delete my "account" with the U.S. Postal Service
prior to moving to Timbuktu, I make darn certain that I inform everyone
about my move ahead of time.
If I forget to inform someone, their letters go to the Dead Letter
Office where I can check later.
OSXs "Mail" does not have a Dead Letter Office?
Terrible Omission, they should really fix that.
Look, I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to learn the
weird non-intuitive terminology that is presently being used by a lot of
mail applications.
Mark-
--
Entire post from Michelle Steiner follows:
> In article <1hp4dfr.1ohx0ylu85v2qN%thi...@totally.invalid>,
> thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
>
> > I do not understand even the simplest concepts, such as "mailbox".
> >
> > I already have "incoming", "outgoing", and "trash" mailboxes.
> >
> > Why in the world would I ever need a "new" mailbox?
>
> For filing. It keeps your other mailboxes from filling up. Also, if
> you delete an account, all the mail in the boxes associated with that
> account are lost. If you move the mail to a mailbox you created, that
> mail is no longer tied to the account, so when you delete the account,
> the mail is not lost.
>
> > For what reason? Just adds confusion when one has to keep track of
> > 20 mailboxes. Why not keep things simple?
>
> I have a separate mailbox for each mailing list I'm subscribed to, and I
> have rules set up to automatically file incoming mail into those boxes.
> I also have boxes set up for a few regular correspondents, so mail from
> them goes into their own email boxes.
>
> > How in the world would you tell the mailman/mail-program that you
> > wanted them to put all your junk mail in the brown mailbox, and all
> > your important mail in the red mailbox?
>
> That's not what those user-created mailboxes are for. And why would you
> name the boxes after colors instead of function?
>
> > Heck, most people are content with one old beatup mailbox, my current
> > mailbox is 20 years old.
>
> And after you take the mail out of that box, you don't sort it?
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1hp5v1x.q87coz83j7zqN%thi...@totally.invalid>,
> thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
>
> > > > Heck, most people are content with one old beatup mailbox, my
> > > > current mailbox is 20 years old.
> > >
> > > And after you take the mail out of that box, you don't sort it?
> >
> > Of course I sort the mail, but I do not put all my sorted mail into a
> > bunch of mailboxes! I put the sorted mail into drawers, shoeboxes,
> > filing cabinets, and occassionally on a lamp-table, usually with a
> > scribbled note on the envelope to remind me what to do.
>
> And the user-created "mailboxes" in mail.app are folders, and serve the
> same purpose as those physical drawers, shoeboxes, and filing cabinets.
>
> > In real life, and also on my computer, I completely remove
> > _everything_ from my mailbox. No danger whatever of my mailbox
> > filling up.
>
> And on your computer, where to you put them? You already said that you
> don't create mailboxes/folders to put them into.
>
> > > Also, if you delete an account, all the mail in the boxes
> > > associated with that account are lost.
> >
> > In real life, if i delete my "account" with the U.S. Postal Service
> > prior to moving to Timbuktu, I make darn certain that I inform
> > everyone about my move ahead of time.
>
> In mail.app, if you delete your account, you remove the mailbox
> associated with it, and all the mail that is within it is gone. You can
> take analogies only so far.
>
> > If I forget to inform someone, their letters go to the Dead Letter
> > Office where I can check later.
>
> Actually, their letters are sent back to them as undeliverable--unless
> they don't put a return address on the envelope. Same thing with email;
> if you delete your account, your email is bounced back to the sender.
>
> > Look, I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to learn the
> > weird non-intuitive terminology that is presently being used by a lot
> > of mail applications.
>
> The terminology is not weird, nor is it non-intuitive.
Give up now Michelle. Seriously. Relieve that stabbing pain in your head
by giving up on this one :-D
Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Dave Balderstone
Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> The terminology is not weird, nor is it non-intuitive.
But Mark/Gerald is both, and at this point I'd say he's either off his
meds again or actively trolling again.
Jon
> thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> > Look, I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to learn the
> > weird non-intuitive terminology that is presently being used by a lot
> > of mail applications.
>
> The terminology is not weird, nor is it non-intuitive.
Hey, guys - this is Mark Conrad we're talking about here, right?
What is intuitive or at least not non-intuitive to most other people is
about as transparent as lead to Conrad's non X-ray eyes, IME. I've had
almost this exact same discussion with him on other occasions (on a
slightly different topic), and other have too - ad nauseam - without
achieving anything, AFAIR.
Mail applications like Mail.app, Eudroa, Thunderbird and even (God
forbid) Outlook all use a common set of analogies and metaphors like
mailboxes, folders, messages/letters, etc., that millions of users find
perfectly acceptable -- all except Mark.
Most people who have spent a minimum of time fiddling with their
computers and network connections have to know the difference between
the mail service provider and the access provider, even when both
services are provided by the same company. And Mark has spent more time
fiddling than most of us will in a lifetime, judging by previous posts
on Timbuktu, ssh, etc., etc.
The guy IMHO does not want or is not able (I don't know which) to
understand or grasp any concept that has slightly diferent logical
premises than what he has decided are the right ones. Then everything
becomes "weird" and "non-intuitive" very quickly.
--
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
Mark Conrad
> The guy IMHO does not want or is not able (I don't know which) to
> understand or grasp any concept that has slightly diferent logical
> premises...
<snipped illogical conclusions and other ranting>
Oh I can grasp the concept okay, now that it was explained to me.
Let's see if I have it right:
1) A mailbox in common mail app's is where the
mail is delivered into, no problem with that.
2) In a mail app', mail is removed piecemeal
from the "mailbox", so the mailbox analogy
is breaking down.
It would not have broken down if the
programmers would have completely emptied
the mailbox, as happens in real life.
They could _easily_ have emptied the entire
mailbox into an "unsorted mail" folder.
3) Now comes the complete breakdown of the
mailbox metaphor.
The programmers, instead of doing the logical
thing and sorting the mail in "unsorted mail" into
another folder named "sorted mail", with its
enclosed sub-folders,
...decide instead to destroy the mailbox metaphor
completely. Very Stupid.
They do this by inexplicably and unexpectedly
deciding to call each "sorted mail" sub-folder a
"mailbox". Very stupid, very stupid indeed.
Nowhere in real life does any person sort his incoming mail _directly_
into other mailboxes. That asinine action is totally counter intuitive
and unexpected.
But so be it, if I have to live with a deliberately sabotaged metaphor,
I can do it, same as everyone else does.
Just don't expect me to condone it, as you and others do. A stupid
decision by programmers is still a stupid decision, no matter how hard
you try to whitewash it.
Mark-
Tom Stiller
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> Nowhere in real life does any person sort his incoming mail _directly_
> into other mailboxes. That asinine action is totally counter intuitive
> and unexpected.
It seems that your problem with the label "mailbox". It's not the thing
on a post out by the road, but rather it's one or more trays sitting on
your desk.
Unless they've defined rules to move the messages automatically, few
people sort their incoming mail directly into other mailboxes (folders)
without reading either the To, From, Subject, or content of the message.
>
>
> But so be it, if I have to live with a deliberately sabotaged metaphor,
> I can do it, same as everyone else does.
>
I don't know what you're seeing on your machine, but on my machine I see:
1. One *folder* named InBox which contains sub-folders for each
of my accounts
2. A similar structure for each of Drafts, Sent, Trash, and Junk
3. A raft of folders and sub-folders defined by me and into which I move
mail as appropriate.
This matches my former office environment perfectly. Inbox and outbox
trays for major activities. I may leave some items those boxes after
noting the originator, or I may read and file some items, or I may read
and return some items for action at a later time.
The same organization works well for Sent mail, but I have never had
need for the substructure in Trash and Junk.
Mark Conrad
> It seems that your problem with the label "mailbox".
Yes.
> It's not the thing on a post out by the road,
> but rather...<temporarily clipped>...
For me it is, and I venture for most new computer users it is also, why
make things difficult and unclear for them?
Regarding "mailboxes" -
> ...on a post out by the road, but rather it's
> one or more trays sitting on
> your desk.
Not for me, those trays are named "incoming" and "outgoing", they are
_not_ known as mailboxes.
The names of my trays were short for "incoming documents" and "outgoing
documents", and had nothing whatever to do with mail, mailboxes, or the
U.S. Postal Service.
If I needed to post mail, I did it myself during my lunch hour, as per
the stated policy of my research organization.
> > Why in the world would I ever need a "new" mailbox?
>
> For filing. It keeps your other mailboxes from filling up.
They specifically did _not_ want everyone and his brother to handle
the mail I generated, primarily because I was cleared for Secret,
therefore my mail might provide minor leverage for those inclined to
tamper with it.
> ...people sort their incoming mail directly
> into other mailboxes (folders)
Excuse me, you are posting that "mailbox" and "folder" are the same
identical concept. They are not.
If you wanted to be clearly understood, you would NEVER say to a person
"Deposit this into a folder please" - - - when you meant to say "Deposit
this into a mailbox, please".
To say "mailbox" would be sheer obfuscation on your part.
> I don't know what you're seeing on your machine,
> but on my machine I see:
> 1. One *folder* named InBox which contains sub-folders for
> each of my accounts
> 2. A similar structure for each of Drafts, Sent, Trash, and Junk
> 3. A raft of folders and sub-folders defined by me and into which
> I move mail as appropriate.
I have no quarrel with any of that.
My complaint is that some here seem to favor using "mailbox" and
"folder" interchangeably, when doing so would lead to confusion.
Computers are difficult enough to use, without deliberately throwing in
more confusion by misusing the word "mailbox", when "folder" would be
much clearer.
OS X "Help" does not help at all. I typed in "mailbox" and it replied
"No Matching Topics" (OS X 10.4.8 for PPC)
When I type in "folder", I get all sorts of hits.
Mark-
--
Entire post from Tom Stiller follows -
Tom Stiller
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> Excuse me, you are posting that "mailbox" and "folder" are the same
> identical concept. They are not.
>
> If you wanted to be clearly understood, you would NEVER say to a person
> "Deposit this into a folder please" - - - when you meant to say "Deposit
> this into a mailbox, please".
>
> To say "mailbox" would be sheer obfuscation on your part.
>
Shove it!
Dave Balderstone
Conrad <thi...@totally.invalid> wrote:
> Excuse me, you are posting that "mailbox" and "folder" are the same
> identical concept. They are not.
>
> If you wanted to be clearly understood, you would NEVER say to a person
> "Deposit this into a folder please" - - - when you meant to say "Deposit
> this into a mailbox, please".
>
> To say "mailbox" would be sheer obfuscation on your part.
You are amazing, Gerald.
Mark Conrad
> > My complaint is that some here seem to favor
> > using "mailbox" and "folder" interchangeably,
> >when doing so would lead to confusion.
>
> Only to those who are totally literally minded. I.e., only you.
I thank you for that compliment, except I am certain there are many
others besides myself who use words for their literal basic meaning,
instead of resorting to offbeat unclear ambiguous meanings, such as
"mailbox" when "folder" would be much clearer.
literal - - - (adjective)
Free from exaggeration or distortion
I am all for being free from exaggeration or distortion when it comes to
learning an unfamiliar subject like a computer mail application.
I suggest that the confusing analogy of a mailbox can and should be
junked altogether, and "folder" substituted in its place.
Reason: Anyone who has ten minutes instruction on how to run a computer
knows what a folder is. Why throw him a curve by suddenly calling a
folder a mailbox?
That results in two different words meaning the same thing, an
obfuscated abomination, in my view.
That leads to unnecessary confusion, which computer users are better off
without. Nothing wrong with keeping definitions simple.
The "mailbox" analogy does more harm than it does good, it needs to be
retired.
The phrase "create a mailbox" throws panic into a new user of a
computer. What is he to do, get sheet metal and form it into a
mailbox? Invoke some magical routine inside his mail app' that
"creates a mailbox"?
It is much simplier and logical to tell our new user to create a folder,
then name that folder "Important Mail", and throw all his really
important email into that folder.
Sheesh, what could be simplier!
Mark-
Jamie Kahn Genet
> A LOAD OF BULLSHIT.
Uggg... my head hurts...
NM Public
> You are probably the only person who has ever used a computer who is
> confused by this terminology.
Actually the email terminology related to messages, folders, directories,
mailboxes, and accounts is confusing to a lot of people and it has been
frequently debated in the IMAP-related discussion groups. I discuss it a
little bit in this section of my IMAP Service Providers page:
<http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/imap/isps/#terms>
It *is* confusing terminology and if you can not see why it's confusing,
you probably should not be involved in designing user interfaces.
Nancy
Warren Oates
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> But so be it, if I have to live with a deliberately sabotaged metaphor,
> I can do it, same as everyone else does.
It's a cruel world Mark.
--
W. Oates
Teal'c: He is concealing something.
O'Neil: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
Warren Oates
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
> I thank you for that compliment, except I am certain there are many
> others besides myself who use words for their literal basic meaning,
> instead of resorting to offbeat unclear ambiguous meanings, such as
> "mailbox" when "folder" would be much clearer.
>
Eudora (for instance) has mailboxes which are not folders. I think it's
the same system as Berkeley Mail. It's a cruel world, Mark.
Dave Balderstone
<warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1hp7trx.1l73p0rdi4uxyN%thi...@totally.invalid>,
> thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
>
> > I thank you for that compliment, except I am certain there are many
> > others besides myself who use words for their literal basic meaning,
> > instead of resorting to offbeat unclear ambiguous meanings, such as
> > "mailbox" when "folder" would be much clearer.
> >
>
> Eudora (for instance) has mailboxes which are not folders. I think it's
> the same system as Berkeley Mail. It's a cruel world, Mark.
Mailsmith has mailboxes, but they are structures inside a database, not
folders. Oh cruel world! Why do you mock Mark/Gerald so?
Mike Rosenberg
> It seems that your problem with the label "mailbox". It's not the thing
> on a post out by the road, but rather it's one or more trays sitting on
> your desk.
Exactly! And, to be fair, the in box is always call "inbox" or
something similar.
--
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
Mike Rosenberg
> I thank you for that compliment, except I am certain there are many
> others besides myself who use words for their literal basic meaning,
> instead of resorting to offbeat unclear ambiguous meanings
In my nearly 12.5 years of consulting, I've only ever encounted ONE
client who's had trouble with the concept of "inbox", and she also
didn't understand how she could keep on typing a message when she
reached the bottom of the screen, and she believed Mailer-Daemon was a
human being.
I'm looking at Mail.app right now and noting that the Inbox icon is made
to look like one of those trays Tom mentioned and that the icons for the
user-created mailboxes are, in fact, folders.
Gordon Sande
> In article <1hp962q.1xl607t1fyodkqN%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>
>> I'm looking at Mail.app right now and noting that the Inbox icon is
>> made to look like one of those trays Tom mentioned and that the icons
>> for the user-created mailboxes are, in fact, folders.
>
> And that drafts looks like a sheet of paper, sent looks like a paper
> airplane, trash looks like a trash can, and junk looks like a garbage
> bag.
>
> I'm sure that the paper airplane is giving Mark fits, though.
Maybe his house only has a mail slot in the door so has no notion of what
a mailbox might be.
Jamie Kahn Genet
Poetic justice, perhaps?
Dave Balderstone
Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
God is an iron...
ne...@myprivacy.ca
> In article <Pine.BSI.4.56.06...@gbz.vrpp.pbz>,
> NM Public <ago...@nm.deflexion.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually the email terminology related to messages, folders,
> > directories, mailboxes, and accounts is confusing to a lot of people
> > and it has been frequently debated in the IMAP-related discussion
> > groups.
>
> It appears to me that some people go out of their way to be confused.
I agree. While the precise meaning of certain terms (eg, mailbox) may
change a bit in specific situations, the general concept is not that
difficult to grasp. At a very basic level, most (nearly all?) e-mail
users should be able to comprehend that a mailbox is a place where mail
is placed.
Moreover, at work, I have several "mailboxes." One is an actual
mailbox (albeit not on a post) in the college post office. A second
one is a file tray in the reception area, and a third mailbox (with
various "sub-mailboxes") exists on the e-mail server. I might even
speak of a "virtual mailbox" when one of the student workers walks into
my office and hands my mail to me.
smp
Barry Margolin
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
> Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
>
> > > Once you can reliably switch ISPs, then define as many Mail accounts as
> > > you need (I have four). In each account definition, you will specify
> > > email servers to receive and send mail. These may, or may not, be
> > > associated with a particular ISP; it doesn't matter.
> >
> > The one potential complication is that, to send mail, the SMTP server
> > often has to be the one used by the ISP, not the mail host.
>
> I don't think that matters much, many ISPs hijack all port 25 traffic
> and push it through their own SMTP server regardless; at least, mine
> does, as an anti-spam measure.
More common, I think, is to simply block any port 25 traffic that's
addressed to anything other than the ISP's own SMTP server.
However, many ISPs now also support Message Submission Service, using
port 587 (or 485 for SSL encryption), which requires user authentication
and can be accessed from anywhere. And it's not common for them to
block or hijack these connections.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***