> On Jun 18, 2014, at 9:12 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > --On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:38 -0400 Scott Brim >> >> Yes, there are many traps for the average user on a MUA that >> tries very hard to look spiffy. I like mutt ... but an >> alternative is to use a GUI MUA that where you can keep its >> behavior conservative. Thunderbird is not bad at that. > > But not so good at some other things. > > <mini-rant> > ........ But the evidence is that those who are > making product decisions don't believe we constitute a market on > which they can get adequate ROIs, so we periodically end up in > these almost-pointless "where is the action" discussions that > lead nowhere... except back to the conclusions that some people > are more or less happy with whatever they are using and that a > lot of people (who presumably don't deal with the combination of > very high mail volume and the periodic need to work offline) use > some flavor of "webmail". > > Sad situation, IMO. > </rant> > +1, it is a very expensive integrated, moving target design issue, especially for smaller operations. It pays to picky and choose, be conservative with incremental changes, when you already have an established base of differ multi-portal needs. Honestly, we haven't really had another good top notch integrated IETF technologies RFC that puts it all together ala what RFC1123 (STD3) did for integrated internet protocols application hosting systems. At that point, the applications developers will have a better handle of what needs to be done. The mail related RFCs these days written mostly by same usual folks, tend to be overly verbally complex, confusing, ambiguous, too open ended, and if I may say, not always "protocol complete" from an integration standpoint. Personally, I use a mix of MUAs, and it's changes depending on what's going on. Right now, relaxing at a pool, with my new iPad mail app. It has absolutely no display rending options that it can see and the other day I wanted to see a message in fix font mode, so I switched over to the web interface with safari, a 1996 web ui design that still works but needs to be streamlined for the new smaller, keyboard less device environments, with lesser real estate to display, less needs to over do it with display options. With the INTL stuff, I'm still catching up to this, but overall, adding functional UTF wrappers around the field displays, etc and this is only being done at the web ui. With the other legacy views, you see the UTF prefixes, etc. -- Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com