Instead, sell me a hack that can make Outlook look like that. You worry exclusively about the UI, Microsoft does the heavy lifting behind the scenes.
Best case: you make a ton of money by selling to actual businesses (rather than annoying geeks and other weirdos who dare use uncommon clients); slightly-worse case: you sell it to MS.
NB. I might have confused MVC a little in my idea above.
But if the cores of different applications are interchangeable anyway (which they need to be, to make this model work), then why would multiple cores exist in the first place? It could just be reduced to a single one, and there'd be little incentive to start a new one if you can't deviate from the API anyway.
The closest real-world model to what you're describing, is an "implement once" public commons model; a shared commons of open-source / public domain libraries that implement a given responsibility or solution for a given problem, and that can then be used forever by everything, and that problem never needs solving again.
For that to work, the implementations in question need to be highly granular, so that using them is a no-brainer and you don't pull in additional complexity that you don't need. An "e-mail client", for example, would then effectively just be a UI, and all the business logic would be provided externally by a collection of loosely-coupled libraries.
Such a granular ecosystem, in turn, requires a dependency model where adding a dependency is (in and of itself) free and cannot cause dependency conflicts; otherwise people would start grouping complexity together again to reduce conflicts, as can be seen in the dependency ecosystems of many languages today.
The only ecosystem that is currently at a point where it can support the "implement once" model, is that of JS, due to everything being highly modular and interoperable. Rust is also moving in that direction, but its ecosystem is nowhere near mature enough yet.
Unfortunately, people are too busy complaining about meaningless dependency counts to understand what a highly-granular dependency model makes possible.
And worst case: MS change how things work and block this sort of thing happening again. You now have a bunch of angry customers with a hack that doesn't work.
I'm no lawyer, so I'd also check the legal implications of selling something that builds on top and modifies Microsofts application without their explicit consent.
Of course, the trade-offs of "sharecropping" on someone else's platform are always there, from a strategic point of view. MS can wake up one day and rewrite Outlook in Rust, forcing you to rewrite from scratch or making it impossible in practice. But it's a possibility much more remote, imho, than the chance of making significant money with yet another exotic mail client.
Sort of like mailgun but for consumer clients.
Btw, we kinda had something like that: Lotus Notes and MS Exchange, originally, were abstract document stores. In theory, anyone could have built custom views that behaved as you wished, while the platform took care of email fetching and synchronizing. Unfortunately, both Lotus (later IBM) and Microsoft saw those platforms as lock-in instruments in a push for vertical dominance, so they had no incentive but to push their own clients.
They are not dead, they are just out of your view.
Commercially, you see the occasional upstart, but inevitably they die after a few years. I used Airmail for a while but they just stagnated (they barely kept up with Gmail and struggled with Exchange) so I had to drop them.
The market for commercial desktop email clients is super-small: the intersection of the already-niche subgroups of people who will pay for email clients, people who will pay for desktop software, and people who will pay for already-commoditized software. The effort is simply not worth the small rewards, particularly compared to the impact one could have by building on existing commodity clients.
> MailMate is not the most widespread, the cheapest, or the greatest looking email client, but I also have no aspiration to MailMate ever being any of these. Instead, MailMate aspires to be the most powerful, the most flexible, the most efficient, the most standards compliant, and the most secure email client.
I also use multiple inboxes as well. First, "Starred" (different colored stars means different things to me and this strategy is used consistently across multiple platforms inc macOS labels, Trello etc.), then "Alerts" (critical emails from various systems), then "Important and Unread", then everything else.
Most emails are not "important" and I do actively unsubscribe so the method is manageable for me. The last thing I need is my email inbox to be a giant todo list. Most important are tech/work related, current projects, finance/business. I try not to sign up for anything that I need to read, newsletters etc. That's what RSS is for. Email is for quick actionable item and some communication.
In Prefereneces -> Sidebar set slack to only show "Unreads and starred conversations". This reduces the list of channels to these two things. (Edit: it might be a good idea to star all conversations that need followup, first).
Muted channels (which I make use of a lot) will still not trigger notifications, but now you'll know that, if it appears in the sidebar, there are unreads there.
I star any conversations that comes up and needs followups or actions. When I'm done with it, I unstar it and it goes away.
This has worked wonders for me and I highly suggest the same workflow to everyone.
Note that after the latest Slack update, it should be possible to make use of the groups feature and use them together with the workflow above. This way you can have multiple statuses like TODO, awaiting reply and delegated, like in the parent article, rather than a single set of starred conversations. So far I haven't felt the need for this personally.
Oh and one more thing. In Preferences -> messages and media set it to "Compact", it will declutter the UI a bit.
I always considered the advantage of real-time chat is that it was more conducive to socializing. To injecting a bit of your personality.
Is it antisocial to only respond to that which is asked?
The instructions are mostly up-to-date, main thing that has changed seems to be that the multiple inboxes option is now under Settings->Inbox->Inbox type->Multiple Inboxes
What's that small modification?
6 engines detected this file
Do what you want with this information, cloud be false positive, cloud be something else idk.
Even your comment is ambiguous. I'm not really sure whether you've understood the context (and I'm not sure I've understood you, either) due to the ambiguity. This is exactly why I said the phase "open source" is a misuse and it's important to stick with the standard terms.
There is nothing preventing you from charging a fee for Open Source or even for Free Software. You only need to distribute source code to users of your software. That means it does not need to be publicly available on a site like Github. You need to remember that users who receive the software and source code are still allowed to distribute your software for a fee or even free. This method of selling software is not common at all though, so I can't really name any successful projects doing it.
> So why can't this software be called open source, when the source is... open?
The reason you can't call software like that as Open Source is because Open Source has a clear definition as defined by the Open Source Initiative. Free Software has a definition as well. The Open Source definition is a more expanded and detailed version of the Free Software's Four Freedoms. If the license you use for your software does not allow the things as described by those definitions, you can't call it Open Source or Free Software.
I think it's a bit odd choice, but quite clear: it's a kind of shareware with source code available, I guess.
1. Adding points or estimated workloads to emails.
2. Adding notes to emails
3. Snooze emails (which would drop their priority on the board, but stay in the same lane until post snooze).
4. Highlight who is in the discussion thread.
5. Rules for lanes of work (for instance potentially emails from boss should go straight to “in progress”)
1/2/3: It could be possible to implement points/notes/snoozes by using (abusing?) IMAP folders to store such information. Ideally such information would live on the server-side such that it would sync between devices (https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/84 / https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/85).
4: Great idea, long threads make this really hard to see currently! (https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/86)
5: Currently possible using Gmail filters, but not part of the client itself of course. Would be really interesting to implement this! (https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/87)
I also wonder if the author has any way to prevent copyleft code entering their project. What would be a nuisance for a free software project could potentially kill a commercial one like this.
I do not mean this as a comment against copyleft or this particular project, I am really interested to know if there is a Semi-Automatic license scanner.
As for external code this is somewhat manual - yarn has a really helpful `yarn licenses` (https://classic.yarnpkg.com/en/docs/cli/licenses) which removes a lot of the pain for the JS side!
The account management settings page mentions needing an application password for Gmail — you'll also need one to add a Fastmail account (it looks like it retrieves through IMAP and sends through SMTP).
When I added an account, the account's existing folders weren't displayed to me anywhere (I was expecting the sidebar), but it looks like you can add a column for an existing folder and it'll just work.
It also looks like the action of dragging a message from one column to another removes it from one folder and adds it to another, which makes sense for a kanban board, but might get a little weird with Fastmail's labels mode, where a message can exist in multiple folders! (https://beta.fastmail.com/help/receive/labels-beta.html)
- Regarding the new account message I shall update this to point at the providers page (https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/81)
- I like the idea of auto populating sidebar folders (without causing cluter, one to investigate) (https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/82)
- Originally Kanmail did copy emails between folders/labels (matching Gmail) but moving emails is more IMAP friendly in general. However, perhaps an option to copy is the best solution here, giving the end user the choice (https://github.com/Oxygem/Kanmail/issues/83)
The result is almost like a conversation.
It makes it easier to see each topic as well.
So far, I've only seen "Unibox" client on MacOS do this. (Not updates since 2018)
Keep a window for specific smart folders if there are special keywords / people you want to give priority. Tuck it in a corner of the screen without taking up lots of realestate.
To be fair, Apple really screwed that workflow in 10.15 by disallowing customization of columns like they used to have since 10.0. But still, the multi-window organization is so much more flexible than the all-in-one-window setup. (For those concerned with tidiness, a window manager takes care of that problem.)
1) During the beta period, a lifetime perpetual license is 25$
2) License for the duration of the beta period costs 25$. After that you may or may not need to renew your license.
This looks really interesting, but I think there are others who are hesitant to invest into something that may end up costing ongoing licensing fees that are yet to be determined.
My only "suggestion" is to please keep it functional and simple.
nonetheless a great idea. will test it soon.
too bad integration is really hard or this would be general