<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 02/05/2019 03:58, Matt Harris wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d359f9d2-5bf3-2e38-872c-6893a6a8be2d@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
As for indexed email archive, I think if we to be looking at such
an animal as a use case then a different "group" of data stores
would necessarily be required.</blockquote>
<br>
First of all it is a use case right now, here in the real world.
Why? Because Thunderbird's thick client nature naturally lends
itself to this functionality and always has done. It's here and now
and real.<br>
<br>
As such, there is no fundamental need for a different group of data
stores. Such additional functionality could certainly be very useful
but it's hardly required.<br>
<br>
The issue at present in this context is that Thunderbird forces
users to set up a mail account on a new profile and it is not
necessarily needed. Of course, setting up a mail account is
functionality that most users want but the ability to step out of
the process for those who don't need a mail account would certainly
be an improvement to functionality.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d359f9d2-5bf3-2e38-872c-6893a6a8be2d@gmail.com"
type="cite">However use as such is not really what the program is
developed for and should not constrain the main app to that sort
of archival storage only.</blockquote>
<br>
(a) Thunderbird is a thick client mail program. As such, if it's not
designed for archiving mail then it's not very useful. But of course
it is, in practice, designed to archive mail. Storing mail locally
is exactly that. Thunderbird, as it stands, has inherent local
storage/archiving ability and functionality.<br>
<br>
(b) I agree that archiving, one of Thunderbird current real world
use cases, should not constrain other aspects of the program but
then, of course, I have suggested no such thing. I have simply
suggested making Thunderbird's initial configuration a little LESS
constrained so as to facilitate non-account archiving.<br>
<br>
You are against constraints. So am I. I am suggesting removing an
unnecessary and counter-productive constraint for those who don't
need it. It need not and should not impact the majority of users who
do need to set up a working email account.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d359f9d2-5bf3-2e38-872c-6893a6a8be2d@gmail.com"
type="cite">I personally support an "archive" mail account type
that can have "any" permanently connected location defined for
it. So the mail archive can be stored on a NAS etc. Perhaps even
with restricted update options and restrict users from modifying
the archive. You add, not remove from an archive for example.
Having an "archive account type would allow for accounts to be
"decommissioned" without fuss. they are just disabled from all
normal get and sync because they are archives. Changing the
account type might also "move" the store location to the
registered archive location (not in the profile)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
These could be very good ideas but of course they don't make
Thunderbird's existing local storage (and thus archiving)
functionality any less real or valid right now.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d359f9d2-5bf3-2e38-872c-6893a6a8be2d@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> If your into chat, pidgin makes more
sense as a stand alone client than thunderbird. So I would say
it is not even an edge case as a stand alone usage.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It seems to me that you are in effect saying here that because
Thunderbird is not currently good enough to be a stand alone instant
messaging client that setting up an email account on a new profile
should be enforced.<br>
<br>
I have to say that that does not make sense to me. Even though
Thunderbird's IM capability is not up to the standard of dedicated
IM clients, that's still not a rational reason to force users to set
up an email account if they are not going to need one. You are
against constraints so let's not constrain users unnecessarily.<br>
<br>
Remember, that use cases that you do not personally use or see the
need for can be and often are still valid use cases.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d359f9d2-5bf3-2e38-872c-6893a6a8be2d@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">They read a blog post about using
Thunderbird as an archive for their gmail. Then they spend days
in a forum somewhere trying to force feed a gmail mbox zip of
15Gb into Thunderbird. Or download it via IMAP and "move" it to
a local folder. Or try and use it as a stand alone calendar and
try to puzzle out why they can not send invites.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It sounds to me like you have identified clear pain points for real
world users who have real world use cases that should be fixed. You
dismiss them for no clear reason, perhaps because they just don't
matter to *you*.<br>
<br>
Using Thunderbird as a local archive for one's Gmail account is most
certainly what I recognise as a wholly valid use case for
Thunderbird. It is surely one of its key selling points. Users
certainly *should* be able to local 15GB of mail into Thunderbird
folders, as well as copy mail easily and in an error-free manner
between IMAP and local folders and vice versa. Even if those things
don't matter to you, they are absolutely central use cases for a
thick client email program like Thunderbird and should not be
dismissed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d359f9d2-5bf3-2e38-872c-6893a6a8be2d@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> The very first prerequisite for even
thinking we should support calendar only</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Note that I did not advocate supporting "calendar only", or any
other feature "only". To recap: I am advocating nothing more scary
than allowing users who do not need an email account in their
Thunderbird profile to not have one configured. It's really that
simple.<br>
<br>
As I noted above, you are against adding constraints. Good. So am I.
That's why I am advocating here *removing* an unnecessary constraint
for many people who have entirely legitimate and real use cases for
Thunderbird that do not always involve an email account.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Rousell
</pre>
</body>
</html>