Comment 102 for bug 490935
Revision history for this message
|
|
#102 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
(In reply to Ben Bucksch (:BenB) from comment #88)
+1, I'd like to register my support for Ben's support of this bug :)
65 votes and 15 duplicates with consistent inflow over a large time span are a good indication that "edit subject" feature has the potential of adding significant value for many affected users.
Somebody care to search https:/
> Why this is important:
>
> 1. You personally may not, but many users have fax->email services.
If you are suggesting that a larger or in any way significant percentage of TB users use FAX-to-Email services, then imho that's a fiction from the same ideosyncratic historic world where plaintext messages are still so much the order of the day that we could just ignore the substantial dataloss of formatting/styles inflicted on users of HTML messages by your delivery-format "Auto-Detect" algorithm.
Having said that, I don't think small numbers of users for a given feature is per se an argument against that feature; if we removed all features each only used by small percentage of users, we would end up removing large parts of TB feature set. On the contrary, I'd claim that qualitative aspects like the degree of disturbance by lost ux-efficiency should also matter. Which might apply to this bug: It's hard to tell how many users would actually bother to edit subjects, but for those affected by such problems, it's a significant interruption to their workflows.
> For them, this feature is absolutely necessary.
+1
> 2. If people set bad subjects for important emails (e.g. by just hitting
> reply on an unrelated subject), I can either get angry at them (because I
> will not find it anymore in one week), or ask them to fix it in the future,
> or I can fix it myself in my mail store. The latter, however, I can only do
> with this feature.
+1
> 3. Many other people have wrong clocks on their computers, and Thunderbird
> sorts folders by the message send time that the sender put in. I recently
> received a mail which was exactly one month off. Completely confused me in
> the folder view. I can't fix it, without this feature. (Arguably,
> Thunderbird should sort better.)
This bug is only about editing subject; editing any other header fields (like date) is not in the scope of this bug, and should not. It'll be more than hard enough to just land "edit subject" in a generally acceptable and functional manner (think IMAP), so expanding the scope of this bug would be the perfect recipe for never landing anything.
> This is similar to "delete attachment" feature. That's also a feature that
> we didn't have for a long time, and some said we didn't want it, they said
> it's freaky and wrong. Finally, we added it -
+1, there seems to be some analogy of technicalities and historical development.
> and it's indispensable, as it turned out.
OT: I have some doubts on that, given that the "delete/detach attachment" feature still has bugs (like wrong icon for detached files) without much activity from users iirc.