Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Separate web vs email?Separate web vs email?Posted Dec 17, 2003 0:09 UTC (Wed) by kdebisschop (guest, #1158)In reply to: Separate web vs email? by stuart2048 Parent article: A look at Thunderbird 0.4 While I suppose it can be done better, I'll give you my example why. I switched my MUA to Evolution because using Mozilla Classic + Mozilla Mail, I found that if I hit a web page that crashed or locked the browser, I lost my mail session. This can be bad if you've just sunk an hour into crafting a very sensitive corporate-type email. FWIW, I just tried the Mozilla combo again about a week ago, and still I find that the broswer crashes during ordinary broswing, and I still lose my mail session. I like mozilla, and I like mozilla mail. But until they are both absolutely crash-proof, I think I will prefer separate apps. Sharing libraries is one thing, but I don't like to lose email sessions like that.
(Log in to post comments)
Separate web vs email? Posted Dec 17, 2003 10:28 UTC (Wed) by horen (subscriber, #2514) [Link] I agree with you 100%! I moved to Firebird/Thunderbird when they first appeared on the scene, but still need to use Mozilla for its Composer (an intricately-tabular NOC monthly schedule). What's still missing in Thunderbird is a MozEx-like extension which will intercept selecting a URL in an email message and opening it in Firebird (or any other browser). Like an LTR, rather than a marriage...
Separate web vs email? Posted Dec 18, 2003 18:43 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] What's still missing in Thunderbird is a MozEx-like extension which will intercept selecting a URL in an email message and opening it in Firebird (or any other browser).I haven't tried this yet, but here's some info on URL dispatching:
|
|||||||||||||