User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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 (guest, #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:

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/linuxurls.html


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds