Many e-mail providers use the option of marking a message as "high
importance". Is there any way I can make gmail recognize this marking
as well and, for example, add a star to it automatically? Also, is
there any way I can mark a message I'm sending out as high importance?
I can't find something like this...
> Many e-mail providers use the option of marking a message as "high
> importance". Is there any way I can make gmail recognize this marking
> as well and, for example, add a star to it automatically? Also, is
> there any way I can mark a message I'm sending out as high importance?
> I can't find something like this...
Why not? How ridiculous is this? Now when someone sends me something
important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
info in the gmail interface. Oversight? It's been around in every
email program I've ever used. Please add this simple but important
(pun?) feature when sending. For receiving, the ability to filter on
other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
to filter and categorize things!
> > Many e-mail providers use the option of marking a message as "high
> > importance". Is there any way I can make gmail recognize this marking
> > as well and, for example, add a star to it automatically? Also, is
> > there any way I can mark a message I'm sending out as high importance?
> > I can't find something like this...
> Why not? How ridiculous is this? Now when someone sends me something
> important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
> info in the gmail interface. Oversight? It's been around in every
> email program I've ever used. Please add this simple but important
> (pun?) feature when sending. For receiving, the ability to filter on
> other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
> Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
> to filter and categorize things!
I agree it would be nice to filter on arbitrary headers.
But I don't agree about the general utility of message priority
settings. In my (not inconsequential) experience, the presence of a
message priority flag is a very good indicator that the incoming
message is NOT important. It is so much abused by spammers and other
bulk mailers that it is of no use for actually prioritizing mail.
Who are you to judge which message is or isn't important? The user
should make the determination as to whether or not the sender is
credible in their use of this flag. If it's a spammer that's abusing
it, then Google's spam filters should catch the message before
reaching a user's inbox anyway, correct?
In my experience - over 20 years in the private sector with Fortune
100 companies - this feature is used sparingly, so as to ensure that
when a message is marked urgent, it really is urgent.
Instead of being a judge of what is and what is not useful, Google
should offer such tools and assess their usefulness. If they work
well, great, they stay. If they blow, they're gone. It is Gmail *BETA*
after all.
> > Why not? How ridiculous is this? Now when someone sends me something
> > important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
> > info in the gmail interface. Oversight? It's been around in every
> > email program I've ever used. Please add this simple but important
> > (pun?) feature when sending. For receiving, the ability to filter on
> > other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
> > Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
> > to filter and categorize things!
> I agree it would be nice to filter on arbitrary headers.
> But I don't agree about the general utility of message priority
> settings. In my (not inconsequential) experience, the presence of a
> message priority flag is a very good indicator that the incoming
> message is NOT important. It is so much abused by spammers and other
> bulk mailers that it is of no use for actually prioritizing mail.
> Who are you to judge which message is or isn't important? The user
> should make the determination as to whether or not the sender is
> credible in their use of this flag. If it's a spammer that's abusing
> it, then Google's spam filters should catch the message before
> reaching a user's inbox anyway, correct?
> In my experience - over 20 years in the private sector with Fortune
> 100 companies - this feature is used sparingly, so as to ensure that
> when a message is marked urgent, it really is urgent.
> Instead of being a judge of what is and what is not useful, Google
> should offer such tools and assess their usefulness. If they work
> well, great, they stay. If they blow, they're gone. It is Gmail *BETA*
> after all.
> On Jun 10, 3:59 pm, JoshuaDPS wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 3:26 pm, CPngN wrote:
> > > Why not? How ridiculous is this? Now when someone sends me something
> > > important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
> > > info in the gmail interface. Oversight? It's been around in every
> > > email program I've ever used. Please add this simple but important
> > > (pun?) feature when sending. For receiving, the ability to filter on
> > > other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
> > > Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
> > > to filter and categorize things!
> > I agree it would be nice to filter on arbitrary headers.
> > But I don't agree about the general utility of message priority
> > settings. In my (not inconsequential) experience, the presence of a
> > message priority flag is a very good indicator that the incoming
> > message is NOT important. It is so much abused by spammers and other
> > bulk mailers that it is of no use for actually prioritizing mail.
My daughter said she received a text message on her phone from me (I
text from e mail, not my phone) that had three red !!!. I didn't do
anything differently from usual. So Gmail must have that feature? What
did I do differently than normal? I can't find anything about it.
LindD
This feature is greatly needed. Gmail is a good tool but that would
make it much better. Even on this page, they give an option of rating
posts. Isn't that like the email importance feature? Hello!
> > Who are you to judge which message is or isn't important? The user
> > should make the determination as to whether or not the sender is
> > credible in their use of this flag. If it's a spammer that's abusing
> > it, then Google's spam filters should catch the message before
> > reaching a user's inbox anyway, correct?
> > In my experience - over 20 years in the private sector with Fortune
> > 100 companies - this feature is used sparingly, so as to ensure that
> > when a message is marked urgent, it really is urgent.
> > Instead of being a judge of what is and what is not useful, Google
> > should offer such tools and assess their usefulness. If they work
> > well, great, they stay. If they blow, they're gone. It is Gmail *BETA*
> > after all.
> > On Jun 10, 3:59 pm, JoshuaDPS wrote:
> > > On Jun 10, 3:26 pm, CPngN wrote:
> > > > Why not? How ridiculous is this? Now when someone sends me something
> > > > important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
> > > > info in the gmail interface. Oversight? It's been around in every
> > > > email program I've ever used. Please add this simple but important
> > > > (pun?) feature when sending. For receiving, the ability to filter on
> > > > other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
> > > > Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
> > > > to filter and categorize things!
> > > I agree it would be nice to filter on arbitrary headers.
> > > But I don't agree about the general utility of message priority
> > > settings. In my (not inconsequential) experience, the presence of a
> > > message priority flag is a very good indicator that the incoming
> > > message is NOT important. It is so much abused by spammers and other
> > > bulk mailers that it is of no use for actually prioritizing mail.- Hide quoted text -
No, rating posts is nothing like message priority indicators. Message
priority indicators are set by the sender, while posts can
specifically NOT be rated by their author. Why do you think google
made this restriction? Because post authors are often not good judges
of the quality of their own posts. And spammers would certainly rate
all their own posts highly.
> This feature is greatly needed. Gmail is a good tool but that would
> make it much better. Even on this page, they give an option of rating
> posts. Isn't that like the email importance feature? Hello!
> On Jun 30, 12:09 pm, etegration wrote:
> > i hope this feature can be implemened too.
> > On Jun 18, 8:33 pm, jalejandrodc wrote:
> > > Who are you to judge which message is or isn't important? The user
> > > should make the determination as to whether or not the sender is
> > > credible in their use of this flag. If it's a spammer that's abusing
> > > it, then Google's spam filters should catch the message before
> > > reaching a user's inbox anyway, correct?
> > > In my experience - over 20 years in the private sector with Fortune
> > > 100 companies - this feature is used sparingly, so as to ensure that
> > > when a message is marked urgent, it really is urgent.
> > > Instead of being a judge of what is and what is not useful, Google
> > > should offer such tools and assess their usefulness. If they work
> > > well, great, they stay. If they blow, they're gone. It is Gmail *BETA*
> > > after all.
> > > On Jun 10, 3:59 pm, JoshuaDPS wrote:
> > > > On Jun 10, 3:26 pm, CPngN wrote:
> > > > > Why not? How ridiculous is this? Now when someone sends me something
> > > > > important and flags it, hoping I'll see it ASAP.... I'll see no such
> > > > > info in the gmail interface. Oversight? It's been around in every
> > > > > email program I've ever used. Please add this simple but important
> > > > > (pun?) feature when sending. For receiving, the ability to filter on
> > > > > other headers would, once again, solve a major headache with gmail.
> > > > > Glad I haven't switched to gmail-web permenantly, I'd go insane trying
> > > > > to filter and categorize things!
> > > > I agree it would be nice to filter on arbitrary headers.
> > > > But I don't agree about the general utility of message priority
> > > > settings. In my (not inconsequential) experience, the presence of a
> > > > message priority flag is a very good indicator that the incoming
> > > > message is NOT important. It is so much abused by spammers and other
> > > > bulk mailers that it is of no use for actually prioritizing mail.- Hide quoted text -
