[Design] How basic can we stand for email?

[Katie Capps Parlante]

Ted Leung wrote:
> Unless the email that got sucked in to
> the IMAP server/proxy was deeply integrated into Chandler (which it 
> won't be if we don't have basic composition, reply, etc), then I don't 
> think I would use it.   For me the value of e-mail in Chandler is not 
> every bell and whistle I can think of (and I can think of a lot), but 
> it's the integration with the workflow and knowledge management 
> capabilities.

I'm assuming we'll have *basic* composition and reply -- we have very 
very basic features now, enough that Pieter sends announcements from 
Chandler, and Philippe has experimented with email in Chandler.

Brian Kirsch will do some of this basic work in the next desktop alpha 
or two (reply, forward, etc.)

Another avenue of inquiry that Mimi has mentioned: what's the littlest 
bit of email features that we could put up with for people like Ted, 
Pieter and Philippe to use it, given the integration benefits?

Philippe had some good insights into what it would require for him to 
use it, perhaps he'll chime in when he's back from vacation. ;)

Cheers,
Katie