It's so painfully obvious just from looking at the email model that that is not true. A lack of a central index? Separate content types that by their very nature contain more information? A searchable archive? None of those things are naturally part of email and providing them, at best is work, at worst is cludgy and unnatural.
You're thinking of this in the completely wrong way. Why should email - the protocol -
offer you all of this? It's nonsense, and goes against basic UNIX philosophy (do one thing).
It does another part of the UNIX philosophy very well, though: it's a universal interface.
Email can be used to communicate between all sorts of applications, and those applications
can give you the features you want easily. Which brings us back to what you're complaints
amount to: client problems.
Comments
It's so painfully obvious just from looking at the email model that that is not true. A lack of a central index? Separate content types that by their very nature contain more information? A searchable archive? None of those things are naturally part of email and providing them, at best is work, at worst is cludgy and unnatural.
You're thinking of this in the completely wrong way. Why should email - the protocol - offer you all of this? It's nonsense, and goes against basic UNIX philosophy (do one thing). It does another part of the UNIX philosophy very well, though: it's a universal interface. Email can be used to communicate between all sorts of applications, and those applications can give you the features you want easily. Which brings us back to what you're complaints amount to: client problems.