Skip to content

Wim Van Aelst

My feedback

30 results found

  1. 103 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  2. 147 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  3. 151 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  4. 154 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  5. 277 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  6. 799 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  7. 35 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  8. 72 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Van Aelst commented  · 

    Dear ProtonMail Team,

    I would like to request the addition of alphabetical sorting functionality in the inbox. Specifically, the ability to sort messages by:

    - **Sender name** (A-Z and Z-A)
    - **Subject line** (A-Z and Z-A)
    - **Date** (already available, but with reverse option)
    - **Size** (already available, but with reverse option)

    This is a fundamental feature found in virtually all major email clients (Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo Mail, etc.), and it would significantly improve the usability of ProtonMail for organizing and finding messages.

    **Use cases:**
    - Quickly locating all emails from a specific person by sorting alphabetically by sender
    - Finding emails with similar subject lines grouped together
    - Managing large inboxes more efficiently without relying solely on search

    I understand ProtonMail prioritizes security and privacy, which are excellent. Adding sorting options would not compromise these values while making the interface more intuitive and user-friendly.

    Thank you for considering this request. I would greatly appreciate this feature addition.

    Best regards,
    Wim

    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  9. 21 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
  10. 15 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Wim Van Aelst commented  · 

    Adding my support to this long-standing request, and hoping a more detailed case might help move it forward.

    What I — and clearly many others — are asking for is not complex: the ability to assign an importance level to emails, both when sending and when organizing received messages. Specifically:

    **When composing**: A High / Normal / Low importance selector, equivalent to what Outlook has offered since the 1990s. This sets the X-Priority header so recipients on any email client see the flag.

    **When reading**: The ability to mark a received email with more than one state. A single star is a blunt instrument. Even a simple two-flag system (e.g., ⭐ starred + 🔴 urgent, or follow-up flags with due dates) would dramatically improve inbox triage for anyone managing a high volume of email.

    I understand Proton's roadmap is ambitious and that encryption-first architecture adds complexity. But this particular feature does not conflict with Proton's privacy model in any way — importance flags are metadata the user controls entirely on their own device.

    The UserVoice threads on this topic date back years and have accumulated significant votes. I've also seen this cited as a reason people hesitate to fully migrate from Outlook to Proton Mail. That's a real migration barrier that Proton's own 2026 roadmap says it wants to remove.

    I'd love to see this acknowledged on the roadmap — even a "planned" status would reassure a lot of users that it hasn't been forgotten.

    Wim Van Aelst supported this idea  · 
2 Next →