Hi Tobias,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:08:10 +0200GMT (26/09/2000, 05:08 +0800GMT),
Tobias Wrede wrote:
>> Ah-so, that make sense, don't you think?
TW> In one way it does, but since all three methods of confirmation are
TW> invoked by TB! itself and not from the user _I_ don't see why they
TW> should be treated differently.
I think they should be treated differently, becuase two methods are
automated replies, whereeas the third invokes the editor and has thus
likely been manually edited. It has been replied to, by human
intervention.
TW> Moreover it should be no problem to omit the replied flagging when
TW> using the "edit" method. I do not see the difference between
TW> opening and editing the confirmation message and then putting it
TW> into outbox (edit) or putting it into outbox , then opening and
TW> editing it and finally putting it back into outbox (Put in
TW> outbox).
I don't see a difference either. Whenever you edit the reply, the
original message has been "replied" to.
IMHO The only time there should be no reply mark is when the
auto-reply goes without user intervention. He might not have seen the
message.
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.46d
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
on a Pentium II/350 MHz.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
