On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 at  8:36:34 pm BST, Glyn Millington 
<glyn.milling...@gmail.com> wrote:

> mail-alias - I believe this is defined in bbdb.el  You can insert that
> field into a record using the instructions offered here:
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/BbdbMailingLists

Thanks for that. I've tried it and it works exactly as described.

I never know whether EmacsWiki BBDB pages are up-to-date for BBDBv3 or
not, so I tend to ignore them. I'll annotate that page to say it applies
to v3. Before I do, can anyone confirm that these instructions are
unchanged from v2?

WRT this, from the wiki page:

> You also need to tell the BBDB to define the mail abbreviations for
> you. This depends on the mail package you use – here is the code for
> your ~/.emacs for both plain mail-mode, or the message-mode that comes
> with Gnus.
>     (add-hook 'mail-setup-hook 'bbdb-define-all-aliases)
>     (add-hook 'message-setup-hook 'bbdb-define-all-aliases)

I wonder what the use-case is for *not* enabling this by default, say as
part of `bbdb-insinuate-*'? Should automatic mail-alias marshalling not
be the default behavior? What would anyone gain by *not* having it?

Turning it off should be the configurable option, not turning it on,
don't you think? Otherwise, a powerful and (for many years now) standard
contact-list/address-book feature may lie undiscovered and unused for
many months -- as it did for me. The current approach impedes user
access and presents barriers, for no concomitant benefit, IMO.

I always advocate an opinionated, batteries-included, no-config approach
wherever possible. What do you all think?

The term "mail alias" itself seems to me to be poorly chosen, bespeaking
an inward-looking, comp-sci-technical, "historical reasons" (IOW no
reason) viewpoint rather than an outward-looking, user- and
usability-focused one. Much as I love the Unix way, this is an example
of where Unix tradition sucks and is really user hostile. We're talking
about *lists* and/or *groups*, not "aliases". *Those* are the words most
users will expect and look for; those are the words BBDB should use. 

I suggest we standardize on "group". I can rename and write a
`define-obsolete-*-alias' declaration for each existing `*-mail-alias'
declaration and -- the important bit -- update the doc strings. That
seems consistent with the way v3 has tried to rename lots of opaque and
unintuitive "legacy" symbol names thus far. Maintainers can then
gradually eliminate the "obsolete symbol" compiler warnings over time.

Before I (attempt to) code this and submit a patch, can anyone see a
reason I've missed why it's a bad idea?

Phil Hudson                   http://hudson-it.ddns.net
@UWascalWabbit                 PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63

One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
BBDB Home Page: http://bbdb.sourceforge.net/

Reply via email to