On 5/13/04 7:22 PM, "John C. Welch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/04 6:07 PM, "Entourage:mac Talk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think the issue here is that the Rules construction interface is much >> simpler than determining how to use AppleScript syntax for these tasks. A >> schedule can trigger an AppleScript; now, if an Applescript can apply a >> rule to a set of messages/maiboxes, I think we'd have something Mark could >> use easily. > > Only if someone else writes it for him. But it only has to be written once (for him and for everyone else who want to use the established Rules construction interface). That one Applescript would make _all_ of the Rules engine (including the construction interface) available to everyone who uses the script. It sounds like bang-for-buck to me. > And that would be using rules for > things that rules aren't designed for. I have to respectfully disagree. Rules can be applied to selected messages via a menu item, which means they are not just "meant" for incoming and outgoing messages. Manual invocation or automatic invocation doesn't really change the "meaning". > > That's why E'rage is scriptable. > > john I don't see what's wrong with trying to leverage the good work that the Entourage team has done to make a filtering engine with a user interface that people feel comfortable with. Ent has schedules, and it has rules: why should the twain never meet? -- Joshua -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
