On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 21:30, Steve Murphy wrote: > I've been watching this thread over the last number of days, and I can't > help throwing in my 2 cents. > > I'm pretty sure I'd be satiated on this issue for a while if: > > 1. a filter could have an action of executing a specified program, and > passing the letter to it via stdin (pipe).
I just hacked this 2 days ago... > > 2. a filter could have an action of just executing a program. No pipe. > If all you're going to do is ring a bell, why pass possibly a couple > hundred K of data for nothing? this has been implemented for a while in the development release. But I think having a way to pipe the message to an external process and reading it back from the process might be useful? I dunno, it was suggested that I do this next. > > In the future, if you guys could allow users to define sequences of > "actions", exactly as in filters, and allow them to be applied to > messages via adding the sequence's (macro's?) name to the "tools" menu, > and maybe optionally a labeled button in the toolbar, this could be cool > also. > > For instance, it might be nice to automatically toss all the junk mail > to Vipul's Razor's reporter by way of a filter. But, if you really want > to be sure, it'd be nice to be able to hit a button to send a message to > the reporter once you've viewed it. > > murf > _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
