On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:09:28 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 19:24:13 +0200 (CEST) Robert Vazan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I really do, this is important because before I could see at a glance what > the message was about even if it went to some other folder. Now I can't any > more and I have to keep another (log) window opened all the time. I am not sure whether this is wanted feature. Consider that my filter processes 50+ messages per second. I cannot see them unless they come in 30+ copies and then I don't want to see messages that come in 30+ copies. Things will be faster with improved hardware and pipelining protocols. How fast is your filter? Also, good implementation of progress dialog should not flicker. It should hold one state for 0.2 to 1.0 seconds and then switch to next stable state. I see that MS software does this and maybe wxWindows will be upgraded to do it too. With threads, it isn't any problem to implement this even if watched process stalls. Maybe progress dialog could wait for a fraction of second before it lets the process to continue. This would also make visible anything that appears after filtering, like spam status and subjects of messages that passed filter. It could be default. I have seen such intentional delays in other software. > RV> I can start implementing changes about 19th October. Before that, I 9th October, Thursday > the subject has to be shown before you start processing any filters at all, > so there is really no choice: either you always see it or you never do. If I don't understand why would there be such a choice. See above for example of how to make it visible at the right moment. > you don't want to see it, it's qjuite useless to see "hidden in spam > filter" too, just don't show it then. I simply can't see any sense in > showing message with no information whatsoever to the user... I don't care whether "hidden in spam filter" is shown or not. I can hide subject/sender lines completely. > RV> Is your spam filter first in a chain? > > No. For example all quick filters are before it (they're a kind of > whitelist). Well, there isn't clear solution for such cases. There could be option allowing several choices, e.g.: Hide subjects while filtering: (1) Never (2) For messages that match spam rule (3) Until last spam rule (4) In filters involving spam rule (5) Always Default would be (3). You would probably want (2), so that you see messages that match quick filters. I would temporarily use (4) and when built-in filter becomes capable enough, I would go back to (3). The point here is not only that I want to have good spam filter, but also that the spam filter works for all Mahogany users. This includes having reasonable defaults. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
