On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:17:48 +0100, Jast wrote:
Well I don't :-D However, even if I did it, that's what trashcans are
for...
I dislike system trashcans. :-D I have the hassle of having to clear
them since I hardly EVER restore anything. You can send your system in a
tizzy as I've seen
Morning Allie Martin,
Er. *Allie clears his throat* Objection sire :-D
That pop-up confirmation has saved my ass on many an occasion when I
accidentally hit the delete key or selected the wrong menu option with
both keyboard and mouse.
Bleh. I don't like these confirmation popup
Morning Allie Martin,
Undo is not very practical for all things. Abort ... fine. But how do
you reverse the damages. I definitely support popup confirmations for
potentially seriously damaging operations such as deleting accounts,
folder contents etc. It's not everyday that you do it. I
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:18:28 -0800, Januk Aggarwal wrote:
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong reply-to
Monday, January 17, 2000, 10:18:28 PM, Januk wrote:
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong reply-to in your
Monday, January 17, 2000, 9:26:45 AM, Thomas wrote:
Semantic difference. What I meant is the client default, of course.
Then say that. My client is TB!, not Thomas Fernandez. ;P
I don't think so. Both are not regulated by the RFC's or whereever,
and it is only common agreemens -
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:42:04 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..] conceded with content :)
Unlike the "do you REALLY want to delete this" prompts from Windows which
are ineffective. I know they are coming, I slam the enter key already while
flying on autopilot so it confirms nothing.
SL Incorrect. REPLY-TO is a matter of at least RFC822. RFC822 does dictate
SL what purposes REPLY-TO can be employed for and puts forth acceptable use of
SL that field.
I would bet that it does not require a prompt, though, as you say:
SL Further, convention is that there is at least
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:40:33 -0800, Tom Plunket wrote:
...that other programs prompt is not at issue. What if the solution
was to NOT prompt, but to offer an easy way to change to other
addresses (or other fields, what have you)? Like, say, a droplist
when editing your message, and you
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 3:40:33 PM, Tom wrote:
...that other programs prompt is not at issue.
If one is trying to argue based on convention alone, it is. What others
do is what dictates convention.
What if the solution was to NOT prompt, but to offer an easy way to change
to other
Hi Allie,
On 19 January 2000 at 20:20:26 GMT -0500 (which was 01:20 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points:
An aside: if The Bat! strips virtual space, do sigdashes go out
improperly formatted? In other words, do we get dashdashspace
or are we stuck with
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Marck,
MDP Ahem - I don't think that actually works. Spaces at EOL are only
MDP preserved in templates from my experimentation. So we
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:42:04 -0800GMT (19/01/2000, 05:42 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL The reply-to behavior is not a convention. It is a prompt or an option
SL for a prompt. It is partially dictated by a formal document (RFC822) and
SL therefore is closer to a standard than a
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:49:28 +, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
--
Ahem - I don't think that actually works. Spaces at EOL are only
preserved in templates from my experimentation. So we actually do get
dashdash no space. What's more, If we have the temerity to let the
cursor wander
Friday, January 14, 2000, 5:07:15 PM, Allie wrote:
Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
not place anything in the header of replies because one, it's assuming
that you wish to use the reply to address (duh) and two, it's wrongfully
assuming that you'll wish
Friday, January 14, 2000, 7:17:54 PM, Thomas wrote:
How about following conventions in the mailing culture being the
reason why? ;-) Here is what I mean (and I am not as good in wording
as you are):
Doing so would dictate that the Reply-to is not set 1/2 the time. :P
1.) Reply-to means
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:21:01 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
not place anything in the header of replies because one, it's assuming
that you wish to use the reply to address (duh) and two, it's wrongfully
assuming
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:28:51 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
My opinion on this is therefore: The reply-to address is the default
for replying. I don't want a pop-up window, as I don't want a pop-up
window for a missing subject. It is the same case for me.
Until the first time someone sends
Hi Steve,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:28:51 -0800GMT (17/01/2000, 16:28 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
How about following conventions in the mailing culture being the
reason why? ;-) Here is what I mean (and I am not as good in wording
as you are):
SL Doing so would dictate that the Reply-to
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:03 AM, Allie wrote:
Move your eyes up to the To: field and verify the address before
sending (that's if either address mean anything to you in the first
place). Problem solved. :
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We've gone over this, Allie. At
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:22 AM, Thomas wrote:
But this is exactly the point: I should reply to the list, that's why
the list server replaces you original reply-to with the list address.
Uhm, no. *YOU* should reply to the destination that is fitting the
content of the message at
Hallo Steve,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:50:02 -0800 GMT (18.01.2000, 00:50 +0800 GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL Uhm, no. *YOU* should reply to the destination that is fitting the
SL content of the message at hand. The *client* should default that to be the
SL reply-to. There is a *BIG*
Hello Steve,
Monday, January 17, 2000, 4:43:18 AM, you wrote:
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong
Hello Allie,
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 10:02:08 PM, you wrote:
AM If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM *sender* will be generated and with the entire message text quoted.
AM If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM
Hello Allie,
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 10:02:08 PM, you wrote:
AM If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM *sender* will be generated and with the entire message text quoted.
AM If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM
Hello Roel,
Friday, January 14, 2000, 11:42:42 AM, you wrote:
R plain f4 works fine :-)
R plain f4 works fine :-)
That was *plain* F4...
--
Best regards,
István Szendrõmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! 1.39 Beta/1 under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
--
Hello, The Bat Users!
SL Operative word is "should", not must. Because of that, and
SL the widespread use of mailing lists, I think that the client
SL should prompt the user on which address they want to send to with
SL the default being the reply-to. This gives the user the ability
SL to
Friday, January 14, 2000, 1:35:54 PM, Andrew wrote:
Oh, Steve. I don't believe my eyes - you propose to implement a
prompt?! :) So that the program asks one more silly question each time
I reply...
Of course. How many times have I said the program shouldn't assume?
Wouldn't it be an
In Reference to "Replt-To in mailing list (Was: mailto: in Signatures)" From Steve
Lamb:
SL Of course. How many times have I said the program shouldn't assume?
SL Wouldn't it be an assumption on which address to use when the two differ? :P
But is really wrong to assume you want to reply
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:06:18 PM, Nick wrote:
But is really wrong to assume you want to reply to the Reply to:
address unless you specify differently?
IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
most people
In Reference to "Replt-To in mailing list (Was: mailto: in
Signatures)" From Steve Lamb:
SL IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
SL most people don't display the reply-to in the header information (most clients
SL don't by default, people normally stick
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:35:00 PM, Nick wrote:
Okay, I don't know who you are or what you did with Steve but you have
about 10 minutes to get out of there before I call the police!!!
Hey, I signed that one bucko. :P
Are you advocating a feature to help out newbies at the cost of
In Reference to "Replt-To in mailing list (Was: mailto: in
Signatures)" From Steve Lamb:
SL Well, it would help if that feature (CNTL-F4) were in the mouse options
SL somewhere. Hell, I didn't even know about it.
It is, albeit rather hidden, right click on the message and it's
nested
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:35:00 PM, Nick wrote:
peek and make sure it right. The newbies can do this while checking to
make sure the subject is filled in. ;)
BTW, just wanted to add that this isn't as easy as it seems. I mean, at a
glace, who is this message being sent to? Nick Danger.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:32 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
most people don't display the reply-to in the header information (most clients
don't by default, people normally stick with defaults) someone could
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:43:25 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
Well, it would help if that feature (CNTL-F4) were in the mouse options
somewhere. Hell, I didn't even know about it.
A toolbar button perhaps? :) I use this feature a lot more than reply
to all and yet it's deep within
Friday, January 14, 2000, 3:45:50 PM, Allie wrote:
Well, it's not all the time that the user will know the significance
of either address or why the addresses differ.
All the more reason why they should be prompted.
I would therefore think that it is not an assumption being made,
Friday, January 14, 2000, 3:49:57 PM, Allie wrote:
A toolbar button perhaps? :) I use this feature a lot more than reply
to all and yet it's deep within a menu if you wish to invoke it with a
mouse.
Personally I like the drop down buttons like on the send/check mail
buttons. I'm not
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:06:59 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
*smile* Like I said, I can play with you with reply-tos. Want a
message to go to my debian lists? All I need to do is accidentally send
you a message while in one of those folders since I set the reply-to
back to the
On Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:24:41 PM, Allie Martin wrote:
TB! is a little unorthodox in
that it will put the senders name and the reply to address together in the
To: field. If that confuses the user then the user may turn it off.
Where is that option located Allie? In some respects I
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:45:24 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Nope. There is a choice there that has to be made, why should the
computer assume which address to send to?
Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
not place anything in the header of replies because
On Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:45:24 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
BTW, Nick did bring up a valid point about simply looking at the To:
address before hitting send. I see that in a similar way as checking to
make sure there's a subject before sending. TB! is a little unorthodox in
that it will
On Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:45:24 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
I'd love to know how. I don't see a checkbox for it. Wait, I bet it is
another #$^#$^$#%ing macro. Nope, a freaking checkbox this time. I wish
RITLABS would stop dicking around and do the configuration right. Jeez.
Further
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:45:24 -0800GMT (15/01/2000, 08:45 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
Can't sentence the user to a perennial popup confirmation to deal with
possible exceptions to an overwhelming rule. Isn't that taking your never
assume philosophy a bit too far . to the point
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:43:25 -0800GMT (15/01/2000, 06:43 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
Okay, I don't know who you are or what you did with Steve but you have
about 10 minutes to get out of there before I call the police!!!
ROTFLMAO
SL Hey, I signed that one bucko. :P
Nice
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:15:03 AM, Angel wrote:
maling lists et al. because of the reason stated above: hitting Reply or
Reply-To for a "private" reply would send it to the entire list.
Personally this is a small nigglet, IMHO, with TB!. There have been tons
of arguments over whether
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Alexander,
AVK OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
AVK elegant deceision at all (you might believe me
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Alexander,
AVK OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
AVK elegant deceision at all (you might believe me
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:17:33 +0100, Roel wrote:
[..snip..]
if you want to reply to the 'from'-address, use shift-f4...
Ooops! That should be CTRL-F4. Shift-F4 replies to the reply-to
address but without a message body.
only 'drawback' (i think it's a feature actually!) is that you'll
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:03:54 PM, Alexander wrote:
... but right now the only e-mail client that it the way you (and me;-))
consider optimal is Pegasus AFAIK;-)
PMMail, Pine, Mutt
OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
elegant deceision at
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:19:13 PM, Roel wrote:
sorry, i meant control-f4, *not* shift-f4
Wow, never knew that was there. Would be better to have that as a
pulldown on the button than in the "special" menu.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm
51 matches
Mail list logo
