On Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 18:06, 9Val wrote: M>> With or without modifications done by a previous filter?
> With modifications - remember, object is the same Now I think it is even more important to not let the NFS move a parked message, whether it is originally parked or parked by the filter itself. If you want a moved message parked, move it first, then park it. I can well imagine the use for filters parking certain messages before passing them on to other filters, mostly to stop a subsequent filter from moving the message. Can we agree that a filter should not be able to move a message which has been parked earlier in _the same_ filtering session? If so, it would be confusing if the same logic didn't apply to message manipulation within _one filter_. If a message is parked, it shouldn't be able to move, regardless of whether it was parked before processed by the filter or by the filter itself. If I want to move and park a message, I should be forced to move it first and then park it. I see no downsides of such an implementation, but letting filters move parked messages during some conditions but not during other - well, that would be confusing. I think MAU and Peter (and others) have done a terrific job analysing the ups and downs of different implementation strategies, I don't have much to add except the above. -- Regards, Marcus Ohlstr�m Using The Bat! v3.0.0.8 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 PGP Public Key at http://www.canit.se/~marcus/pgp.asc ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.00.08 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
