Dear Thomas, @1-Jun-2008, 01:45 +0700 (31-May 19:45 here) Thomas Fernandez [TF] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:
... <snip> MDP>> It is by design, I believe, but the design does feel uncomfortable to me. TF> Confirmed. TF> Since it is apparently by design, would the request to change have to TF> be a wishhlist entry rather than a bug report? Wishlist entries take TF> longer to get attention. Or should we wait for Ritlabs to confirm TF> whether this is a bug or WAD? It's really a bug. There's clearly an internal a flag that says "Body has been edited - do not re-apply template". There clearly should be a similar flag for the address. Having said that, I think Stef tried to get it sorted out once but it ended up worse. Some address changes *do* require a body re-evaluation since, e.g., you may be intending to trigger a specific address book template to reformat the message body. A balance is what we need. Separate evaluation of the manual modification state of the address headers and to ignore recipient changes when re-evaluating the template. Perhaps it's to do with timing. The template is being re-evaluated when moving into the body edit window. I can see the logic there too - all header changes are complete - it's the best time to re-evaluate the body content. But if the template used calls for a change to manually edited headers - that should be protected somehow. Tricky! -- Cheers -- //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user TB! v4.0.24.16 on Windows Vista 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1 '
pgpeKwTSBLeOp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________________ Current beta is 4.0.24.16 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
