I have sent this mail yesterday but it has been refused bcs I attached
a small JPG to it showing the problems of sorting with Vew by
reference. Sorry for the delay. Thus I omit the pic, of course.
Hello Marck,
Sunday, April 30, 2000, 4:28:17 PM, you wrote:
>> 1-1. Autowrap
>> Doesn't work if the line is changed.
>> Example: I put wrap at 77 characters. I write my 78th char and it
>> wraps. I decide to write more in the line above and thus I push the
>> end of the line way beyond the 78th char. No wrapping occurs. This
>> would be no problem if all I would have to do to re-wrap is go to the
>> beginning of the next line below and press BACKSPACE.
> Enable Auto-Format. When allied with Auto-Wrap, that's what it does.
Nope, it doesn't. At least not the way it should. Try it. Type a line
with less chars than the wrap limit. Press RETURN. Type something. Be
annoyed. :-)
Additional remark after having read the "too robotic" thread: This
behavior is hardly what it should be like. It is neither proper
auto-wrap nor proper auto-format. :-(
>> 3. Extremely important: Mailing List Support
> %TO=""%TO="%OFROMNAME on TBUDL<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
Hahaaa! Thanks! It works! =B-D
>> 4. Sorting the ListView
> Use threading by reference with sort by time. That does the job
> perfectly.
Ah, thanks!! Another problem solved ... well, perhaps. If you take a look at the
attached screen grab - shouldn't the Re2 be connected with the Re?
The JPG showed a Re: blah0, than a Re: blah1, and then a
Re[2]: blah0. I wonder if this supposed to be normal?
>> 5. PreView 1
>> The PreView feature could be greatly enhanced by
>> a) letting the user scroll it with CRSR UP/DN even though the
>> ListView is the active window part
> This works using Alt CRSR UP/DN in TB.
Correct! Cool, thanks again. It's a little different but does the
trick perfectly well.
>> 7. Forward/Reply of multiple msg
>> Merge them into one, attach all attachments in the forward mode to the
>> merged text file. Add up all the subjects into one and put it into the
>> subject field. Duplicate subjects should not be added in this line.
>> Probably a good idea to make it optional too.
> I don't like this one. It reeks of mangling, is fraught with potential
> hazards is is far more esoteric than is good for it as a concept.
> Whenever I have had to do anything like this (and that's *extremely*
> rare - 4 times maybe in 5 years?) I have done the merge by hand and
> not begrudged it.
Hmm. I have had a couple more occasions... but that's why I think
optional is a good solution.
BTW, right now here is such an occasion: Instead of replying to the
arguments of each single person I would love to select all your
replies, hit REPLY and go along editing and replying myself. :-)
> Programs are good at following rules. Define a clear rule set for a
> sequence of actions and it's a natural for a computer / software to
> do. I suggest there is no rule set to adequately describe this
> particular wish.
Well, there is IMHO. Exclude the attachments for the time being. Just
take the text. What's the problem in merging ASCII text (or even HTML,
for that matter) neatly one after another? As for the subject line,
well okay, RFC compliance would demand a cut after 1024 chars. Never
had *that* particular problem in all the time though.
Which brings up an idea... is there something like Rexx on this
platform? So that I can write my own little scripts, put them in a
menu item of any program supporting this, and make the program do what
my script says? Such a "merge" script should be done in no time flat,
provided TB! supports the "merge" command.
>> 8. Display Headers B4 D/L
>> The best solution: Make it optional,
> It is optional. Kill-filters *must* download headers first. The Mail
> Dispatcher also works on downloading headers. With neither of these
> features active, messages are simply downloaded immediately.
I guess I have not quite understood the difference and work-together
of the Mail Dispatcher and Message Management check boxes. I have
tried to get rid of the header confirmation but couldn't get it right
yet. I might have made a mistake here, yes.
>> 15. Folders
>> On opening a folder, the cursor bar should immediately jump to the
>> next new/unread mail.
> I disagree vehemently. I want the cursor left where I left it. It took
> me a while to find those messages I'm reading in reference to an issue
> I'm writing a note about. Just because a new mail has arrived in that
> folder, why should my last focused message no longer be under the
> cursor?
Okay, here most of you seem to be of the same opposed opinion. Maybe
an option for this behavior could be the solution?
--
Best regards,
Eberhard Hafermalz
Bradley's Bromide:
If computers get too powerful, we can organize
them into a committee -- that will do them in.
Created with TheBat! The only W98 mailer almost living up to the term...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
