On Monday, September 25, 2000, 2:08:10 PM, Tobias wrote:
>> Ah-so, that make sense, don't you think?
> In one way it does, but since all three methods of confirmation
> are invoked by TB! itself and not from the user _I_ don't see why
> they should be treated differently.
I meant to say they should because in the case where you edit the
reply, it's a "true" reply. OTOH, reading confirmation isn't a
"true" reply.
Wait a minute, something just came to my mind. I vaguely remember
there was some discussion about messages replied automatically via a
filter not marked as replied. I didn't really follow that thread,
for I didn't (don't) use any auto-reply. But if that's the case,
then not just reading confirmation is treated as such, anything TB
generates for you without your editing isn't treated as a "reply".
(Maybe someone more familiar with that discussion could clear this
up a bit.)
> Moreover it should be no problem to omit the replied flagging when
> using the "edit" method.
Perhaps not. If what I said above is right, however, TB is simply
following the logic that any "reply" (reading confirmation included)
done with human intervention is a "true" reply, and would mark the
original message as replied, which sounds pretty reasonable to me.
> I do not see the difference between opening and editing the
> confirmation message and then putting it into outbox (edit) or
> putting it into outbox , then opening and editing it and finally
> putting it back into outbox (Put in outbox).
The difference lies in how the program works. When a message is put
in the Outbox, its relation with the original message is severed.
Try the following:
1. Reply to a message, and save it in the Outbox as draft. Then
manual cancel the "replied" flag of the original message (Right
click | Flags | Replied). Now go to the Outbox, open the saved
draft, do some editing, and save it again. Go back to the original
message. Is it marked as replied again? No.
2. Reply to a message, and in the editing window, enable the
"Original text" (from the view menu) if it's not there already. Now
save it as draft, and open it again in the Outbox. You should find
the "Original text" pane gone and the option in the View menu grayed
out.
Is it possible for TB to maintain the relationship between a reply
and its original? Of course. TB may record the information (the
original's folder and message id, perhaps) in the Outbox (either the
message file or its index file) before sending it out. But then the
file format of the Outbox would be different from other folders, and
I'm not sure it's desirable.
It's relatively simple (programming-wise) for TB to do what it does
now. I.e., a message is marked as replied whenever a reply (reading
confirmation) is *manually* saved, queued in the Outbox, or sent
(immediately). It seems pretty logical to me, as said, but I don't
used such features often enough to have a strong opinion. Nor am I a
good enough programmer (even with lowered standard for an amateur)
to know how difficult it really is to make subtler distinctions.
This is not to say you shouldn't get what you want. You may want to
file a formal suggestion to RIT and they might add extra options (or
filter options/actions) for you.
--
Best regards,
Ming-Li
The Bat! 1.47 Beta/5 | Win2k SP1
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
