Hi Pit, > I don't know if I'm one of these 'experts' called. I suppose you are one of the programmers, right?
> But I do know there is no such options you'd like to use. Really too bad. It would be very useful. To you, too, once you get used to the feeling, believe me. > You I think you will argue with me, this _is_ a complex thing > you'd like to see realized. I'll give it a try. :-) I don't see why that would be so difficult. The only challange is to "merge" the headers of the mails being replied to. Why is that so difficult? > To say something to your last sentence: why the heck everybody brings out > this 'configurable option' if there's something that's wanted and it is > told that this maybe will not come. That's human, isn't it? > Does anybody screaming out this nice phrase about 'configure > everything' has have some few thought about what _configuring > everything_ means? Yep, I sure do know what I am talking about. Since many years I am mainly using Unix and I think the many configuration options are one of THE strength of all unix programs. If there's something I don't like or like different, I'll simply configure it differently. :-) > Not only you have to double or triple the development time for having as > much as possible configurable, no ... you also double or triple time for > bug finding, human error detecting because everybody has it's own system. That's true, but _only_ in the non-public-domain world. Open up your source code and the whole world will help you find the bugs. Well, I guess that's a little off topic now. Just wanted to mention that your statements only apply to this part of the software world. > Additionally: you can't make configurable everything without loosing > function. I completely disagree. > It is quite _impossible_ to have the same function 'static' and in > conjunction with 'configure around 50-100 parameters as you like, all > effecting this function'. Impossible would mean that noone could do it, right? If that's correct, you are wrong. Take almost ANY unix mail client but especially mutt. It has so many configurable options you can hardly count them. And it works just great. So all but impossible. ;-) > Everybody that listened in mathematic lessons only 1% of time should > know: the more options/parameters the bigger the amount of possible > results. I agree. So all what you need here is more people that participate in testing and bug finding. That too is mathematics: the more testers the less bugs. :-) > We this end we all can see and marvel in dozens of wonderful > products from Redmond: No,no,no,no, please don't compare ANY software with the huge bugs MS is spreading out over the world. Anyone can do better than Gates&Co. > I'd like to see TB! staying small. Not in funtion; in size needed on > disk. This is only possible if there's a deadline of 'customization'. Hm, small you say. Fine, one more time my comparison with mutt: I just counted the diskspace of it: 523 KB Okay, including all used dynamic libraries which doesn't make much sense, but what the heck: 2.3 MB Then I counted the diskspace used by TheBat directory (subtracting the Mail directory of course): 7 MB (I have no idea what other DLLs TheBat uses so I couldn't add that) > Well ... I think nobody else is interested, but for the archive I had > to write this mail :-) Just for being able to say "I've already > written this ages ago!" *ggg* Dito. Here again, I completely agree with you, hehe. Andy. -- Dr. Andy Spiegl, Radio Mara��n, Ja�n, Per� E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://spiegl.de, http://radiomaranon.org.pe PGP/GPG: see headers o _ _ _ ------- __o __o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_) -o) ----- _`\<,_ _`\<,_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/ /\\ ---- (_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_ _\_v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
msg31520/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
