Hello Jan, On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, at 11:19:22 [GMT -0400] (which was 11:19:22 AM in NY, USA) Jan Rifkinson wrote:
> A valid point but I think lobbying for > something that already exists in a > different form sort of belongs in the dept. > of redundancy dept. Redundancy? Redundancy? I'm starting to sway a bit here but not fully. Two different approaches to accomplish the same task is not necessarily a bad thing. I am trying as hard as I can to convince others that this is a useful feature that could be made easier if enough people found the 'need' for it. > My point is that if a suggested feature > can't be accomplished in a given program, > it should be placed on the wish list & > weighed against the other suggested > features. But if, as in this case, I > believe the program can already handle the > stated need, then I don't think that the > program should be dumbed down to facilitate > its use. If people have workaround in place to achieve such a thing then it only makes sense to consider it for hard coding. What was referring to as far as 'dumbing' is that the competing products in question make it impossible for one to look past a toggle button for options. That said, Outlook's implementation of the subject editing feature is not one of these features. It can be done but it's not 'easily' found. BTW, it wasn't handled very well either. But power users could certainly find it and administrators could easily set it into motion. > Dumbed down, like television network fare > in the U.S. is a product that tries to > please the lowest common denominator. I > just don't buy this approach. No, dumbed down is more of a containment thing...only let the people see what we want them to see...then that becomes their limited environment for life. > In addition, I think there are other > programs, Mailbag Assistant or Zoot for > instance, that are far more able to > categorize, archive & gather emails on a > specific subject than TB! Tried them both...and the worst excuse for an archival program I've ever seen...Express Archiver. What I'd like to use is MHonArc but have yet to find the time to put some work into it. > TB! is always going to be a niche product > -- hopefully a big enough niche to reward > its developers -- and there is no reason, > IMO, to turn it into something that its > not. And perhaps it is my responsibility to set up what is needed to accomplish such tasks with TB more easily. My client has one copy of TB running per my suggestion. I'd really like the whole place to be using it. That's another topic I suppose. > Let's bag it before they tag us. As long as I have the last word. I really want this feature and even more the ability to combine threads. > Take care. Peace. Just don't diss our Country's TV anymore as some of us like our trash. <g> -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stamp-co.com The Bat! v.1.62/Beta1 Windows XP build 2600 AMD Athlon 1Ghz 1.0 Gb RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
